Game Rig

[alcmaeon]

All right folks, This is what I hope is the final list but I wanted to make sure of a couple things before I place the order:


This is a game rig and my budget was $1500 give or take, I am slightly over that but that is ok. Also my current machine is dead so I need a pc now and can’t wait for anything else to come to market.

I want a full tower case. I plan to add a Samsung 245T or equivalent (not part of the budget for the build). I have never OCed before but I am reading up on it and plan to try it out on this rig.


Is everything compatible?
Do I have enough power for everything and do I have enough power if I add a second GPU later on to give some more life to the build, (for that matter I was hoping a 750w psu would help future proof me a bit.)?

The mobo was the most confusing part to figure out, so any suggestions there are appreciated.

Thanks!

EVGA 132-CK-NF78-A1 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 780i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16813188024

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (thought about the e8400 but Newegg is out for the time being)
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16819115017

EVGA 512-P3-N841-A3 GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16814130312


PC Power & Cooling S75QB EPS12V 750W Power Supply 100
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16817703009


mushkin 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820146755


2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3500320AS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive (1 for games, 1 for pics and vids and whatnot)
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16822148288

LITE-ON Black 20X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R DL 20X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM 2MB Cache SATA 20X DVD±R DVD Burner With 12X DVD-RAM Write
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16827106070


SAMSUNG Black 20X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 16X DVD+R DL 20X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM 2MB Cache SATA 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16827151154


Koutech IO-RCM620 USB 2.0 3.5"/5.25" Card Reader
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820162016


XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 120mm Rifle CPU Cooler
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16835233003


GIGABYTE GZ-FA2CA-AJB Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case
http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16811233026

[shadowpr]

Not bad.

To lower the budget a bit, look at the 8800gt instead of the 8800gts. It only performs slightly below the gts.

Also, why get 2 different dvd burners. I would get both lite-on. You could also just get one. Get it retail and get nero with it for a fe dollars more.

I've never heard of that brand of heatsink. If you're serious about overclocking, then you need to get a good one. Just know that will void the warrenty of the retail processor. If you're definately getting a heatsink to overclock, then get the processor oem, and save about $20.

[Khalil]

As far as I know and from all I have read there are no games that utilize quad cores nor are there any being made to fully utilize the power of a quad core processor read this http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquir...less-for-games. Gaming relies mostly on the GPU and Memory not the CPU.

If you want to stick to Intel, an E6600 is all the CPU you need for a gaming rig. Use the money for a better video card instead of a Quad core CPU. I recommend you go with a 9600GT over the 8800GT it has better technology and it will run faster regardless of price.

If you are not married to Intel you might want to consider going with an AMD rig, you can save a lot of money and they game awesome.
Millions of hard core gamers use AMD.
If you consider an AMD check out the Athlon 6400 or the Opteron 1222 with an Asus M2N-E or the Newer Asus M3A which will be compatible with the AM3 CPUs which will probably end Intel's current lead (you gotta love competition).
I am not saying Intel is bad at all I am simply saying you can get a lot for less money if you go with an AMD rig.
Evga makes great video cards but do youself a favor and buy an Asus motherboard, they are hands down the best followed by Abit.

Mushkin is ok but by no means high end Ram, stick to Kingston, Crucial or Corsair.

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by Khalil As far as I know and from all I have read there are no games that utilize quad cores nor are there any being made to fully utilize the power of a quad core processor read this http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquir...less-for-games. Gaming relies mostly on the GPU and Memory not the CPU. If you want to stick to Intel, an E6600 is all the CPU you need for a gaming rig. Use the money for a better video card instead of a Quad core CPU. I recommend you go with a 9600GT over the 8800GT it has better technology and it will run faster regardless of price. If you are not married to Intel you might want to consider going with an AMD rig, you can save a lot of money and they game awesome. Millions of hard core gamers use AMD. If you consider an AMD check out the Athlon 6400 or the Opteron 1222 with an Asus M2N-E or the Newer Asus M3A which will be compatible with the AM3 CPUs which will probably end Intel's current lead (you gotta love competition). I am not saying Intel is bad at all I am simply saying you can get a lot for less money if you go with an AMD rig. Evga makes great video cards but do youself a favor and buy an Asus motherboard, they are hands down the best followed by Abit. Mushkin is ok but by no means high end Ram, stick to Kingston, Crucial or Corsair.

There are at least two games I can think of that support Quad Core (in the sense it improves perfomance): Supreme Commander, and Sins of a Solar Empire, both of which are real-time strategy games. There are a decent amount of games that are starting to take advantage of quad core processors, especially those video games with lots of AIU (Artificial Intelligence Units), and games with lots of Physics involved.

The 8800GTS is actually a decent amount better than the 8800GT and can actually beat the HD3870X2 in OpenGL games, while keeping close to its performance in Directx games.

