The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Hey it's that time again! [Building a new computer - Build On]
The_Spaniard
It's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
It's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
Well guys, remember that computer I built about a year and a half ago? You guys helped me put it together and I'm really grateful for it but unfortunately I've hit the upgrade wall with it rather quickly and need to build a brand new one for work. Apparently computer is bottlenecked at several points and I can't upgrade one without having to replace another part which would make me need to replace another part, essentially meaning I need a new computer.
So here is where the fun and stress comes in. For the last few days I'd been contemplating new computer parts and what my new setup would be just mulling over what my new gaming PC would be when I found out that to do some important work from the office at home I better get this computer built ASAP. I am now no-longer on a leisurely schedule for this build and need to order the parts quickly so that I can be ready because the office is saying I have to get set up ASAP!
Now I'm going to list the parts, keep in mind that this will be MAINLY a gaming computer and I can't stress that enough, GAMES FIRST AND FOREMOST!, which I will also use for things like photoshop and other work related applications. I'd much appreciate any opinions and input you can give to help me build a PC that will be powerful, fairly economical, and will last me a few years with predictable upgrades.
Parts I'm thinking of buying;
XCLIO Windtunnel Fully Black Finish 1.0 mm SECC Chassis ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail
XFX MB-N680-ISH9 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80562Q6600 - Retail
OCZ Reaper HPC 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ2RPR800C32GK - Retail
Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM
VIGOR GAMING CLT-M2I 92mm Thermal Electric CPU Cooler
Microsoft Windows Vista 32-Bit Ultimate for System Builders Single Pack DVD - OEM
Parts I'm salvaging from my current PC;
300gig HDD to slave to the 150gig Raptor drive
650w BFG PSU
Nvidia 8800 GTS
Audigy 2 ZS Soundcard
DVD/CD Burner drive
22" Samsung 16:10 Widescreen Flatpannel monitor
Subtotal: $1,156.93
So there you have it. This is what I'm thinking of for my new PC setup. If you guys can think of better parts or know of a better price for a particular part than what is listed please inform me. Also one thing I'm kinda thinking about, I want to stick with 32bit for now, but am wondering if I would be better off just taking the jump for 64bit and be done with it.
So here is where the fun and stress comes in. For the last few days I'd been contemplating new computer parts and what my new setup would be just mulling over what my new gaming PC would be when I found out that to do some important work from the office at home I better get this computer built ASAP. I am now no-longer on a leisurely schedule for this build and need to order the parts quickly so that I can be ready because the office is saying I have to get set up ASAP!
Now I'm going to list the parts, keep in mind that this will be MAINLY a gaming computer and I can't stress that enough, GAMES FIRST AND FOREMOST!, which I will also use for things like photoshop and other work related applications. I'd much appreciate any opinions and input you can give to help me build a PC that will be powerful, fairly economical, and will last me a few years with predictable upgrades.
Parts I'm thinking of buying;
XCLIO Windtunnel Fully Black Finish 1.0 mm SECC Chassis ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail
XFX MB-N680-ISH9 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80562Q6600 - Retail
OCZ Reaper HPC 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ2RPR800C32GK - Retail
Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM
VIGOR GAMING CLT-M2I 92mm Thermal Electric CPU Cooler
Microsoft Windows Vista 32-Bit Ultimate for System Builders Single Pack DVD - OEM
Parts I'm salvaging from my current PC;
300gig HDD to slave to the 150gig Raptor drive
650w BFG PSU
Nvidia 8800 GTS
Audigy 2 ZS Soundcard
DVD/CD Burner drive
22" Samsung 16:10 Widescreen Flatpannel monitor
Subtotal: $1,156.93
So there you have it. This is what I'm thinking of for my new PC setup. If you guys can think of better parts or know of a better price for a particular part than what is listed please inform me. Also one thing I'm kinda thinking about, I want to stick with 32bit for now, but am wondering if I would be better off just taking the jump for 64bit and be done with it.
