New Gaming Build

[tomster2300]

I'm piecing together a new computer build to hopefully order this coming tax free weekend. But before I do, I'd like everyone to double check it for me just in case there's a problem with one of the components.

The list is here:

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion...w+Gaming+Build

I thought the Gigabyte board was nice due to its DDR2 / DDR3 capabilities, but I don't know if DDR 3 1066 will ever be much better than DDR 2 800 even when they do get the timings right down the road. What do you guys think about the ram I chose?

I don't have a clue about the power supply. I just randomly picked Antec because I run one currently and have never had a problem with it. If anyone knows of a cooler, quieter one that consumes less power then I'll definitely replace it.

I have a lcd, keyboard / mouse, and surround sound already. Do I really need a sound card anymore, or are they still required?

I haven't looked for a case yet.

I'd also like to try and shave this down to $1,000 or less, but if it means cutting too many corners then the current price isn't a problem. I'm going to shop around on different sites, but the shareable wishlist on newegg was too convenient not to use.

Thanks everyone!

[Alaron]

Solid list. I'd swap in this Corsair power supply instead: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...orsair%2b520hx Antec's are good units, but the Corsair is very well made for the 8800 series cards.

I'd also stick with a 32bit Vista. There is no reason to get 64bit right now and it only increases your chances of incompatible apps and driver problems.

You can save $90 with this RAM instead: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145034

[LeftyAce]

Do I really need a sound card anymore, or are they still required?

Probably not. Unless you're an extreme audiophile, or do lots of sound recording, the onboard audio is fine. My board uses the same Audio chip as that Gigabyte (Realtek audio) and it works fine for me.

[tomster2300]

Originally Posted by Alaron I'd also stick with a 32bit Vista. There is no reason to get 64bit right now and it only increases your chances of incompatible apps and driver problems.

I was thinking about going with four gigs of ram and running a complete Vista system (no dual booting XP like I do now).

Do you guys think I ought to go with a more solid DDR 2 board, or should I keep the hybrid?

[LeftyAce]

I would go with a more solid DDR2 board, b/c DDR3 is really expensive right now, and except for overclocking, higher ram speeds aren't necessary.

The advantage to faster ram is that it can run in sync with a faster processor FSB, and once you've picked a processor, you probably won't upgrade it in a major way 'till your next full build. So if your current processor can be fed adequately by DDR2, stick with just DDR2.

[tomster2300]

Alright, that sounds good then.

Is it wise to purchase a 8xxx series card now, or do you think I might actually get a better bang for my buck by getting a 7950 GT?

[LeftyAce]

It's a bit of a tough call. On the one hand, the 8800GTS and GTX are very powerful (read: play anything available right now on maximum settings, no problem). However, their main feature (DX10 support) is kind of meaningless, as no DX10 games have hit the market, and there's some concern that by the time they do, the 8800 won't be able to max them out anyway. Personally, I'm still happy with my 7800, so if I were you, I'd get the 7950 and wait for the second gen DX10 cards (or, if when some DX10 games are out it turns out the 8800 is plenty, go ahead and get it).

If you go with that strategy, you *might* consider getting the 620 watt version of the Corsair PSU, as the 9800 (if that's what they end up calling it) will most likely draw more power than the 8800. Others may have better knowledge/ideas on that front though.

[tomster2300]

Yeah, the entire state of DX10 at the moment (and near future) seems to be looking rather dismal. You must have read my mind because I was thinking the same thing about performance - once Cyprus and BioShock come out a new line of cards ought to be ready in the wings.

Kind of a similar simulation when Battlefield 2 came out. The 6xxx card line was flouted as "the" line to play the game with, but the 7xxx soon came out and ended up giving the best performance.

Is a 7900 GTX better than the 7950 GT?

I'm just afraid that the entire issue with the 8xxx series is merely driver error, and that when everything falls into place (Nvidia writes adequate drivers, dx10 is tweaked, and dx10 games finally come out) that the 8xxx line is going regain a bit of its swagger and blow the 7950 out of the water.

Right now the 8xxx line is having trouble outperforming the current top dx9 cards, and that has to be due to poor driver coding on Nvidia's part.

[LeftyAce]

I'm not sure where you're hearing that the 8 series is having trouble with the 7 series, except perhaps under Vista....my friend's running an 8800gtx in XP and it is lightening fast.

Here's a comparison chart: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=778&chart=275

The question really is, how fast is 'fast enough'. Personally, I'm ok not being able to max everything out (I have to turn down FEAR a little, and RainbowSix is just a badly ported XBOX game that is really choppy for me). My motivation to get an 8 series card would be for DX10, but since there's nothing using DX10 yet, and cards always get more powerful, I'm waiting.

