new gaming rig

S

sillyputty

oops, typo! That's XFX mobo and I want to nail down tigerdirect on the
model # and add a sound card.
 
P

Paul

sillyputty said:
I'm in the market for a new gaming rig, my budget: around $2k. What do
you think of this system? Would the low-end i7 (920) out perform a
previous edition high end quad-core (ex. Q9650)? Btw, I called
tigerdirect and was told the mobo is SFX, HD is WD and RAM is OCZ.
Thx.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4302053

"42 reviews for Nehalem"

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/03/core-i7-reviews-counting

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

"Overall in gaming tests the situations where Nehalem was faster than Penryn
outnumbered those where it didn't, but upgrading to Nehalem for faster gaming
performance doesn't make sense. We were entirely too GPU bound in all of these
titles, if you want Nehalem it should be because of its performance elsewhere."

So for a gaming rig, perhaps more money could be put into GPUs
than the CPU. A couple of 4850's is good, but is it "$2K good" ?

GTX280 $425 * 2 (Or a single 4870 X2 for $500 - see benches below)
Q9550 $320 (Overclock, as needed)
790i $300
750W $104
DDR3 $ 70 2x1GB DDR3-1333
OS $150
Case $ 50
---- ----
Total $1844

At least read a few more of the 42 reviews, to see if Nehalem is a cost
effective platform at the moment. The following page will show you where a couple
GTX280's compare to a 4870 X2 (same as a 4870 CF, only they're on
one module).

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Call-of-Duty-4-v1-6,746.html

A GTX 280 is 178W. Two of them is 356W while gaming (less otherwise).

A 4870 X2 (equiv to two video cards) is 264W.

That is why you need a 750W power supply. (For example, the Pcpower 750W)

HTH,
Paul
 
D

Dave

sillyputty said:
I'm in the market for a new gaming rig, my budget: around $2k. What do
you think of this system? Would the low-end i7 (920) out perform a
previous edition high end quad-core (ex. Q9650)? Btw, I called
tigerdirect and was told the mobo is SFX, HD is WD and RAM is OCZ.
Thx.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4302053

The 920 will outperform a core 2 quad (the older quad core chip) on
applications that are written to take advantage of multiple cores. However,
if you are looking for a GAMING system, the performance will be based mostly
on clock speed. In other words, a Core 2 Duo at the same clock speed would
offer similar performance for gaming, for a LOT less money. Or a Phenom at
the same clock speed would work just as well for a LOT less money. For
gaming, at least.

I'm getting ready to build a somewhat similar system to the one you linked
above. Total cost to build will be about $800 SHIPPED, including Windows
Vista Home Premium OEM. Or, I could go with Vista Ultimate and my total
cost to build would be closer to $900. Oh, but I planned to go with one
video card to start with. So if I upgraded to two 4850s in crossfire with
vista ultimate, that would up my total build price to $1100.

Overall, it looks decent for a pre-built system (that isn't saying much, ha
ha). But if I compare it to the system I'm getting ready to build, I think
you'll get a good idea that you could spend less money to get a better
system.

CPU - I'm currently torn between a Phenom 9850 and 9950, but they are
running the same price, so it doesn't much matter. The 9950 is clocked at
2.6GHz (stock), so it will be about the same as a i7 920, as far as gaming
goes.

Motherboard - The Gigabyte 790GX board I finally settled on has -two-
(normal) PCI slots, along with PCI-Express slots for Crossfire. That's the
main difference in features compared to the board in your system. (other
than the CPU support, obviously). I wouldn't be too crazy about any board
that had just ONE normal PCI slot...especially as you said you want a real
sound card. (unless you plan to buy a PCI-Express format sound card)

