need to build a new comp.

[Dr.Stevil]

looks good :tup:… should be a pretty healthy setup.

the ONLY things I would reconsider, especially since you said that you want it to last a few years, is the CPU and the GPU.

Honestly, I’d go with a quad core over a dual core. Just my humble opinion… Going from my C2D at work and my C2Q at home, there is a noticable difference in performance, especially when it comes to multi-tasking. Plus, almost every developer is writing their software to take advantage of multiple cores, and will even more so in the future, so why limit yourself?

I would also take the advice on the cooler… the stock ones blow if you plan on doing any sort of overclocking.

as for the GPU, the 9800 isn’t a bad card by any stretch, but it’s already becoming dated. I would take jacks advice and go for a GTX200 series, or save a few $$$ and go for an ATi 48XX series. This is only if you want the latest and greatest eye candy turned up… if you don’t really care much about it, then the 9800 is a good buy (or run 2 8800s on the cheap)

[skatanic28]

@Dr.Stevil

looks good :tup:… should be a pretty healthy setup.

the ONLY things I would reconsider, especially since you said that you want it to last a few years, is the CPU and the GPU.

Honestly, I’d go with a quad core over a dual core. Just my humble opinion… Going from my C2D at work and my C2Q at home, there is a noticable difference in performance, especially when it comes to multi-tasking. Plus, almost every developer is writing their software to take advantage of multiple cores, and will even more so in the future, so why limit yourself?

I would also take the advice on the cooler… the stock ones blow if you plan on doing any sort of overclocking.

as for the GPU, the 9800 isn’t a bad card by any stretch, but it’s already becoming dated. I would take jacks advice and go for a GTX200 series, or save a few $$$ and go for an ATi 48XX series. This is only if you want the latest and greatest eye candy turned up… if you don’t really care much about it, then the 9800 is a good buy (or run 2 8800s on the cheap)

the only quads in that price range run considerably slower, so i think that would hurt me for what i actually use it for. (i have no experience going between them like you have though, so i could very well be wrong)

someone posted a 4850 for $130, i think i am going to go with that. i am perfectly fine at midrange settings for gaming, so i think it should do.

[Dr.Stevil]

as for the quad’s running slower in that price range, just be sure to get yourself a good OC’ing mobo and an aftermarket heatsink and go to town.

It only took about 10 mins to get my q6600 running from 2.4Ghz to 3Ghz and that’s a pretty lightweight OC. either way, both are great CPU’s… just figured a quad would be more future proof versus a dual, especially since heavily threaded applications and games are becoming mainstream

edit: look at this for example, at lower resolutions, the E8500 clearly outshines the Q6600 (since the Q6600 has a lower clock speed), but you’ll notice further down the page that the dual core actually starts to bottleneck the system and the quad surpasses it when it comes to higher resolutions… I’d like to see the same test with equal clock speeds.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_wolfdale/page5.asp

edit2: look on page 2 @ crysis, it becomes even more apparent. A 2.4Ghz quad core eats a 4.17Ghz dual core for dinner when it comes to 1280X1024 and above

[skatanic28]

@Dr.Stevil

as for the quad’s running slower in that price range, just be sure to get yourself a good OC’ing mobo and an aftermarket heatsink and go to town.

It only took about 10 mins to get my q6600 running from 2.4Ghz to 3Ghz and that’s a pretty lightweight OC. either way, both are great CPU’s… just figured a quad would be more future proof versus a dual, especially since heavily threaded applications and games are becoming mainstream

this is a tough call.

[boardjnky4]

If there is little to no price difference, you would be crazy to NOT go with the quad.

The clock speed does not mean as much as you think it does. In this case, number of cores will far outweigh slower clock speeds.

[skatanic28]

@boardjnky4

If there is little to no price difference, you would be crazy to NOT go with the quad.

The clock speed does not mean as much as you think it does. In this case, number of cores will far outweigh slower clock speeds.

i could see that being true for encoding and other processor intensive tasks that actually support multiple cores

but for a system that sees gaming/browsing/torrents etc, im not really sold

[skatanic28]

@Dr.Stevil

edit: look at this for example, at lower resolutions, the E8500 clearly outshines the Q6600 (since the Q6600 has a lower clock speed), but you’ll notice further down the page that the dual core actually starts to bottleneck the system and the quad surpasses it when it comes to higher resolutions… I’d like to see the same test with equal clock speeds.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_wolfdale/page5.asp

edit2: look on page 2 @ crysis, it becomes even more apparent. A 2.4Ghz quad core eats a 4.17Ghz dual core for dinner when it comes to 1280X1024 and above

thanks!

somewhat surprising how things change at higher resolutions

[boardjnky4]

@skatanic28

i could see that being true for encoding and other processor intensive tasks that actually support multiple cores

but for a system that sees gaming/browsing/torrents etc, im not really sold

yeah, you’re right. Don’t listen to me. I have no idea what I am talking about.

