I'm putting together a new rig soon, just want to make sure I'm making smart decisions. My budget limit is $1,500 including S&H and tax, so I'm really trying to get the best bang for my buck here (which probably sounds a little ridiculous coming from someone looking to build a quad-core system, but oh well, hehe). Anyway, here's what I'm thinking about: Case: Antec P182 Gun Metal Black 0.8mm Steel PSU: SeaSonic S12 Energy Plus SS-550HT 550W Motherboard: MSI P35 Neo2-FR CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz (Retail) RAM: CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 675 (PC2-5400) 4-4-4-12 Graphics: SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 3850 512MB Audio: On-board LAN: On-board Hard Drive #1 (OS and games): Western Digital WD1200JS 120GB Hard Drive #2 (Everything else): Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3160815AS 160GB (x2 for backups) DVD Burner: SAMSUNG SH-S203B 20X DVD±R SATA Operating System: Windows XP Pro Let me explain a few of my choices, since I know some people will ask. Of course, feel free to correct me on any of this: PC2-5400 RAM: From what I've read, Intel chips don't benefit from high RAM clock frequencies, and I don't intend to overclock this rig, so I figure I'll be underclocking the RAM to match the FSB of the Core 2 Quad anyway. Radeon HD 3850: High resolutions and widescreen aren't that important to me, as I'm still gaming on a 19" CRT with no plans of moving to LCD pretty much ever. Also, the card I've chosen has 512MB of VRAM, which should smooth things out a bit, and the motherboard and PSU are SLI/CF ready anyway, so I can always just drop a second card in there later. Storage: I considered getting a Raptor, but I just can't bring myself to justify spending three times as much money for a 15% maximum performance increase. I've also decided that it would be wiser to make regular backups than bother with a RAID, and the Core 2 Quad ought to make this process pretty painless anyway. However, I would still love some advice on a backup solution if anyone has some to share. XP instead of Vista: I probably don't have to explain this one, but I feel that the real benefits of Vista and DirectX 10 are yet to be seen (may as well get a DX10 graphics card, however), and Vista really needs to get its act together performance-wise. I must say, however, that this is a real shame, as I do like the new design and functionality of Vista quite a lot. It can wait though. So what do you guys think? Am I missing anything? Many thanks in advance!
Looks Hot! Just in case you didnt know though the new Intel CPU range is coming out in about 3 weeks time and the 9XXX series of GPU is being released aswell in febuary!
Because it will work better with the current motherboards, later on you can just change it for one Yorkfield.Menfear
Okay, people have been going back and forth with this one, and I am definitely of the "Q6600 works just fine on current motherboards" school, but why exactly do you believe otherwise? "Yes it does" / "No it doesn't" don't exactly explain much. :P I did noticed that the E6850 is a more powerful chip in terms of raw performance, but is dual-core still recommended to power users? We've already seen some applications benefit greatly from having four cores, and I'm actually quite a heavy multitasker as well, so more is probably merrier in my case. Seriously, it's not uncommon that I'll be working in Photoshop, and have an Opera window open with 5-10 tabs, a couple of Torrents, and still wish I could be running an antivirus scan in the background. I imagine all that could certainly use a little extra room to stretch, am I right?
Case = Fail.
The look of it is a no no (but thats opinion)
And the price is the main concern, you want to spend that amount on a case thats about as cool as a split condom.
But like i said its opinion so if you want that go get it. :D ArranJones
Haha, I actually really like the case. I know it's expensive, but I'm willing to pay more for the quality. I like the inverted design and cable management features, and the case is actually just really well-built and well-thought-out in all areas. It's also nice and thick and heavy (even the door), which means it's nice and quiet. I've actually seen it in person and I fell in love with it. Hell, I'll even admit that there isn't much keeping me from getting the $199 "SE" edition with the internal snakelight and mirrored finish. :D
Q6600 works just fine with that mobo, in fact it's a great board for budget. Anandtech already proved it. sstravisd
Yep, that's where I got the idea. :)
The P182 is just 100% practical!daytona_178
Indeed. And I miss the days before aluminum panels and cold cathodes, when you could still get a decently-built, rugged, steel case for less than US$50. Nowadays, steel construction is actually a boutique feature. :(
Firstly, I wouldn't get a 3850, the new 8800gt has proved itself alotbetter in benchmarking, and only cost's 270, 100 more.(the 880gt is nearly as good as the GTX which cost's ALOT more, and the gt is considerably better than the GTS which cost's alot more.)