RAM - The only thing I like about your system (compared to my planned build)
is the triple channel RAM. I'm going with 2GB of low-CAS DDR2 1066 RAM for
my system. (3GB) would slow it down, as the motherboard I chose only does
dual channel. So if I put in 3GB of RAM, all the RAM would be running in
SINGLE channel mode. And I can't upgrade to 4GB or more (to add more RAM in
DUAL channel mode), without changing my operating system to 64-bit, which
I'm not quite ready to do. Still, 2GB of low CAS RAM at 1066 should be fine
for gaming use. So while your system does have an advantage here, I don't
think it's significant. I think you'd be just as happy for gaming with 2GB
as you would with 3GB. Yeah, I know some people swear that more RAM
increases game performance. I have a tough time believing that though,
after a certain point. Is there a game ever written that will use even 2GB
of RAM? I highly doubt it. Yeah, more RAM can help with other applications
that are running. But why the FRICK would you try to multitask while
gaming?!?!? :)

Hard Drive - I'm only going with a 320GB drive, as I have a couple other
hard drives to recycle, about 1TB total. I've seen a couple of different
sites advertising 1TB hard drives by WD and Hitachi for $100 or less,
shipped. So If I wanted to add more than 1TB storage... I could, and it
would add very little to the cost of my planned build.

Optical drive - Dual Layer DVD +-RW is a given. These are less than thirty
bucks retail with software right now. Either one of us could upgrade to
blu-ray, but those are still kind of pricy.

Video card - I've considered the HD 4850. I've also considered the 4830 and
4670. I'm not sure which one I'll choose. Both the 4830 and 4670 are
newer, but slower than the 4850. I'm wondering which one will still be
readily available in about a year (exact same model, that is, not just a
card with the same chipset) when I want to add another in crossfire? Still,
as I stated earlier, I could upgrade to 2 X HD 4850 Crossfire right away (my
motherboard and power supply both support it) and still spend WAY less money
than that tigerdirect system costs.

Power supply - Here's the gotcha. I'm betting the power supply in the
tigerdirect system is crap. I already own my power supply for the new
build. I got a BFG ES-800 for $70 (after $40 rebate). Newegg had it on
sale for $110 recently, which is a steal. But they were also offering a $40
mail-in rebate. I don't usually do rebates. But I considered the price
BEFORE rebate very good anyway. I honestly believe the ES-800 is the best
power supply on the market right now, based on ALL reviews. A few follow.
Anyway, I very much doubt that the tigerdirect system has a good quality
power supply. Almost no pre-built system has a good quality power supply.
If you have a thousand or TWO thousand dollars worth of hardware, you really
don't want it running off an iffy quality power supply!
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ2NywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://www.guru3d.com/article/bfg-es-800-watt-psu-review/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...4768-bfg-es-800-800w-power-supply-review.html
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=542

Sound Card - I chose a Diamond XtremeSound 7.1 PCI. I mainly chose it just
because I wanted to try something different. Reviews on it are mixed. I
don't expect it to sound better than the built-in sound of the mainboard I
chose. (reviews state the ALC889a is pretty good!) But I'm old-school in
the sense that I think it's bad to use built-in sound, even if it has
improved greatly. I don't like Creative products... never have. I Usually
go with Turtle Beach something or other for sound. But I just felt like
trying the Diamond this time around. If I don't like it, I've got an old
Turtle Beach I could throw in.

Overall... the system I'm getting ready to build, even if I upgraded it to
crossfire 4850 and 1TB of storage and Vista Ultimate right away, would cost
me about $750 less SHIPPED price, than that tigerdirect system's SHIPPED
price. Comparing the systems side by side, the tigerdirect system would
probably be about 15% faster on most benchmarks, mainly due to the 3GB of
RAM running in triple channel mode.

Or to look at this another way...

I could go with a MSI X58 PLATINUM mainboard, an i7 920 processor, and 3 X
1GB of DDR3 1333 RAM, all from www.mwave.com. This would add about $300
EXTRA to my planned build cost, because I substituted more expensive
components . Assuming that I'd already upgraded to 1TB of storage, 2 X HD
4850 crossfire and Vista Ultimate, this is a shipped price of about $1500 or
less, for a system with all known good parts (including the power supply!).