Playstation/Origin/GoG: Span_Wolf Xbox/uPlay/Bnet: SpanWolf Nintendo: Span_Wolf SW-7097-4917-9392 Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/
The_Spaniard on
0
Posts
I'm upgrading as well, does anyone know any reason why I should jot down 700% more $ for DDR3 to win a 5% performance improvement? Cause that's all the improvement I can find.
What's up with that?
Oh, and don't get Vista. If you do, get the 64bit and go for 4gb ram.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjkzOTQsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE= -source-
To be honest, I wouldn't pony up the cash for a 680 if I didn't know I was going to use the extra features it comes with it anyways. But then again, I wouldn't buy a Raptor drive either.
Gaming wise, it seems the smarter move is to go for a faster dual core, than a quadcore at the moment. Outside of supreme commander, I haven't seen a single benchmark that suggests a quadcore is better at the moment, but it's a very tough call though.
64bit Vista seems to be good at the moment, I bought 32bit at the same time my friend got a 64bit OS and he had loads of driver problems but that seems to have been sorted now. The other thing you can do is use 3gb of ram on a 32 bit OS, which leaves a game able to access 2gb whilst the OS+misc uses up the other gig.
Get a bigger harddrive, as well. 150gb will soon get used up, given that games are taking up 5gb+ nowadays.
Edit: Ok Rook I had a chat with the guy building this and I might as well post this chunk of our convo to alleviate your concerns.
[20:04] Michichael: The processor is what I pointed out - right now games don't use quad core.
[20:05] Michichael: But will in the future
[20:06] Michichael: So same price, no harm no foul. Performance loss up front but better in long run
[20:07] Michichael: Anyway mobo: already have a bios flash ready for it.
[20:07] Michichael: Yes you will be using the advanced features
[20:07] Michichael: You will be using them extensively.
[20:11] TheSpaniard84: I'd be really really wary about buying a 680 mobo. Recently they announced that whilst the chipset is compatible with the new intel processors, the hardware in the motherboard isn't and will require a hardware revision. I don't know if they've addressed that or not yet, but it's definitely worth checking.
[20:11] TheSpaniard84: that right there
[20:14] Michichael: And this mobo will support up to the 9X series cards in beta right now
[20:14] Michichael: So don't worry bout it
[20:15] Michichael: I already pointed out that they did
[20:15] Michichael: A bios flash fixes it
[20:16] Michichael: Xfx already handled the addressing issues.
[20:17] TheSpaniard84: ok so the hardware issues are not an issue at all then?
[20:17] Michichael: Point out that an expert is building it for you, not you building it yourself.
[20:17] Michichael: We'll need the advanced timing features of the 680i
[20:17] TheSpaniard84: ok
[20:18] Michichael: Yeah they've alreadt been addressed.
[20:18] Michichael: That's first thing I'll be doing is flashing your bios
My point before was that you could see the same performance increase by spending less than $1000.
Because I feel I should illustrate my point, here's what you SHOULD get:
DFI INFINITY 975X LGA 775 Intel 975X ATX Intel Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
The CPU that I have listed performs better than the Quad Core 6600 at most tasks. Of course, if you were to start using games that made use of the 4 cores, then it might be a better option to get the Quad Core, but there aren't going to be enough games that use all 4 to make a difference, and you can always run them with 2 cores absolutely fine.
You can keep the case and operating system the same, because they're points of personal preference, although they both cost enough that I'd look at other options.
The harddrive is unnecessarily expensive for a performance increase that you're unlikely to notice, as well as holding less than your current choice. If you're going to RAID it up, then I guess you'd want the Raptor, but it's quite unjustified.
I don't recommend you get the cooler at all, because the stock cooler will be more than adequate unless you're planning on overclocking the CPU, which you shouldn't be doing anyway. The only reason to overclock is if you have a low-end machine and you want it to run faster. Overclocking a high-end machine is just something you do to show off, and it costs a lot more to make it happen.