You are obviously retarded and read too many issues of “Gaming” magazine

[sickboy]

I’d definitely go for the quad 6600 and o/c the mofo

[skatanic28]

@boardjnky4

yeah, you’re right. Don’t listen to me. I have no idea what I am talking about.

You are obviously retarded and read too many issues of “Gaming” magazine

well most of those charts pretty much proved you wrong.

as i said in my first post, i havent paid much attention to this stuff in a few years…so not really. now kindly fuck off.

[Dr.Stevil]

@boardjnky4

If there is little to no price difference, you would be crazy to NOT go with the quad.

The clock speed does not mean as much as you think it does. In this case, number of cores will far outweigh slower clock speeds.

:word:

[boardjnky4]

@skatanic28

well most of those charts pretty much proved you wrong.

as i said in my first post, i havent paid much attention to this stuff in a few years…so not really. now kindly fuck off.

haha, you are talking about running the game at 800x600

:lol: you haven’t paid attention in years and you’re gonna tell me what’s up? I made my suggestion. See ya.

[Jack]

@Djs87

Weird. Ive been following the PC world for about 4-5 years now and have never once heard that. Any benchmarks to prove it?

I hate the new Toms Hardware site, or I’d go there to get the link. A google search brings up both sides of the argument. Intel recommends filling the board.

Essentially running 4 sticks may reduce your speed per stick, but you’ll have more sticks with less memory on each, allowing that slower speed to access the contents quicker than full speed on 2 larger sticks.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

[TradersBASE]

Even if you walk a bit slower (clock speed) you’ll end up moving more data and faster/more efficient by carrying 4 buckets instead of 2.

[BillysRevenge]

If you’re looking towards gaming CPU doesn’t really play as much of a roll as the Hard Drive, and Video Card. The game loads faster on a faster hard drive i.e. the 10,000 RPM VelociRaptors. Or if you have a SCSI connection 15,000 RPM. For video Card, I’m really looking into getting myself a Ati HD4870 card. 1GB (or 2) of DDR5 is pretty bad ass and is a lot cheaper than the Geforce GTX 200 series. I’m running the Intel Quad Core Q9550 on my rig and it has no problem with anything I throw at it.

[Dr.Stevil]

@Jack

I hate the new Toms Hardware site, or I’d go there to get the link. A google search brings up both sides of the argument. Intel recommends filling the board.

Essentially running 4 sticks may reduce your speed per stick, but you’ll have more sticks with less memory on each, allowing that slower speed to access the contents quicker than full speed on 2 larger sticks.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

Do you mean syncronous vs asyncronous? Because as for the actual memory bandwidth, AFAIK, it’s really limited by the memory controller (If I understand you correctly)

[boardjnky4]

@Jack

I hate the new Toms Hardware site, or I’d go there to get the link. A google search brings up both sides of the argument. Intel recommends filling the board.

Essentially running 4 sticks may reduce your speed per stick, but you’ll have more sticks with less memory on each, allowing that slower speed to access the contents quicker than full speed on 2 larger sticks.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

yeah, the concept here is legitimate, but I don’t think you would see any noticeable increases in speed.

[Djs87]

@Jack

I hate the new Toms Hardware site, or I’d go there to get the link. A google search brings up both sides of the argument. Intel recommends filling the board.

Essentially running 4 sticks may reduce your speed per stick, but you’ll have more sticks with less memory on each, allowing that slower speed to access the contents quicker than full speed on 2 larger sticks.

I’m not sure how else to explain it.

it makes sense, its just gotta be a pretty minimal difference. Id assume thats why Ive never heard of it. Also when I had my 780i, i had 2x2gb sticks in there with a 4.3ghz stable oc on my q9650. When I added 2 more sticks I had to crank up voltages to get it stable again. Wasnt worth the extra heat so I got rid of the memory. So from my experience, i frown upon filling all dimms because i prefer heavy overclocks. I also like to leave a little room for extra memory and buying 2gb sticks allows for that. 1gb sticks limit upgradability (obviously).

[skatanic28]

thanks for all the help guys

i cant wait to get rid of all these 80mm fans!

[Shockwave179]

The dual is a good for a budget setup. 4 gigs is the fine for vista 64 and corsair makes great psu’s so I think you will have a fairly decent setup on the cheap.