The E6600 is a really outdated processor, the E6550, or E6750 is a better choice. The E8400 is the best among the dual cores for both speed and overclocking.

Regarding ram, you should be fine with the Mushkin ram, it works pretty well, and you won't need really high end ram unless you plan to overclock it as well. If you stick with the Q6600, you probably won't need ram faster than DDR2-800 which would let you overclock the Q6600 up to 3.6GHz (after which you would have an uneven FSB to Memory ratio).

[Khalil]

Masaki, I am not sure where you got the info about Supreme Commander supporting Quads, I was in contact with their CS not even a month ago and according to their own supprt people SC only barely supports Dual Cores. Supreme Commander is my favorite current game and I bought the new edition for it 2 weeks ago, if it supported Quads I would have a Phenom already in my gaming rig.
Blizzard was attempting to make the new Starcraft Quad capable but they scrapped that becuase of the amount of programming time it would have taken to make it use all Cores.

My advice to the original poster stands, stick to Dual Cores, I agree with Masaki a new generation Core2Duo would be better than the E6600 but I would definately not waste my money on a Quad Core.
I would also seriously consider waiting a few more weeks if you can till the new 9800GTS comes out.
Also this Tom's hardware Chart shows the ATI 3870 beating the 8800GTS on most games http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html and that is not the x2 so again I am not sure where you are getting your info from Masaki.

[shadowpr]

Tomshardware has the older 8800gts. It doesn't include the newer ones, the G92, which comes in 512mb.

[Khalil]

Cool, so do you have a link to a page that shows the new GTS beating the 3780 x 2? I would like to see it.

I would also like to add that a good friend of mine owns a QX6700 rig with an 8800GTX, Supreme Commander lags much worst on his rig when the screen has 300-400 units on it than my gaming rig listed in my signature.

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by Khalil Masaki, I am not sure where you got the info about Supreme Commander supporting Quads, I was in contact with their CS not even a month ago and according to their own supprt people SC only barely supports Dual Cores. Supreme Commander is my favorite current game and I bought the new edition for it 2 weeks ago, if it supported Quads I would have a Phenom already in my gaming rig. Blizzard was attempting to make the new Starcraft Quad capable but they scrapped that becuase of the amount of programming time it would have taken to make it use all Cores. My advice to the original poster stands, stick to Dual Cores, I agree with Masaki a new generation Core2Duo would be better than the E6600 but I would definately not waste my money on a Quad Core. I would also seriously consider waiting a few more weeks if you can till the new 9800GTS comes out. Also this Tom's hardware Chart shows the ATI 3870 beating the 8800GTS on most games http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html and that is not the x2 so again I am not sure where you are getting your info from Masaki.

I read about Quad Cores support for Supreme Commander in a Maximum PC mag a while ago, however, I also found this website which has a review on Quad Cores working with Supreme Commander: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...hlbnRodXNpYXN0

This is a review on the 9600GT, but it has both the HD3870X2 and 8800GTS 512MB being used for comparison, and you will see the 8800GTS come out ahead of the HD3870X2: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/666/1/

[Khalil]

Originally Posted by Masaki 7-11 I read about Quad Cores support for Supreme Commander in a Maximum PC mag a while ago, however, I also found this website which has a review on Quad Cores working with Supreme Commander: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...hlbnRodXNpYXN0 This is a review on the 9600GT, but it has both the HD3870X2 and 8800GTS 512MB being used for comparison, and you will see the 8800GTS come out ahead of the HD3870X2: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/666/1/

Thanks for the links, good reading however in the Legit Reviews it shows clearly that the ATI is superior, the most important number on the Video card is the bandwidth. Please go back and look again and you will notice the ATI is 10 points higher on the bandwidth than the GTS 15 points higher than the GT and 9600 and according to Nvidia's website the GTX is at 86.4 GB/S and the Ultra is at 104.6 GB/S http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce8.html
All the other figures mean very little when it comes to top end performance. 2 ATI 3870 cards in crossfire will give around 96GB/S. Please explain to me how one new GTS can beat 2 x 3870s
I have owned most of these cards or built them into computers for other people, so I am speaking from experience.
Good advertising can turn an inferior product into a superior product in the eyes of those who want to believe what they read. I go with personal experience.
I bought an 8800GTX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130079 at the same time I bought my 2 ATI cards, I played my games with both and within 3 days I shipped the Nvidia card back to Newegg for a refund. The Nvidia was a great card but the 2 ATI cards were far superior in every game I tried them with. I did not try 2 x GTX cards as I did not want to spend that much.

