Thinking about a new Comp

Remove all ads!

I just ordered my first component, the CPU - Intel Core 2 Quad 9450 2,66 GHz 12MB cache 1033 MHz FSB - and Vista Premium 64bit at something of a bargain. Even more so considering how the recovered value of the dollar has affected hardware prices here in Germany. Typically a 9450 (tray) today costs a whopping 290 € - two months ago, it went in one shop for just 230 € - and I was broke Well, I found a shop that sells them at ~260 €, with a further 20 € (by voucher) off in the VISTA package. Which suits me just fine as I wanted to buy Vista anyway

The only thing that I can't decide on about that is whether it feels as if I got Vista cheaper, or my CPU. Logic suggests that the component I pay for in part with the voucher I get from buying something else is is the component that I get cheaper - even when I buy them at the same time ...

---------- Added 3 hours, 42 minutes and 1 seconds later... ----------

Ragusa's computer saga is coming to a close. My configuration is finalised. I just ordered the components of my computer:

 

I am buying a computer as well and have gotten two suggestions/offers from the IT man at work who also dabbles a bit in selling everything he can get a hold of. I want a gaming computer that will last me a few years at least and which will be able to run any fancy game, even NWN2, on max settings. These are the two options I am considering:

Deltaco Tower 500W

MSI AM2+ AMD780 DDR2 SATA2
capable of 8GB memory

AMD PHENOM 9650
QUAD-CORE 2,3GHZ

4GB 800MHZ DDR2

MSI GF 9800 GT PCIE
1GB GDDR-3 ZALMAN

HD Audio 5.1 surround

SEA BARRACUDA
1TB SATA2 32MB

And this is option number two:

Deltaco Tower 500W

ASROCK S775 Intel P45 DDR2 -
capable of 16GB memory

INTEL E8400
Core2Duo 3.0GHZ 1333

4GB 800MHZ DDR2

GeForce 9800 GT PCIE
512MB DDR3 ARCTIC

HD Audio 5.1 surround

SEA BARRACUDA
750GB SATA2 - 32MB


Now the price on these two packages is pretty much the same so now I wonder which is best? I will must likely use XP. What I am mostly wondering is what is the difference between the two graphic cards and hte two processors? Checked it out a bit more, I am leaning towards option one with maybe a smaller HD. I think a lot of the budget in the second one went into an unecessary expensive motherboard? Please Obi-Wan computer nerds! Help me!

 

The reality is that most applications do not use 4 processors. With that being said the Intel Chipset will provide you with a higher CPU clock speed, better stability and better overall performance for every day computing and gaming than the AMD. As for Video Cards; if you go AMD I recommend looking at ATi cards and going with a higher end motherboard. If you go intel; either will work though ATi video cards tend to have more power at this time than the Nvidia counter parts.

I built my PC and wanted to keep it under a specific value and the only way I could do that was buy using Newegg multi product discount; meaning you get X off if you buy two products together. Personally I wanted the build a Intel machine; however, to build a system similar to what I built for under $400 would have cost me just than for the CPU and mobo.

 

Joa, use markup! Lazy bastard

That settled, XP is cool as long as you don't want to play DirectX 10 games.

I was radical, aquiring my first, cough, bought, cough, OS - and chose, shame on me, Vista 64. It now rests on my desk and I am happy about that fact, but pissed at the shop because of the crappy service.

I'd say they're equal, except for the larger memory on the MSI one that might come in handy. Chev will disagree with me on this, but imo ATI cards atm do offer the best price-performance ratio. But then, I now have to say that

In my choice I was sort of fixed on the Intel, as I generally saw them being tested as superior to the current breed of AMDs. In any event, the Intel dual core is a good choice, considering that you're primarily interested in gaming.

Seagate Barracuda's with 32MB cache are an excellent choice anyway, and you get them in 250, 500 and 750 GB size. I bught two of those 250GB 32MB Barracuda ES.2, 24/7 as I play with the idea of putting them into a RAID 0 (for Raptor-esque performance at higher capacity, less noise and lower cost) even though each of them will be pretty fast on their own.