[tomster2300]

Yeah I've been looking at that chart. What I heard must have been in Vista and not XP. After looking at the charts though, I've noticed something:

The 320mb and 640mb versions of the 8800 GTS are performing almost identically, with the 320mb one actually pulling off higher fps. Any ideas as to why?

[Anth83]

I suggest G.Skill RAM. It's better quality.

Also if you want to save a few bucks go with the Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R Instead of the P35C

The only difference between the two is the P35C can use DDR3 RAM.

[LeftyAce]

I've got no complaints regarding corsair, but to each his own I suppose :-)

Not sure why the 320MB card is beating the 640 in some of the matchups. If you check the ones at high resolution (1900 by something) the higher memory card wins hands down. That's where video card memory is useful; high resolution textures can stay on the card and won't have to go into system ram.

[Anth83]

Originally Posted by LeftyAce I've got no complaints regarding corsair, but to each his own I suppose :-)

I just meant that G'Skill is better for overclocking. Not sure if he is going to though

[LeftyAce]

Ah, now I understand :-)

Well tomster, are you? (I'd actually do Corsair XMS2 for an overclock, but I'm a bit of a corsair fanboy :-)

[tomster2300]

No, I wasn't planning on overclocking.

The E6850's price just went up to $320 over night. Does anybody know when these prices ought to drop back down to what they're supposed to be?

[tomster2300]

Alright, I've reworked some things on the build - tell me what you guys think:

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion...w+Gaming+Build

1) I think I might go with the E6850 instead since it's cheaper and currently outperforms the only quad core I can afford.

2) I'm still uncertain on the motherboard. I know I want a DDR2 one only now, and I'd like it fairly cheap (but still a quality board). If possible I'd like it to be quad-core compatible, but if not then that's fine. I would like to have the ability to upgrade to a quad in the future when software catches up with the hardware though.

I do want it to be 1333mhz fsb so it can match the E6850. The 1333mhz is really the only thing I really would like - I don't need anything like the onboard wifi that asus is offering.

3) I think I can keep a GTX within my budget if I find the E6850 at the price it's supposed to be.

4) I dropped Vista because I'm just going to uninstall the version I have on this computer and use it.

Question: Is it worth spending the extra money to get a quad compatible mobo now, or do you think by the time I upgrade to quad a whole new line of chipsets will be available and I'll just have to upgrade my mobo anyway? I don't upgrade often, and my current desktop is a living testament to that (I built it in 2003).

Also, what do you think about 4 gigs in dual channel as opposed to 2 gigs in dual channel? Is 4 gigs necessary yet?

Thanks for all the help so far.

[Anth83]

2 Gigs should be plenty right now.

How much do you want to spend on a motherboard?

[tomster2300]

Not too much, but I'd like a quality one. Less than $200 hopefully.

[Anth83]

This board that i suggested before is fine - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128050

Or if you want to add another Video card in SLI later on, get this one - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128047

OR if you prefer ASUS - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131180

[tomster2300]

Due to the recent stock market slide I've decided to invest the majority of my extra money in stocks, but I would still like to upgrade - just with a cheaper pricetag. I've come to the conclusion that I won't be getting the newest components out there, but anything I buy is going to be 10x better than this nforce 2 setup I currently have.

So, how do these new wishlists look?

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion...tTitle=Upgrade

or

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion...itle=Upgrade+2

(The 4000+ comes bundled with the sata drive and brings the total to $285.97 - newegg won't allow the addition of bundles to wishlists, so ignore the total shown in the second link).

So, should I opt for the lower processor and get a sata drive (I'm currently running two IDE's atm), or go for AMD's current top of the line (with no sata) for a little more cash?

I don't upgrade major components often (this desktop has stayed relatively the same since I built it back in 2003), but I figure I can simply upgrade the board later on when I finally make the jump to PCI-E (I'd do it now if the video cards weren't so expensive). My 6800 GT still plays everything extremely well at 1280 x 1024, but this inexpensive upgrade ought to get me dual channel ram (my board only supports single channel), DDR 2 ram, and a dual core processor. I've always felt that my AMD 2500+ Barton was a bottleneck to the 6800 GT, so this upgrade ought to squeeze the last bit of juice it has left.

Also, will my 350 Watt Antec still be able to handle everything? Does it matter that the mobo's fsb is 800MHz Hyper Transport (1600MT/s) while the processors have a 2000 mhz HT?