All that being said, if you went my route, it would cost you $800, a significant portion of which ($270) comes from the operating system and the case you've chosen. Your "expert" friend is guiding you towards purchases that aren't necessary. If you need any other advice, I'd be happy to help. I feel that the people in this thread are better people to come to for advice than your friend, seeing as we have your wallet in mind, not just your ability to "impress the ladies".
"The XFX 680i SLI, 680i LT and 650i Ultra motherboards will support 45nm Wolfsdale (dual core) CPUs with an upcoming BIOS update. 45nm Yorkfield (quad core) CPUs will be supported on upcoming nForce 700-series SLI motherboards."
So it a) sounds like the guy is kinda lying to you, or doesn't know what he's talking about (or XFX have worked some magic and it really does support yorksdale, but from available sources that seems unlikely)
I mean every motherboard with a PCIe slot is going to support the new nVidia g/cards so I'm not sure why he needed to mention that in relation to the board. And to make matters a little bit worse, I'm going to assume the new cards will be PCIe 2.0 so for full compatiblity you'll want an X38/X48 chipset.
b) I totally agree with centipeed here, that's such a bs line you're being fed there. But then again it's not like you're going to be disappointed with the performance (unless of course, you decide to upgrade to a QC penryn). But all these "advanced" features are going to cost a lot and make very little difference.
I fail to see why the Yorksfield is even a topic. He's planning on purchasing a Kentsfield. I wouldn't trust the 45nm within the first year of being live anyway. Also, when you mentioned chipset I thought you were talking about something else, so the fact that you were talking about 45 nm was lost in translation.
The main goal of this build isn't to be top of the line. And yes, I already recommended the E6850, that's what I'm currently using. Right now, he won't see any performance gain, might even see some loss up front, but in the long run as more games utilize the quad core capabilities he won't have to upgrade. I'd personally stick with the E6850, as that's what I originally recommended.
You keep referencing cutting edge technology - the motherboard has a wide range of LGA775 and DDR2 compatibility, which is what we're going for. In the event that the a part, even the mobo, does need replacing, it'd be only one part instead of many. Modularizing the system makes upgrades easier and as it is he wouldn't need to upgrade anything more than RAM or Video card for at least a year.
I won't be overclocking his PC, I'll be setting the timings of his RAM and video card so he doesn't get choked with the DDR3 RAM from the video card and DDR2 of the RAM. The peltier cooler is there simply because stock cooling causes the processor to run anywhere between 30-40 C hotter under load and frankly I don't like seeing the lifetimes of parts shortened because of inadequette cooling. The way the mobo is laid out, he will be getting ambient heat from the video card if we went the air cooling route, and hoods don't like playing nice with stock coolers.
Your argument about PCIe2.0: So far, it JUST started shipping in October on the X38 boards. The P35 doesn't even support it, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The 8800 series isn't PCIe 2.0, so unless he's planning on shelling out top dollar for brand new cards to utilize it, there isn't a point to selecting a cutting edge technology that limits your choices.
If he's going Vista, and this is just personal experience talking, he'll want a 10k for the OS if nothing else. Vista's shadow copy, indexing, and paging features wreak havoc on a 7.2k.
And finally, Centipede, that mobo is a piece of crap. I've had three DoA ones before I quit using them, only supports ddr2 667 instead of the wide range from DDR2 667-DDR2 1333, it's FSB would be a chokepoint for a quad core (the 680i supports up to 1333 FSB and 1333 ECC ready memory) and overall, buying components for that mobo means when you replace it you'd be replacing the RAM too.
This system is being built so that it won't have to be upgraded for a while, and when it does, only a single part will need to be instead of a multitude. You make good points about the hard drive and oh by the way, why did you recommend 800 mhz memory for a board that will only be able to utilize 667mhz?