I don't think your MoBo is unnecessary expensive, but then I bought one from ASUS ... I think that buying a P45 board is no bad idea.

 

The reason I am leaning on using XP is that I have a legit copy of it, also my umm, first bought OS. Haven't heard much good about Vista so isn't overly keen on spending money on it when I have a good XP license.

How about switching the processors and harddrives? Would that improve, you guys do not seem overy fond of AMD. I have heard that AMD is the better for gaming but it is pure hearsay. Also you think the motherboard capable of 16gb memory is the way to go? I do not know how much more it costs but I can't imagine myself using more than 8gb ram for several years, not until it would be time to replace the entire computer anyways.

 

I understand your choice for XP. XP has a lot going for it, it is mature and stable. Drawbacks: Running out, no Direct X10 - which you can expect to be the norm with new games, no more than 3,4 GB or so RAM.

That said, the possibility to put 16GB RAM into your board will do you no good on XP. And I doubt you'll run applications that would fully utilise that. You can only use more than the aforementioned 3,4 GB or so RAM with a 64bit CPU and a 64bit OS. And there is your problem. XP is 32bit and won't support more than those 3,4 or so GB RAM due to code limitations. You get 16 GB max RAM capacity for most P45 boards. However, the x38 and x48 'enthusiast chipset' MoBos, made for gamers and overclockers, have capacity for only 8GB, so I presume that amount ought to suffice for gaming.

As for the HDDs - as I said, all 32MB cache Barracuda ES.2, 24/7 are excellent - so it depends on your storage requirements, which I don't know

 

Go for the intel p45 whit 8500. You might want to go for the Gigabyte boards since they use a better on board audio chip.(I like the gigabyte boards) Asrock is Asus's B brand, but still good enough.

For GPU? Do what you like. It does not matter, both types are good. Only 200 series from Nvidia or 4800 series Ati.

Take a mainboard whit two PCI 16 slots. Nvidia has drivers working, at least they say they have, for physics by a second GPU. Ati will follow since a hacker has got the drivers working for ati cards too. Later on you can use your now new card for Physics, or go sli/crossfire.

If you choose for the use of a second card later and Nvidia, get an sli nvidia nforce motherboard. Just in case you want to go SLI. Only Asus has one for p45 I believe. SLI will not work on a normal p45 board.

AMD used to be better for games, until the dual cores from Intel came. Now AMD struggles to keep up the performance. However, they play the budget site of the market by using a little less power and to be cheaper combined whit a cheaper board. Due to the fact that they took over ati, it was possible for them to make a very strong line of motherboards whit a integrated videochipsets like the 780/790 for the low end market. And that market is much larger than the gaming market. it is also possible to combine that integrated ship to use in a hybrid crossfire mode whit a low end GPU. More than enough to play blue ray whit full HD 1080 on low end machines. Ati also has the ability to put sound trough the hdmi interface. Nvidia lags behind in this part of the market.

Consider 64 bit vista. Ignore XP. Why? One more service pack (2) coming up, and XP is soon to be end of life. If 64, you can max the memory out to 8 gig. If the GPU has more memory it will not bottleneck if 64 is chosen. Yesterday a guy from microsoft said on a dutch site that all 32 programs work on 64 bit. (The site is called hardware-info and has a very solid reputation.)

 

Hmm, I had already decided on the dual-core but I still want the bigger card, was looking some at ATI, heard their 4850 card was a lot of value for the money.

So basically what it seems I am getting is option two with the better card. Apparently every processor does not fit every motherboard.

 

You need a strong PSU for that setup. 500W will not do.

 

I beg to differ, 500 W for both of the suggested options is enough, even with the ATI 4850. In fact, I am myself running a more power hungry setup with a 500 W PSU.

 

600 watt is recommended for two 4850 cards and the other stuff that goes whit it. Why still take 600? That way you keep the option open to use a second card in crossfire, or for physics. A smaller card like 46?? can be picked up for physics, or an other 4850 when the next line is current. If you need a other PSU for it, or have only one pci 16 slot, you might be sorry later on. I am, whit my 3870 on a single slot board.