If you are aiming for rather high-end, you should think about building your
own to save a little money. This is one of the few cases where building
your own you actually CAN save money. Usually, building your own is about
spending the same amount of money (compared to prebuilt) but ending up with
a better quality system. But at the high end, you actually can save some
money by building your own.

Only other thought I'd have on that tigerdirect system is warranty. I
wouldn't think about buying a higher-end pre-built system without a damned
good warranty...like 3 years FULL, minimum. A system with an iffy quality
power supply and a 1 year limited warranty? Sorry...but no way. -Dave
 
C

CJM

Paul said:
GTX280 $425 * 2 (Or a single 4870 X2 for $500 - see benches below)
Q9550 $320 (Overclock, as needed)
790i $300
750W $104
DDR3 $ 70 2x1GB DDR3-1333
OS $150
Case $ 50
---- ----
Total $1844

The extravagence of 2 x GTX280 yet only 2GB RAM??

I'd start at 4GB and consider more over time.
 
G

Guest

sillyputty said:
I'm in the market for a new gaming rig, my budget: around $2k. What do
you think of this system? Would the low-end i7 (920) out perform a
previous edition high end quad-core (ex. Q9650)? Btw, I called
tigerdirect and was told the mobo is SFX, HD is WD and RAM is OCZ.
Thx.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4302053

I've struggled with Vista long enough to realize it's a ****ing bloated disaster,
regardless of hardware. And 64-bit OS's and drivers are still immature. If I
were buying a new system now I'd stick with 2GB, running 32bit WinXP.
I'd assemble my own components and buy an actual OS on an actual CD.
This "recovery disk" nonsense is yet another MS disaster.
 
D

Dave

The extravagence of 2 x GTX280 yet only 2GB RAM??

I'd start at 4GB and consider more over time.

Ummmmm.... you can't go above 3GB unless you have a 64-bit OS, which would
be kind of stupid for gaming. At least, I doubt if many games have been
released in 64-bit versions yet. Have they? So 2GB is the proper amount.
Any more would run in single channel mode, or just not be recognized. -Dave
 
D

Dave

I've struggled with Vista long enough to realize it's a ****ing bloated
disaster,
regardless of hardware.

Ummmm...no. Simply not true.
And 64-bit OS's and drivers are still immature.

Could be correct. I haven't played around with 64-bit yet.
If I
were buying a new system now I'd stick with 2GB, running 32bit WinXP.

Buying a prebuilt system, that might limit your selection a bit. 32-bit
WinXP is certainly a valid choice if you are building a system though.
Should work fine for gaming.
I'd assemble my own components and buy an actual OS on an actual CD.
This "recovery disk" nonsense is yet another MS disaster.

That much I agree on. Recovery disks are useless as they "recover" your
hard drive to a state that is virtually unusable until you spend several
hours tweaking it (removing the bloatware and trialware crap and all the
other unwanted software to start with). It is actually faster to restore
your hard drive if you partition, format and install everything manually.
While I might consider buying a system with a restore disk, I'd only buy it
if I thought the price of the system PLUS the price of a real OS install
disk was a good deal. Because the first thing I'd do to that system is wipe
the hard drive. -Dave
 
G

Geek Dad

Ummmmm.... you can't go above 3GB unless you have a 64-bit OS, which would
be kind of stupid for gaming.  At least, I doubt if many games have been
released in 64-bit versions yet.  Have they?  So 2GB is the proper amount.
Any more would run in single channel mode, or just not be recognized.  -Dave

Nah 64-bit isn't stupid for gaming at all. PLENTY of people run 64-bit
just to game just to take advantage of being able to put all 4 gb's of
ram to use.
 
D

Dave

I'd start at 4GB and consider more over time.
Ummmmm.... you can't go above 3GB unless you have a 64-bit OS, which would
be kind of stupid for gaming. At least, I doubt if many games have been
released in 64-bit versions yet. Have they? So 2GB is the proper amount.
Any more would run in single channel mode, or just not be
recognized. -Dave
Nah 64-bit isn't stupid for gaming at all. PLENTY of people run 64-bit
just to game just to take advantage of being able to put all 4 gb's of
ram to use.

