new build questions

[Lan4ear]

Hi,
I am planning a new build and have some questions regarding it:

1) Does RAID0 with harddisks is common?
Does it worth it, or shall i stick with a single harddisk?
2) I plan on 4GB memory.
Should i invest on DDR3 (Requires a more expensive motherboard too), or stick with a cheaper build of DDR2?
And what speed do i need it anyway? The common speed now is 1066mhz of the motherboards, so i guess i need memory of 533mhz?
3) What graphic cards are more common and advised, and which i better avoid?
Does it worth using graphic card with 512mb memory or is it almost the same as 256mb.

I plan on playing on the computer, and i want it to last as long as possible before i need an upgrade.
I also programming, thats why i need so much memory.
I dont want to buy the most extreme expensive parts, but just a little bit below them will do


Oh, and i wont overclock.

thanks

[Drunner611]

What exactly are you looking at for a budget. Lots of people here will be happy to help once they know how much $$$ they have to play with. I'll try to answer some questions anyway

1) Definitely not worth it unless you don't mind risking all of your data loss. Hard Drives today are getting faster and Raid0 is becoming more of a risk than a reward. If you want fast, get a
WD Raptor for your boot drive and a larger Seagate 7200.11 or something like that for your storage drive.

2) 4gb is great, but remember you can only use all of it if you get a 64bit operating system. DDR3 is very expensive compared to DDR2, but depending on your budget you could buy it. Most will recommend against it. You also mention you want to upgrade for a long time. This will be tough since the Intel 775 socket will be obsolete with Nehalem and I believe AMD's new architecture will be AM3, not AM2. The only thing you would be able to do is get a cheap dual core now and throw in a cheap quad core in 10 months when Nehalem comes out.

3) You definitely want 512mb if you're gaming and programming. Look into an 8800gt, 8800gts (G92), or 9800gtx. If you prefer ATI, look at the 3870 or 3850x2 (should be out soon).

But yeah, definitely provide a budget

[Katreat]

Drunner hit the high spots and I agree with his comments. I try to get the best bang for the buck when I build. To do that you always look for the best $/performance ratio.

That being said it is hard to justify twice the cost (two HD) for what amounts to just a little more speed. As Drunner points out for most people the new faster 7200 drives are fast enough. If you need something faster, not just want it, but need for whatever application you are running, then the 10,000 raptors would also be my first choice. Raid 0 because of the risks to your data if one of the HD fail would be my last choice. Again, if you actually need those faster access times then it is a viable option, it is just a very expensive one and because of the risks involved with your data you should also have a very good back up system in place.

The problem with DDR3 right now is processor speed is not yet fast enough to take advantage of the ram potential. Currently only the extreme over-clocking crowd can unlock that potential so for most DDR3 will show little if any net gain over DDR2. With Intel already announcing a new socket it is extremely doubtful there will be any faster 775 CPUs coming down the line. Given that IMO DDR3 is best left for the next generation MB and the Nehalem processors. I don’t think AMD is planning a socket change soon, but they also don’t have processors that really utilize DDR 3 at this time so again I would hold off on the investment.

Video cards are advancing at a very fast rate but I agree with Drunner’s list. The sweet spot right now is probably around the 8800 GT or 8800 GTS (512) but that could change in a very short time as the 9800s become mainstream. For ATI I would also take a look at the new 3870 Toxic. It is just a sooped up 3870 but from reviews it is gives a lot of bang for the buck and is definitely a challenger to the 8800 GT for a bit less money I believe.

For memory most do with 800. MB speed has increased to 1333 these days which would make an exact match 667 but I have always heard to buy memory one step higher so that puts you at 800. 1066 memory is overkill unless you are planning on a major OC in which case it might get some use. This comes back to why DDR3 is really not that much better at this time. It has to step down to the speed of the processor and that negates its potential.

Kat

[Doom]

Just some thoughts...

- RAID is overrated in my opinion. In my old job, we had a very tech savvy guy who set up our office's shared drive in a RAID configuration because "we'll never lose our data that way." It crashed and we lost everything. They didn't back up the data because our boss thought RAID was foolproof.
- Listen to Drunner and Katreat on the DDR2 issue. As for 4GB... RAM has become so cheap that it's usually not an issue to get 4MB (recommend a 2x2GB set). Yes, you won't be able to utilize all of it on a 32big Windows system... but you know you're getting every last byte of RAM the system will take.
- The 8800 nVidia card is still considered the king by most folks. I have a 9600GT card and love it if you're looking for a good 512MB card on a relative budget. EVGA is the brand most will recommend. Both of my cards are EVGA and I'm very happy with them. 512MB is a sure winner over 256MB in my opinion.

[Lan4ear]

Thanks guys,
This was very helpfull. Closed the memory point for me.

As for the HDD, i dont quite understand this part of Drunner;
"If you want fast, get a
WD Raptor for your boot drive and a larger Seagate 7200.11 or something like that for your storage drive."
Is it not good to have a single drive both for boot and storage? (I was just breaking into partitions untill now ...)
In any case why does Raptor good for booting and Seagate for storage?
Untill now i always just bought a single Western Digital drive...

What card is better for their current prices of these:
"Look into an 8800gt, 8800gts (G92), or 9800gtx."

As for my budget, its hard to say. I am from Israel, the prices are are different. Some parts that are less common here will cost more only because it is harder to get them here...
So i am trying to deide on a build that i like and then i'll match myself to the price.
But i am not trying to build the most expensive parts...

Oh and another question, i ee her ein forums u really advice for MB Asus p5k or p5k-e.
Whats their difference and what u advice for?

