Buying a new PC

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 19 Dec 2006, 08:09

haha

<---- noob;

anyways, whats the difference...

MOBO 1: (Socket AM2)GigaByte GA-M55SLI-S4 nForce4 SLI Chipset DDR2/800 SATA 16x PCI-Express MBoard w/GbLAN, IEEE1394, USB2.0, &7.1Audio

MOBO 2:(Socket AM2)MSI K9N Neo-F nForce 550 Chipset DDR2/800 SATA-II RAID 16x PCI-Express MBoard w/GbLAN, USB2.0, &7.1Audio

prince1142003 · Post by **prince1142003** » 19 Dec 2006, 08:22

Well MOBO 1 says it's SLI-enabled, meaning it has 2 16x PCI-E slots for dual graphics cards.

MOBO 2 has SATA II RAID which supports a higher data transfer speed (300 Mb/s compared to 150 Mb/s) and I think it also supports an additional RAID level.

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 19 Dec 2006, 08:47

so as long as i dont plan on 2 GFX cards then MOBO 2 is better for me, especially when its $20 cheeper. and i dont see IEEE1394 being useful anytime soon...

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 19 Dec 2006, 10:28

I've had much better luck w/ Gigabyte boards than MSI in terms of reliability, if that means anything to you ...

t3ice · Post by **t3ice** » 19 Dec 2006, 13:21

Gigabyte mobos are mre reliable and i think they're cheaper too...

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 20 Dec 2006, 17:46

i see, well i still have time to think about that one, but here is another setup from a different website similar to newegg, http://www.zipzoomfly.com, it has all free shipping.

DRIVES: Asus CB-5216AG DVD 16x + CD-RW 52x32x52 Combo Drive (Black) ***Free Shipping***

PROCESSOR: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 3800+ Socket AM2 (89W) Retail ***Free Shipping***

HDD: Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 160GB Serial ATA II 7200RPM Hard Drive w/8MB Buffer ***Free Shipping***

RAM: OCZ OCZ2G8001GK DDR2 PC2-6400 Gold GX XTC Dual Channel Memory Retail ***Free Shipping***

MOBO: MSI K9N4 ULTRA-F nForce 500 Ultra Socket AM2 2000MHz DDR2 - 1000 Retail ***Free Shipping***

PSU: Logisys PS550AC 550W Acrylic Power Supply w/PCI-Express & Dual Blue LED Fan Retail ***Free Shipping***

VIDEO CARD: BFG GeForce 7950 GT OC PCI Express 512MB GDDR3 Video Card w/DVI-I & HDTV Retail ***Free Shipping***

CASE: Thermaltake Soprano VB1000BWS Mid Tower Case (Black) w/Window Retail ***Free Shipping***

Subtotal: $819.94

**ALL FREE SHIPPING**

t3ice · Post by **t3ice** » 21 Dec 2006, 09:15

That looks alot better than the one before..except i think the core 2 duo processor is much better.

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 22 Dec 2006, 02:48

E6300 is a lot better but also a lot more money and the X2 3800+ isn't exactly a slouch when it comes to overclocking, which can make it a decent performer for the price (assuming your motherboard and memory can handle the extra GHz as well) ...

Abrams · Post by **Abrams** » 22 Dec 2006, 19:11

OCing only good when your trying to push processor speed, but dont forget that better processor like Conroe supports handfull of other optimizations and protocols apart from AMD specific like 3D Now.

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 23 Dec 2006, 21:01

haha no idea what you guys are talking about; please explain.

also, any other thoughts on the differences b/t the first and second setups i chose?

Abrams · Post by **Abrams** » 23 Dec 2006, 21:49

Ok, every new model or faster end processor doesnt only spot higher clock(Ghz) it also spots more protocols and optimizations done to it. For example a P4 overclocked from 2.0 to 3.0Ghz wont be as good as P4 Extreme Edition wich stock run as 3.0Ghz. Hard to explain really....

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 24 Dec 2006, 09:06

...Really?

All the difference I've been spotting is a larger cache and/or different core. AFAIK, clocking a X2 3800 to FX-62 speeds would mean it'd outperform it due to higher HTT frequencies and such, because of the lower multiplier.

Abrams · Post by **Abrams** » 24 Dec 2006, 14:42

the higher multiplier lets you OC more.

Your CPU clock is FSB x Multipier. For example on my Conroe FSB is 266Mhz, yes it says that its 1066Mhz but thats coming out when that 266Mhz getting quad wich results in 1066Mhz that is operating.

Now, my multiplier is 9.0x means 266 * 9 = 2394 = 2.4Ghz wich is my stock clock speed.

