OK, time to build one

[Max]

Originally posted by Toad


We bumped the price 40%. Did the performance jump 40%? Will I really notice a difference if I only use this thing for AH, Turbotax, E-mail and surfing the BBS?

 

No. My wife asked me the same question

[Tigger29]

If really the only "intensive" thing you plan to do is run AHII, then you can save big bucks on the video card.

I just bought a 7900GS for just over $100, and on my E6300 (1.86 GHz core-duo) processor I get:

1280X1024 Resolution @ 75 Hz
1024 Textures (Hi-Res pack installed)
Sliders all at MAX
W/ V-sync on (75 FPS max)

I average 75FPS 90% of the time.
Close to the ground I dip down to 68-70FPS (60-65 if Ground mode)
And in heavy furballing I MIGHT occasionally see 55 FPS.

If I don't have the FPS enabled at the top, I wouldn't even notice, as movement is so fluent, it's nearly impossible to notice.

Now you'll have a faster processor, so with the same video card you'll see even better numbers.

Yes an 8800GTS will probably give you a solid 75FPS, but is it worth the extra couple hundred dollars?  AHII is not even close to the most graphics intensive game out there...

The thing about the 7XXX series of Nvidia cards it they are not Direct X 10 compatible.. but then again neither is Windows XP, nor Aces High.

[humble]

MB is great value...

ATI 3850 is more VC then you'll need...

See republics thread on CPU here, all you need is "entry level" so 1st choice was fine...

I'd keep the bigger PS and HD however...

[eagl]

Originally posted by Max
Reasons please?  Any Radeon cards I should consider in the $150 or less price range? GF8800GT's are almost 2x the cost. Just curious.

Thanks

The 8600s just aren't very fast that's all.  If you try to run almost any new games with an 8600, chances are you'll be disappointed.  AH will run fantastic on an 8600 but everything else is going to be run with "sliders at min", or the game equivalent of turning off most of the eye candy.

From the reviews I've been reading, the 8800GT is the lowest I'd ever consider for my own computer.  My LCD is native 1280x1024, and the 8600 pretty much can't run any of the newer games at that resolution with the eye candy, FSAA, or ansio filtering turned on.  I also would not ever consider SLI as a possible way to make up for anything slower.

That's why I've stuck with my 6800GT for so long...  I don't currently play games very much and nothing but a fairly expensive 8800GT is even worth buying.  So I'll keep my 6800GT which runs AH just fine, and when it's time to upgrade I'll buy a card that will run at my LCD's native resolution and still have some horsepower left over to turn on the eye candy or at least some FSAA.

[eagl]

Toad,

If I was personally building a system that I'd be keeping for a while and not want to be tempted to throw a couple hundred bucks at every year or so, then the parts you quoted are VERY similar to what I'd get for myself.

The only thing I think you'll be tempted to upgrade in the next couple of years with that second parts list would be the memory, because someday windows will allow you to use more than 2 or 3 gigs and you'll find yourself swapping to disk when you boot up windows 2010.

But everything else looks almost exactly what I'd recommend for a system that won't need to be messed with for a while.

Yes the quad core cpus are a bit overkill *today*, but everyone seemed to bag on dual core cpus until they got one for themselves, and then they were immediate converts and swore they'd never buy a single core cpu again.  Because even though few games actually use more than one cpu core, the whole system is more responsive with more than one core.  At some point, we'll see that more than 2 cpus will show an improvement in system responsiveness.

The kicker for me with a system TODAY, is that a quad core cpu really isn't all THAT much more than a dual core cpu.  Intel is being aggresive on pricing and isn't making the same mistake AMD made when they initially priced their dual core cpus at nearly 4 times the cost of a same-clockspeed single core cpu.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Toad that is pretty much the system I could buy myself. With a good setup like that you can avoid upgrading for years and continue to have a good gaming experience.

If you go cheap now, you'll upgrade and next year you'll start to suffer from bad performance and will want to upgrade again.

The 8800GT is a no brainer - so is the faster CPU. Take them and you'll thank me for it later.

[humble]

I'm not sure I agree on the CPU at all...

Raw computing horsepower has outpaced the real demand for the average user by a wider margin. I do not disagree with the statements immediately above unless I put in the perspective of Toads comments here. In my mind the choice of MB is more important then the CPU. While the difference in price is fairly small so will the future "loss" incurred by upgrading later. Not only will quad prices fall but newer CPU's will emerge...in the current market I can see 1 and maybe 2 CPU upgrades on the same MB over the next 5 years...