However I see you are buying your Q6600 retail, don't do that, buy it from Newegg instead, I plan to buy the same modal in the next few weeks. It even has free shipping.
PC2-5400 RAM: From what I've read, Intel chips don't benefit from high RAM clock frequencies, and I don't intend to overclock this rig, so I figure I'll be setting the RAM at 333MHz anyway (333*4 = 1333MHz FSB of the Core 2 Quad). JN_Fenrir
If you're not overclocking the rig your Q6600 will have 1066FSB not 1333, just thought I'd mention it. And besides, PC2-6400 RAM costs hardly anymore anyway.
[QUOTE="JN_Fenrir"]PC2-5400 RAM: From what I've read, Intel chips don't benefit from high RAM clock frequencies, and I don't intend to overclock this rig, so I figure I'll be setting the RAM at 333MHz anyway (333*4 = 1333MHz FSB of the Core 2 Quad). superchronik
If you're not overclocking the rig your Q6600 will have 1066FSB not 1333, just thought I'd mention it. And besides, PC2-6400 RAM costs hardly anymore anyway.
I also plan to build a new PC with a Q6600, and I plan to overclock it to.32 GHzish, with the help of this heatsink.
Firstly, I wouldn't get a 3850, the new 8800gt has proved itself alotbetter in benchmarking, and only cost's 270, 100 more.(the 880gt is nearly as good as the GTX which cost's ALOT more, and the gt is considerably better than the GTS which cost's alot more.)
However I see you are buying your Q6600 retail, don't do that, buy it from Newegg instead, I plan to buy the same modal in the next few weeks. It even has free shipping.
m2twkisfun
From what I gathered, the 3850 is equal to the 8800GT at one resolution higher, and since I'm on a 19" CRT, 1,280x960 is my resolution of choice for gaming. I also don't care about AA, and AF can generally be enabled on any board (especially ATI boards) without any noticeable drop in performance. Of course, I'd love to crank this baby up on a 30"+ CRT HDTV, but that's just a smidge out of my budget as well, hehe. As for the CPU, I meant the retail model, which includes the HSF. I'm buying it from Newegg. ;)
[QUOTE="JN_Fenrir"]PC2-5400 RAM: From what I've read, Intel chips don't benefit from high RAM clock frequencies, and I don't intend to overclock this rig, so I figure I'll be setting the RAM at 333MHz anyway (333*4 = 1333MHz FSB of the Core 2 Quad). superchronik
If you're not overclocking the rig your Q6600 will have 1066FSB not 1333, just thought I'd mention it. And besides, PC2-6400 RAM costs hardly anymore anyway.
Ah, thanks for catching my mistake! So what is the "ideal" clock speed for RAM, given the quad-pumped 1066MHz FSB of the Q6600? 266MHz? The way I understand it, clocking the RAM faster than the FSB is actually detrimental to performance, correct? Or am I not looking at this the right way? On a side note, good god, would I ever love to "do things" with the girl Tom's Hardware has modelling for their Holiday Gift Guides. YOWZA! :P Thanks again for the advice, everyone. You guys are helping me out quite a lot!
I'm running a stock Q6600 on a 650i motherboard and my RAM bench's higher @ 800mhz in the Sandra memroy bandwidth test than it does when set to 667 or 533 so I'd just go with that.
Don't worry about latencies tho, they don't really matter on Core2's.
Hello again. I've been scouring Google and reading up on RAM and the FSB, and I am left with a question: Clearly, it makes sense to match RAM speed with the FSB of the CPU, but are there any instances where having a higher memory throughput would outweigh the performance penalty incurred by running RAM clocked asynchroniously with the FSB? In other words, is there ever any real-world performance gain from running DDR2-800 if it's on a Core2Quad? Also, exactly what other devices communicate directly with the memory controller? I imagine those would probably benefit from faster RAM, even if only a little. Thanks again for the help!
Log in to comment