I guess i wont be able to upgrade with nehalem on the horizon, but i was planning on buying some quad processor.

[Drunner611]

If you really want speed. The WD Raptors are 10k rpm compared to 7200rpm Seagate.
The only reason I recommend 2 drives is because the Raptor only comes in 36, 74, and 150gb models. Not really enough storage for me. Ideally, you probably won't notice the performance gain unless you benchmark, so you would be fine with a single drive. Look into one with 32mb of cache.

The Asus P5k is a good board because it's cheap and supports all the new quad core processors. The only real difference I can see between the P5k and P5k-E is that the "E" model has an extra PCI-E x1 slot. There are lots of other variants as well.

Nehalem will be impossible as mentioned before because of the socket change. However. You could get a dual core now "e8200" or the likes, and grab a 45nm Q9450 or something like that for cheap when Nehalem comes out.

[Katreat]

Most people are very happy with one HD. The new 32 mb cache 7200 are plenty fast for the average user. What we are saying is that if you need more speed then you should consider spending the money for a raptor (10000) instead of setting up a raid 0. Raptors are expensive $/GB but they are one drive, have good dependability, and are fast. The problem as Drunner mentions is that they are small so a second drive is usually required to give you enough storage.

Of your list the 9800 GTX is fastest by quite a margin, it is also at least $100 more. All three of those cards are very good gamers and will play anything currently out at high or near high settings. The 8800 GT kind of held the sweet spot but with resent price drops on the GTS it could become the new best bang for the buck. The GTX is still a bit new to see much price movement.

The big draw for the P5K-E for many is it has a better sound chip if I remember right. I use headphones while gaming so pretty happy with on-board from my base P5K, but to many it is important. On-board sound is really good on most newer boards so sound cards have dropped off the list for many unless they have a really nice speaker system. Asus is a very good compnay and make quality boards, the P5K is there P35 chiipset offering so that is why it gets so much support. There are other P35 boards from other good companies but no one has the reputation that Asus has for quality and support.

As Drunner points out you will have at least one big upgrade if you need it. I usually replace my Video card at least once in the life of a gamer. It just moves that fast. Also, unless you are buying at the top of the market you will be able to look at the new 45nm quads which are currently a bit expensive for my tastes. So you definatley still have upgrade room, you just wont be upgrading to the Nehalem.

Kat

[Lan4ear]

Another question i got is about cpu's.
I wanna get a quad one.
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Yorkfield 2.5GHz 6MB L2 Cache
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Yorkfield 2.66GHz 12MB L2 Cache

I see although Q9300 is faster it got less cache than Q6600, which is slower.
Should i get the Q9* series rather than Q6*, even though it is more expensive?

I think i prefer to buy now the quad cpu and stay with it, than buy now core 2 duo and then upgrade to quad...

Thanks guys.

[Khalil]

Originally Posted by Lan4ear Another question i got is about cpu's. I wanna get a quad one. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Yorkfield 2.5GHz 6MB L2 Cache Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Yorkfield 2.66GHz 12MB L2 Cache I see although Q9300 is faster it got less cache than Q6600, which is slower. Should i get the Q9* series rather than Q6*, even though it is more expensive? I think i prefer to buy now the quad cpu and stay with it, than buy now core 2 duo and then upgrade to quad... Thanks guys.

Cache is more important than clock speed.
You might also want to coisnder the new AMD 9850 Quad Core, it has a newer more advanced architecture than Intel and you will likely have a computer that will last a lot longer than if you go with an Intel. If you go AMD check out the Asus M3A motherboard.
The AMD platform will also be forward and backward compatible, so you have a better chance of upgrades later.

[Katreat]

The Q6xxx series is an older 65nm chip. The Q9xxx series is the newer 45nm chip. Intel is moving towards the 45nm chips with their full line up so you naturally have low and high performance chips in each until the 65nm is phased out. So right now there is quite a bit of over lap and you would be best to check out performance charts (TomsHardware) and reviews to find out what is the best deal. A lot of price cutting is occuring on the Q6xxx chips so there are some very good deals in that direction. On the other hand the newer chips run cooler and are more efficient. I think the Q9450 stands out at the top, but I am no sure of the placement of the entry level Q9300 as compaired to the older but faster processors.

Kat

[Lan4ear]

Originally Posted by Drunner611 What exactly are you looking at for a budget. Lots of people here will be happy to help once they know how much $$$ they have to play with. I'll try to answer some questions anyway 1) Definitely not worth it unless you don't mind risking all of your data loss. Hard Drives today are getting faster and Raid0 is becoming more of a risk than a reward. If you want fast, get a WD Raptor for your boot drive and a larger Seagate 7200.11 or something like that for your storage drive. 2) 4gb is great, but remember you can only use all of it if you get a 64bit operating system. DDR3 is very expensive compared to DDR2, but depending on your budget you could buy it. Most will recommend against it. You also mention you want to upgrade for a long time. This will be tough since the Intel 775 socket will be obsolete with Nehalem and I believe AMD's new architecture will be AM3, not AM2. The only thing you would be able to do is get a cheap dual core now and throw in a cheap quad core in 10 months when Nehalem comes out. 3) You definitely want 512mb if you're gaming and programming. Look into an 8800gt, 8800gts (G92), or 9800gtx. If you prefer ATI, look at the 3870 or 3850x2 (should be out soon). But yeah, definitely provide a budget

Regarding Raid0, Data lost can occur in single HDD too, so either way must backup it (yes more chance in raid0).
But as i see it, RAID0 is still faster than single HDD.... am i wrong?