[Alaron]

Guys, this thread was for alcmaeon, let's not forget that. Thanks

_Moderator_

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by Khalil Thanks for the links, good reading however in the Legit Reviews it shows clearly that the ATI is superior, the most important number on the Video card is the bandwidth. Please go back and look again and you will notice the ATI is 10 points higher on the bandwidth than the GTS 15 points higher than the GT and 9600 and according to Nvidia's website the GTX is at 86.4 GB/S and the Ultra is at 104.6 GB/S http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce8.html All the other figures mean very little when it comes to top end performance. 2 ATI 3870 cards in crossfire will give around 96GB/S. Please explain to me how one new GTS can beat 2 x 3870s I have owned most of these cards or built them into computers for other people, so I am speaking from experience. Good advertising can turn an inferior product into a superior product in the eyes of those who want to believe what they read. I go with personal experience. I bought an 8800GTX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130079 at the same time I bought my 2 ATI cards, I played my games with both and within 3 days I shipped the Nvidia card back to Newegg for a refund. The Nvidia was a great card but the 2 ATI cards were far superior in every game I tried them with. I did not try 2 x GTX cards as I did not want to spend that much.

For the budget stated here, a 8800GTS 512MB is among the best cards available for such a build, I'm not saying that the 8800GTS is superior to the HD3870X2, but it's performance rivals it, and while the HD3870X2 sells for about $450, you can get the 8800GTS 512MB for around $300, clearly the 8800GTS offers more performance per dollar than the HD3870X2. You'll also have a very hard time comparing products based on specifications, benchmarks offer the best comparison, and you'll find the 8800GTS 512MB in numerous benchmarks can keep up with the HD3870X2. Keep in mind that a lot of games have trouble with cross-fire, and the fact that the HD3870X2 uses GDDR3 memory instead of the GDDR4 you find on the HD3870.

[alcmaeon]

Hey Folks

Thanks for all the input.

My GPU line of reasoning was similar to what Khalil put out. Remember that I have no working game system today, this moment in time. I could afford to throw in any card out there but for the money I decided the 8800 GTS was the best bang for the buck with the 9 series on the way. I figure the price will drop later when the 9 series comes out full force and I can SLI another one, or just replace it with whatever makes sense. I can use the GTS long enough to get my money's worth out of it. The time to market is key here.

Lol, its the Mobo that I was hoping to get that level of discussion on as mobos confuse me.

[Khalil]

Lol, its the Mobo that I was hoping to get that level of discussion on as mobos confuse me.

As I have mentioned in another thread. I highly recommend you go with AMD if you plan on eventualy having SLI.
I belong to a large Guild of gamers (over 500 people) in all the posts on our forums in the past 2 years related to SLI, it appears the Intel chipsets are just not doing too well with SLI.
Everyone seems to recommend an Nvidia mobo chipset with SLI but Intel motherboards do best with their own chipsets. They don't run their best with other chipsets as in VIA, SIS, ATI and Nvidia.
If you feel Intel is the only way for you then stay away from SLI and stick to an Intel chipset on the motherboard.

Here is the CPU and Mobo I recommend for an SLI setup. You will save money too.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131013 this boards seems to be the most popular for SLI and has won a lot of awards.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105184 This CPU will meet and super exceed anything you could dish out to it.
As far as eVGA motheboards, I would not touch one with a 50 foot stick. They make awesome video cards but in my opinion they need to get out of making motherboards and let Asus handle it.

[Masaki 7-11]

Originally Posted by Khalil As I have mentioned in another thread. I highly recommend you go with AMD if you plan on eventualy having SLI. I belong to a large Guild of gamers (over 500 people) in all the posts on our forums in the past 2 years related to SLI, it appears the Intel chipsets are just not doing too well with SLI. Everyone seems to recommend an Nvidia mobo chipset with SLI but Intel motherboards do best with their own chipsets. They don't run their best with other chipsets as in VIA, SIS, ATI and Nvidia. If you feel Intel is the only way for you then stay away from SLI and stick to an Intel chipset on the motherboard. Here is the CPU and Mobo I recommend for an SLI setup. You will save money too. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131013 this boards seems to be the most popular for SLI and has won a lot of awards. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105184 This CPU will meet and super exceed anything you could dish out to it. As far as eVGA motheboards, I would not touch one with a 50 foot stick. They make awesome video cards but in my opinion they need to get out of making motherboards and let Asus handle it.

Maximum PC has been using SLI with Intel processors for a long time, and they've had good results with such a setup. You cannot currently use an Intel chipset for SLI, the only choice you have for SLI is to use a Nvidia chipset, which currently competes well in terms of performance with a Intel chipset. Maximum PC has also used Evga boards and has favorable recommendations of them.

[Khalil]

Never heard of Maximum PC. Several computer builders use ECS motherboards and they give very favorable reports on them as well.
Most everyone with any experience on these forums always recommends Asus motherboards over any other motherboard maker. I have seen a lot of threads all over the internet with people having major issues with eVGA motherboards in the last year or so.
I like to give people safe, sound advice, Asus makes the best motherboards on the market, out of 400 or so Asus motherboards I used last year I RMAd 3 back to Asus.
Please do not take any of this personal Masaki, we are just having a healthy techy debate.