Rook, you bring up good points:
Which I wholeheartedly agree with. The Dual core is what I have and is much better. Now you have to realize that 32 bit addressing is all memory in the system, not just RAM - the video card and sound card would total 512 RAM, which with 3 1g sticks would leave him with 2.5 available for gaming and 1 available for OS usage - not half bad really. I personally took the plunge for 64 bit, and despite a few incompatibilities (Crysis 64 bit doesn't work, for example) and low driver support, it seems very stable.
I think the misunderstanding between the chipset and intel chip that got lost in translation gave ya'll the wrong idea about what we're doing here. It's not going to be a super high end system, but it's not gonna be mid range either. The goal here is performance with upgradability. Frankly, it's wiser to shell out a little extra up front so in the long run you don't have to spend so much. If he cuts corners on the mobo, then down the road when he gets a better one, he'd have to replace the RAM too. (Come on, who even USES DDR2 667 any more?)
The parts I pointed out have long service lifes and high compatibility to reduce the total cost of ownership, and I feel it's more than justified. Pointing out technologies that haven't even been stress tested for a year now is just plain silly. As stated, PCIe2.0 mobo's just started shipping in October and frankly I feel very wary with untested technology. Also, PCIe 2.0 graphics cards are backward compatible with PCIe 1.x, you just won't see the higher transfer rates, so if need be he could always get a card first if it's better (RAM, GPU) that's PCIe 2.0 and when he upgrades his mobo at a later point get an even larger boost in performance. It's not restricting his choices of parts like some of the other recommendations.
Anyone else have questions that we can address? You do bring up good points and I'm happy to argue the pro's and con's with you. I agree it's costly, but in the long run will be cheaper, don't you agree?
If I had the choice between buying a motherboard that I could upgrade the processor to the new generation, and one that I couldn't. I know which one I'd buy.
here's some nice benchmarks on the effects of memory timings
source source
Even photoshop shows very little benfit. It's a lot of hastle for measly percentage increases.
I've never actually heard of anyone's processor dying from running within the operating temperatures. I think that shortening lifespan is a bit of an overstatement.
No, my arguement was that pointing out that the 680i supports the 9X series from nVidia was superfluous.
At the end of the day, it's not a terrible build or anything. It just seems a little excessive, and a little short sighted.
The same point applies to the 800 memory even though the mobo only supports 667. The point of my post was more to illustrate that he could have a perfectly acceptable system for less money.
Also, when you're dealing with a DDR3 + DDR2 combo, you need to set the timings and latencies just right to avoid the "hiccups" you'll get in game as it clears the hard faults from cache.
Do you have any links to any articles about this? Sounds like an interesting phenomina.
I'd highly recommend the Bluegears b-enspirer: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829127002
Not well known, but very quality parts. Hasn't given me a single problem in Vista 64 Ultimate.
They cant handle quad core penryn (45nm).
That's a terrible purchase when you can't upgrade your processor.
P35 chipset is juuust fine.
Also purchased the parts last night. Nocked off a couple of unnecessary parts like the raptor drive and the cooler and got the price down to about $950 with tax and shipping.
I, too, would like to see some articles.
That's more in the realm of your graphics card, which it might be a good idea to overclock if it doesn't blow up as a result, because the 8800GTS isn't really in the same league as a Quad Core.
It's the same reason you don't run RAM sticks without the same CAS latency / brand - That instability, as far as I understand it, is because of the buildup of delay between the synchronous swapping. As Vista shadows your system RAM to Video RAM, I don't see why It's any different.
I don't know of any official articles, but I figured it was common sense. I personally run crysis at 30-40 FPS average and don't think I've had a hiccup since I clocked my RAM down. At first I clocked it down to 800 mhz and CAS to 4-3-3-12 with my system RAM. Granted, my card's temperature went up a bit and it was really unstable. I ended up stabalizing it at 853.19 mhz with 5-5-4-15 (<3 Rivatuner).
*Edit* Stupid shift enter bug...