Well I guess if you are building new, it's pretty much a given that your
hardware will be 64-bit compatible. And if all your games run OK on a
64-bit OS, why not? :) -Dave
 
G

Guest

Dave said:
Ummmm...no. Simply not true.

Have you ever compared a system process list between XP and Vista?
It takes 3-3.5 hours to optimize a Vista installation. XP takes an hour.
Could be correct. I haven't played around with 64-bit yet.

Play around with it and get back to us.
 
D

Dave

Have you ever compared a system process list between XP and Vista?

Haven't felt the need to, no. I'd only dig that deep into an OS if I was
experiencing some kind of severe performance problem. Luckily, that doesn't
happen with systems I build. (knock on wood)
It takes 3-3.5 hours to optimize a Vista installation. XP takes an hour.

Define "optimize". My experience is, as soon as I had all the drivers and
software installed in Vista....

I ran msconfig and unchecked everything on the startup tab except for my
antivirus, acronis (backup software), weather watcher (blah, but it works)
and one Windows line (the sidebar, where I run a couple "gadgets") and
firewall. Took me about 30 seconds plus a reboot. This is the exact same
procedure I did for XP, other than the sidebar of course.

Afterward, I noticed that a fresh install of Vista loaded much faster from
the same hard drive (but a different logical drive) than a fresh install of
XP that was likewise streamlined by disabling just about everything in
startup.

If it takes you an hour or more to optimize Vista OR XP, you must have a
different definition of optimize than I do.

But this is my wife's system I'm writing about, the one that dual-boots XP
and Vista, and it is awesome running Vista. I can't imagine what else I'd
need to do to "optimize" it. If it aint broke...

People seem so determined to utterly DESTROY the reputation of Windows
Vista, and I just don't understand. I mean, I've run several linux distros
in the past, and still run puppy linux on one of my systems (awesome!), so I
do understand that there are alternatives to Microsoft operating systems.
GOOD ones. But so many people like to infer or state WITH ABSOLUTE
CERTAINTY sentiments along the lines of Vista is garbage compared to XP. In
the opinion of someone who has experience with dozens of operating systems,
including some that don't run on -personal- computers, Vista is definitely
an upgrade from XP. But that's NOT saying that XP is bad. Both are pretty
good, for Microsoft. -Dave
 
C

CJM

Dave said:
Ummmmm.... you can't go above 3GB unless you have a 64-bit OS, which would
be kind of stupid for gaming. At least, I doubt if many games have been
released in 64-bit versions yet. Have they? So 2GB is the proper amount.
Any more would run in single channel mode, or just not be
ecognized. -Dave

I've been gaming on XP x64 and then Vista x64 for 3 years. All x86 games
will run fine on x64 - there are zero compatibility issues.

What is more x64 *can* be slightly faster because there are extra registers
that even x86 software can take advantage of. And with 4GB and tri- or
quad-core, you can leave 2 (or more cores) and 2GB+ for gaming and at least
1 core and at least 1GB for background (OS) tasks.

Anyone buying or building a new gaming rig has to be insane not to go for
x64 and 4GB+.
 
M

Michael Pachta

CJM schrieb/wrote/escribió:
I've been gaming on XP x64 and then Vista x64 for 3 years. All x86 games
will run fine on x64 - there are zero compatibility issues.

What? Really? You almost never experienced any issues? Never? And what
about other x86 software (non-games)? Most of it runs under 64 bit
although it is 32 bit software?

If so I will also go for a 64 bit OS. I once tried a 64 bit Linux (3-4
years ago), but most of the proprietary software (e.g., Flash player)
didn't run on it.

M.
 
C

CJM

Dave said:
So 2GB is the proper amount. Any more would run in single channel mode, or
just not be recognized.

I think you are getting confused between dual channel and command rate.