As for VC I'd be curious on the comparisions of the 3850/70 vs the 8800GT's...

IMO the right MB & PS are the heart of the build, if they will support the "5 year plan" then all else fits into place.

[Toad]

Humble, which MoBo are you supporting, the Abit or the Gigabyte? Or is it just the need for a P35 MoBo of some brand or other?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by humble
I'm not sure I agree on the CPU at all...

Raw computing horsepower has outpaced the real demand for the average user by a wider margin. I do not disagree with the statements immediately above unless I put in the perspective of Toads comments here. In my mind the choice of MB is more important then the CPU. While the difference in price is fairly small so will the future "loss" incurred by upgrading later. Not only will quad prices fall but newer CPU's will emerge...in the current market I can see 1 and maybe 2 CPU upgrades on the same MB over the next 5 years...

As for VC I'd be curious on the comparisions of the 3850/70 vs the 8800GT's...

IMO the right MB & PS are the heart of the build, if they will support the "5 year plan" then all else fits into place.

You're way off m8. The PSU and the MB are the smallest factor in the end performance. If the PSU offers enough power its enough - any bigger wont be faster. If the MB can host your CPU and have the features you wish - it's good enough and a different brand / model won't be more than 2% faster/slower. When you take into account that Intel offers no upgrade path socket wise there's no way you'll be able to upgrade that motherboard with a new CPU after 2-3 years anyway. So the only logical solution is to get a power performer now that will last as long as possible.

[humble]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
You're way off m8. The PSU and the MB are the smallest factor in the end performance. If the PSU offers enough power its enough - any bigger wont be faster. If the MB can host your CPU and have the features you wish - it's good enough and a different brand / model won't be more than 2% faster/slower. When you take into account that Intel offers no upgrade path socket wise there's no way you'll be able to upgrade that motherboard with a new CPU after 2-3 years anyway. So the only logical solution is to get a power performer now that will last as long as possible.

Actually I'm 100% right....

A power supply that doesnt have the correct distribution wont support future upgrades. The right one will be good beyond this one build..

Regardless of the "Future" everything currently available or near release is socket 775. He'll have plenty of time to pick up a quad CPU if/when he wants.

As I stated I dont disagree with the statements, except in the context of Toads questions/remarks. He wont go "wrong" either way. He certainly can do everything he wants to with the lesser CPU right now (based on his comments). If/when he wants to upgrade he can pick up a better CPU...probably for less total (for both) then the quad costs now. That doesnt make getting a quad cpu now the wrong move either. I built out a 6600 on a P5K-e MB when the P-35CS was just coming out. Basically exactly what your recommending now except the quads are the new best thing. It's good for years still but I'll grab a quad when they go "closeout" in another year or so...

Toad can get 85%+ of the performance of a 6600 and still grab a quad later. It's not a right or wrong choice if he has a clear understanding of his needs and the tradeoffs. His question was if he will see a big difference in performance with the 1st build vs the 2nd and my answer is still no..

However he should get a top notch PS not a 400W job. He needs to get some flavor of P-35 MB and should get a 3850/70 or 8800GT or drop back to a "budget" VC...the 8600 is a waste...

In the current world the CPU isnt the bottleneck in a dual core system for normal use. Currently PS is the biggest hurdle for most upgrades, very few systems even 2 yrs old have enough 12V rails and/or amps per rail. VC's are the 2nd "Bottleneck". AH however doesnt need alot and gains little from a "killer" VC so a 2nd generation card is fine. If I take V-snyc of my 7900GT runs AH at over 200 fps most of the time.

If I was doing a current build I'd put in a quad as well, but thats not answering Toads question in the context he put it. He will see a minimal difference (~10-15%){and probably much less} between the quad and "entry" cpu in the tasks he outlined and his FR in AH probably will be Vsync capped either way (assuming same VC in either system).

[republic]

If you haven't ordered yet, the latest Intel Penryn based chips are now available.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by humble

However he should get a top notch PS not a 400W job. He needs to get some flavor of P-35 MB and should get a 3850/70 or 8800GT or drop back to a "budget" VC...the 8600 is a waste...

In the current world the CPU isnt the bottleneck in a dual core system for normal use. Currently PS is the biggest hurdle for most upgrades, very few systems even 2 yrs old have enough 12V rails and/or amps per rail. VC's are the 2nd "Bottleneck". AH however doesnt need alot and gains little from a "killer" VC so a 2nd generation card is fine. If I take V-snyc of my 7900GT runs AH at over 200 fps most of the time.