Anyway as I was saying, The fact that it is DDR3 means it pushes more data throughput than the DDR2 can, and Vista does a good job of managing that in the background, and the difference in CAS latency, I can only assume, is because of the DDR3 <=> DDR2 swapout. I just toyed with it until it worked, and can only give you what I'm assuming the reasoning behind how it works is.
*Nother edit* It would appear my memory is actually at 900 mhz right now. Weird. I coulda sworn I clocked it down beyond that.
But misanthropic's right, I don't think there's many of us on a the PA boards that would really know enough about this.
It *is* basically another computer, but from what was explained to me from the get go on Vista R1 Beta - Vista does shadowing of your system RAM to your Video RAM - 25-50% depending on how much you have:
From my understanding of clustering computers, deviation in spec and timing can result in a "Backlog" of hard page faulting to the memory. In Effect:
Program sends/recieves data to video memory.
XP - "Oh, this is video data! Here you go Video Card!"
Vista - "Oh, this is video data... Collecting usage info... Data X is paged more often than Data Y... Data X to video card, Data Y to shadowed RAM..."
This is, as I understand it, the reason for performance loss in Vista - Vista is doing more in the background to the paging system. In 32 bit that's a substantial loss, in 64 bit, and as data handling grows larger, it will be more efficient than blind Random Access read/write to source. Whatever thread is paging the highest ratio of hard faults gets it's request answered with the Video Card's RAM, the rest gets answered by the shadowed RAM.
This is shown in the Windows Resource Monitor. A DX10 enabled program will request a Commit value of RAM. Depending on the amount of Hard Faults each thread is requesting, it will be granted that Commit value + a Shared value from the source, determined by Vista. That total working set is how much is allocated to that thread, and each process is displayed as the sum of all of it's threads.
I'm not quite sure what the "private" value means in Vista though, and the folks I've talked to never figured it out either.
Anyway, that means that the faulting speed is depending on your slowest part. If your RAM is slower than your FSB and North bridge, then your RAM is the chokepoint, if faster, then the motherboard is. However if you're using RAM at different clock rates AND timings, you get instability. That instability is due to the program paging data to one area, requesting it, and paging to another, requesting it... but one area responds faster and the other tries to catch up. When it can no longer keep up you get a fault differential that results in a hard fault dump or a clearing of the cache if handled properly. (Hard fault dumps just clear it without closing the file as far as I know, meaning lost data or a "Blue Screen of Death" in worst case scenarios).
Cas latency also affects this in ratio to the number of read/write channels (i.e. DDR2 has fewer than DDR3, so a higher timing profile in DDR3 would still be just as effecient as a lower in DDR2).
The greater the accessing to a slower channel vs a faster channel, the higher the chance of a hard fault dump or a cache clear, which I always assumed was demonstrated by the "hiccups" you'd get in a game where framerate drops briefly then picks back up.
I hope that clarified my line of thought. If I'm wrong on any of these accounts, please point it out, as this is what I understand, not necessarily what is correct. Thanks!
Speaking of the card, I'm planning on reapplying the thermal paste to the GPU... but I noticed that the manufacturers use thermal pads to sink the RAM as well... should I replace that with past as well in your opinion? I did on my card and didn't really notice a drop or increase in performance, but if it's not necessary I'd prefer not to mess with the pads (They're a bitch to get off).
Opinion?
I know absolutely nothing about overclocking in a practical sense, only that it's not necessary with new hardware. As far as actually doing it goes, I wouldn't have a clue how to advise you. Sorry.
I think you might be a bit behind the times with some pieces of this. And obviously over my head with a lot of it. As to your first point, the beta+original release of Vista handles the system address space very poorly and it's been patched since. (You'll get a better explanation here than I could ever give of the changes).
Again, I don't think the memory subsystems mingle as much as you think they do. The idea that your graphics card is constantly dipping into system memory would be a much bigger hiccup in gaming performance than anything else at that stage.
The other point you have to really prove is that this actually has an effect on how your system operates. And honestly, if this was a big deal, I think it would be something that people talked about.