2 x 1GB + 2 x 52MB will run in dual channel mode but in 2T command rate.
2 x 2GB will run in dual channel mode but in 1T command rate
2 x 1GB + and additional 1 x 1GB will run in single channel mode and in 2T
command rate.

If your mobo supports it (and most these day will do), matching pairs of
sticks will allow dual channel mode. Most mobo's can't manage 1T if more
than 1 matched pair (some can't manage it at all). In theory, you can run in
0T but I don't know if it is possible outside a lab. For all practical
purposes, you can discount it.

The effect of dual channel data transfers is quite considerable (as you
might imagine), but the effect of 1T vs 2T is debatable. There is a
difference in certain environments, but the difference is dwarfed by so many
other important factors.

So if the OP went for 2 x 2GB, he may achieve 1T command rates for a
possible marginal gain.

Furthermore, if he is going for a Core 2 chip, memory timings (CAS etc) are
of minimal benefit in comparison to raw memory bandwidth, so he should
choose faster RAM rather than tighter timings. If he is going for a AMD
solution, greater gain is to be had from tighter timings, but less gain from
faster RAM. I'm not entirely sure about i7 - I think it's somewhere in the
middle.
 
C

CJM

Michael Pachta said:
CJM schrieb/wrote/escribió:

What? Really? You almost never experienced any issues? Never? And what
about other x86 software (non-games)? Most of it runs under 64 bit
although it is 32 bit software?

If so I will also go for a 64 bit OS. I once tried a 64 bit Linux (3-4
years ago), but most of the proprietary software (e.g., Flash player)
didn't run on it.

People accuse me of being a troll or a fanboi when I claim that Vista x64
has been largely painless.

XP was problematic because certain really useful tools weren't x64 compliant
(CPUZ, Coretemp, SpeedFan) for a while. But |I've been running Vista x64
since November '06 and it has been a smooth experience. One problem of
note - as of March this year, Creative couldn't get my X-Fi gamer card
working fully, and they weren't inclined to be too bothered by it either.
Step in ASUS Xonar DX2 and I'm sorted.

I'm a professional developer by trade so I'm using a lot of involved,
demanding applications and a lot of specialist, niche software - and I have
had no problems at all.

There are various that still won't (and never will) run on Vista but that is
for both flavours of the OS. And there are older games that I couldn't run
in XP that still wont run on Vista but that is not an x86 vs x64 question
either.
 
D

Dave

So 2GB is the proper amount. Any more would run in single channel mode,
I think you are getting confused between dual channel and command rate.

2 x 1GB + 2 x 512MB will run in dual channel mode but in 2T command rate.

Yes, but in shopping for memory recently, I discovered (and I was shocked to
learn this) that some of the major players (like crucial, kingston) aren't
producing *512MB* sticks. Not at DDR2 1066 anyway. So how do you install
exactly 3GB? That would be 3 X 1GB... and unless you have a motherboard
that runs RAM in triple channel, then three sticks of RAM will be run in
SINGLE channel mode. -Dave
 
M

Michael Pachta

CJM schrieb/wrote/escribió:
People accuse me of being a troll or a fanboi when I claim that Vista
x64 has been largely painless.

Well, I do not have this impression. On the contrary, to me you appear
to be one of those few persons who know what they are talking about.
But I've been running
Vista x64 since November '06 and it has been a smooth experience.

Well, that sounds good!

So, thanks a lot for your expert insight. My doubts concerning the use
of Vista 64 are fading away. And with time 64 bit OSs will be the
systems of choice. The regular point-and-click-users won't feel any
difference anyway.

Michael
 
C

CJM

Well, I do not have this impression. On the contrary, to me you appear
to be one of those few persons who know what they are talking about.

Can I put you down for a reference? :)
And with time 64 bit OSs will be the
systems of choice. The regular point-and-click-users won't feel any
difference anyway.

The best endorsement I can give is that my Mum is running Vista x64. If
anybody is going to screw it up, it's her.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top