If I was doing a current build I'd put in a quad as well, but thats not answering Toads question in the context he put it. He will see a minimal difference (~10-15%){and probably much less} between the quad and "entry" cpu in the tasks he outlined and his FR in AH probably will be Vsync capped either way (assuming same VC in either system).

I beg to differ, sir, as future builds will be on 45nm or lower scaling, meaning that 400+W power supplies are a passing thing in history. The future yields will provide faster speeds with way lower power demands. Besides the PSU is a low expense and easy to replace part in the system, it's really not a critical part. I've never used anything but PSU's that came with the case when I've built systems (including quad-core) and they have run rock solid. There's no need to go above 400W in PSU unless you a) run a crappy ATI card such as 2900HD (guilty as charged) or b) run sli which makes you a sucker by definition anyway.

[humble]

1st, as stated above the 45nm chips are already here and they are socket 775. So the P-35 boards are already compatable with the upcoming set of chips. Further the driving force for PS's is the demand on the 12V rails. I've posted numerous times that you can run most systems on roughly 265W...but the distribution has to be right. Most 400W power supplies simply do not have enough amps on the 12v rails and not enough rails for a top end system. Overall demand for amps for VC's is going up not down. The 8800 ultra requires 34@ on the 12v rail. The 8800GTX requires 28@'s.

The single biggest mistake you see in a 1st time build is buying a case/PS combo that either wont run your 1st build right or doesnt support your future upgrade. A good PS is often as much as the MB or CPU. As for your thoughts on the future I think your misquided again. The 45nm technology will allow more pop with less heat...while you'll see a decrease in power demand at 1st what you'll quickly see is more capability for the same power demand.

[Toad]

So if I were to buy a 45nm Wolfdale E8400 ($205) at Mwave... what kind of ram does that need? Seems like DDR3? And for cod's sake how does one make sense of the alphabet soup descriptions of ram choices?

For example there's a $4 difference between these two:

CRUCIAL ballistix tracer BL2KIT12864AL1065
CRUCIAL ballistix BL2KIT12864AA1065

It looks like the bundle ram options are all DDR2 on that.

And for that matter, the alphabet soup differences between MoBo's of the same basic alpha numerology?


Like the ASUS P5K-E intel p35 chipset  vs the ASUS P5K-V intel p35 chipset  or the ASUS P5K-C intel p35 chipset?

Are the differences so subtle that I can just pick one?

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by Toad
So if I were to buy a 45nm Wolfdale E8400 ($205) at Mwave... what kind of ram does that need? Seems like DDR3? And for cod's sake how does one make sense of the alphabet soup descriptions of ram choices?

For example there's a $4 difference between these two:

CRUCIAL ballistix tracer BL2KIT12864AL1065
CRUCIAL ballistix BL2KIT12864AA1065

It looks like the bundle ram options are all DDR2 on that.

And for that matter, the alphabet soup differences between MoBo's of the same basic alpha numerology?


Like the ASUS P5K-E intel p35 chipset  vs the ASUS P5K-V intel p35 chipset  or the ASUS P5K-C intel p35 chipset?

Are the differences so subtle that I can just pick one?

For which type of RAM to use DDR2 or DDR3, you can use either.  You'll want to obtain a 1:1 ratio of FSB to RAM Speed for optnium performance.  If your ram clocks faster than your FSB, you see very minute gains in performance, if at all.

To figure out what speed ram you need for 1:1 ratio is done by:
The C2D have a quad pumped FSB.  So an E8400 has a 1333mhz FSB.  Take 1333mhz divided by 4 =~ 333mhz.
So you'll need at least DDR2 667mhz (333mhz x 2 - for DDR2) or DDR3 1066mhz (~350mhz x 3 - for DDR3)

DDR3 is really expensive and not really worth it at this time since DDR2 is so cheap.  Most DDR2 is the 800mhz variety (which won't be any better than DDR2 667mhz).  667mhz and 800mhz DDR2 run about the same price, sometimes 800 is cheaper.  Buying faster ram allows for overclocking (but thats a whole different thread.

__________________________

As for that Crucial part #.  Who knows what the difference is.  For the Asus motherboard.  They're probably (didn't look it up, but I've known Asus products for years) the same motherboard (chipset and main features), but one model may have different accessories like a wireless card or something else additional.