So, what do you guys think?

[tomster2300]

bump

[tomster2300]

Do you guys think a micro ATX board would be alright?

[Alaron]

Patience please.

The motherboard in your wishlist can only support 2 IDE devices. So you wouldn't be able to use your opticals and your hard drives. If you want to use that board, you would have to buy a SATA hard drive and go with the second list.

However, you could switch to this Biostar board (a lateral move in quality) and use your existing drives: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138038 Then your price would be the same and you could get the higher-end CPU. I'd go with this route if you are set on keeping your video card.

No problem using an mATX board. Your case should have mounting holes and it has 2 PCI slots for a sound card and tuner.

If your 350w PSU is working for the setup currently, it should still be fine. The video card is the big power draw. Adding the new chip shouldn't require much more wattage.

[tomster2300]

Originally Posted by Alaron Patience please. The motherboard in your wishlist can only support 2 IDE devices. So you wouldn't be able to use your opticals and your hard drives. If you want to use that board, you would have to buy a SATA hard drive and go with the second list. However, you could switch to this Biostar board (a lateral move in quality) and use your existing drives: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138038 Then your price would be the same and you could get the higher-end CPU. I'd go with this route if you are set on keeping your video card. No problem using an mATX board. Your case should have mounting holes and it has 2 PCI slots for a sound card and tuner. If your 350w PSU is working for the setup currently, it should still be fine. The video card is the big power draw. Adding the new chip shouldn't require much more wattage.

Ah come on Alaron, you know I'm impatient .

That other board looks good, but it only supports DDR2 667 ram while the other maxes at DDR2 800. I thought I'd throw in the higher ram so I could switch over to a better board when I upgrade my video card.

Do you think it really matters though on the ram? By the time I make the switch to PCI-E DDR3 will most likely be the standard, though going with the DDR2 800 grants a bit more future proofing.

Will I notice a significant gain with the SATA drive? I just realized that the bundled one is a 3.0 Gb/s - will that work with either of those boards?

[tomster2300]

Sorry to double post, but I read through the user reviews on newegg on both boards and figured some things out.

The biostar board is essentially the only option if I want to keep my current setup (which I do for the time being), so I'm going to get it. A user said his 3.0 Gb/s SATA was automatically brought down to a 1.5 Gb/s on his build, so it looks like anything will work, just at a lower performance.

One guy says he's using 800 ram, so the board must downclock it to a 667, just like my ram does currently.

So, my two main questions now are:

1) DDR2 800 (1gb x2) CAS 4 or DDR2 667 CAS 3? Both are the same price, but the 800 comes paired while I'd have to buy two of the 1 gb 667 sticks to get 2 gigs. Could the unpaired ones potentially not work with the board in dual channel?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231093

2) Is a SATA drive of any speed worth picking up, or should I just save up and grab a 15,000 rpm drive on down the road?

I have to keep reminding myself that this is simply a middle of the road upgrade - I keep wanting to add additional items.

[Alaron]

Yup, SATA drives are backwards compatible so no worries.

While it is usually best to get a matched pair of RAM in a kit to guarantee dual channel, two identical sticks should still work fine. I'd grab the DDR2-800 just to have the headroom.

I wouldn't get the SATA hard drive for a speed increase. You wouldn't notice it. Just get one in SATA if you want to have more space. Otherwise your existing drives are fine.

[tomster2300]

One last major question:

AMD or Intel?

6000 X2 or a C2D equivalent? I can roughly do the same thing with Intel for a few dollars more. Would that be worth it?

[LeftyAce]

Unless the 6000 X2 is much better for the $$ (Which I doubt), I'd go C2D. Intel's socket 775 is going to be around for a while, but AMD's socket AM2 is being retired the end of the summer.

Performance comparisons, if your interested: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

[jer888]

Yeah just from the standpoint of looking at the future of the sockets, Intel would probably be a better option. However, now that I think about it I think you can put AM2+ processors in a AM2 motherboard, but not the other way around. (or something like that). Intel would still probably be the better option though.

[tomster2300]

While Intel does make better sense to go with, this is the only board I can find on newegg which uses DDR2 667. All the others use DDR2 533, or just plain DDR 400.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157115

What do you guys think of this thing?

EDIT:

I initially looked at this board on newegg but ruled it out because it was listed as maxing at DDR2 533. According to Asrock's website, it can handle 667 and has something about Vista written on it. What do you fellows think about this one instead?

See the wrong spec listing here -> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157107

See the correct one here -> http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.as...reDual-VSTA&s=