Now, if i overclock I increase the original FSB value to lets say from 266Mhz to 300 Mhz and i result in 300Mhz x 4 = 1200Mhz operational FSB(quad pumped), and my original FSB wich is now 300Mhz now multiplied by 9x wich is my CPU max multiplier and now its 2700 wich is 2.7Ghz clock, and so on up to 400Mhz of original FSB that would be 1600Mhz(400x4) operational one and 3.4Ghz(400x9) CPU clock.

Now lets say that wer overclocking FX-62 with higher multiplier and higher FSB against an X2 3800 wich has lower ones, we get same speeds but the FX-62 will be able to go even further while 3800 will already be on the redline of its potential. More of that, the better and new processor series like i said spot more protocol optimizations for data processing. Before Conroes hit market the Pentium 4`s and D`s i think were at kinda disadvantage sicne AMD`s supported stuff like SSE2 & SSE3 wich are very good improvements, now Conroes support those as well while spotting more overall performance potential. Thats where those 20-40% come from in fps and regular benchmarks.

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 24 Dec 2006, 14:53

A higher multiplier doesn't let you OC more, it only allows your PC to run at stock FSB speeds while your processor can run faster.

Unless your motherboard isn't able to take on the higher frequencies, a multiplier will not help in any way.

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 05 Mar 2007, 22:17

just bumping this topic back up for me.

i've been saving my money and still debating on my video card.

do you guys think i should wait for the 8600ULTRA to come out, which is supposed be around $180 with DX10, or should i put out now for a 7950GT?

BrontoX · Post by **BrontoX** » 05 Mar 2007, 22:25

Wait for the 8600Ultra cuz it has DX10 and get a 6200-7300 for now cuz they are cheap and have pretty good performance.

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 05 Mar 2007, 22:45

underoath285 wrote:just bumping this topic back up for me.

i've been saving my money and still debating on my video card.

do you guys think i should wait for the 8600ULTRA to come out, which is supposed be around $180 with DX10, or should i put out now for a 7950GT?

Well, how the 8600 Ultra performs is still unknown. It's coming this april. I don't DX10 will become mainstream this early either.

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 06 Mar 2007, 07:06

DX10 gaming won't be mainstream for at least another year ... Hell, it won't even exist for another 6 months ...

I wouldn't get a 7950 GT, though ... X1950 XT outperforms it GREATLY for a similar price ... and the 7900 GS costs quite a bit less and can overclock reliabily to 7950 GT performance ...

BrontoX · Post by **BrontoX** » 06 Mar 2007, 11:17

Yes but why buy a DX9 card and then when DX10 comes out buy another card it's better to be prepared (or in other words "Better safe then sorry)?

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 06 Mar 2007, 17:01

BrontoX wrote:Yes but why buy a DX9 card and then when DX10 comes out buy another card it's better to be prepared (or in other words "Better safe then sorry)?

Thats exactly what i was thinking. And if the surfaced specs for the 8600 ULTRA are accurate, then that is going to be better than the 7950 for alot less. Also, would it be be better to compromise my CPU for an 8800GTS? I was looking at the AMD X2 5000+ but if i go down to a 4600+ or something like that then i could probably afford an 8800GTS but i dont know if it would bottleneck.

BrontoX · Post by **BrontoX** » 06 Mar 2007, 17:42

I don't think it would but why not buy a Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 or E6600 (E6400=2.13Ghz ; E6600=2.4Ghz) the X2 4600+ is around 300$ and the E6400 is 250$ and the E6400 beats the X2 4600+ and the X2 5000+ and it's cheaper.
The E6600 is 340$ and it beats all AMD CPUs but it's a little more expensive.

PSZeTa · Post by **PSZeTa** » 06 Mar 2007, 17:59

BrontoX wrote:Yes but why buy a DX9 card and then when DX10 comes out buy another card it's better to be prepared (or in other words "Better safe then sorry)?

Because DX10 isn't here yet, and when it becomes mainstream, the 8600 could be somewhat outdated?

underoath285 wrote:Thats exactly what i was thinking. And if the surfaced specs for the 8600 ULTRA are accurate, then that is going to be better than the 7950 for alot less. Also, would it be be better to compromise my CPU for an 8800GTS? I was looking at the AMD X2 5000+ but if i go down to a 4600+ or something like that then i could probably afford an 8800GTS but i dont know if it would bottleneck.

Depends on what resolution you're playing on.. And where have you seen the specs? I've seen some of them, but the 8600 doesn't work on pixel pipelines anymore, making it hard to compare to the 7900GTX.

BrontoX wrote:I don't think it would but why not buy a Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 or E6600 (E6400=2.13Ghz ; E6600=2.4Ghz) the X2 4600+ is around 300$ and the E6400 is 250$ and the E6400 beats the X2 4600+ and the X2 5000+ and it's cheaper.
The E6600 is 340$ and it beats all AMD CPUs but it's a little more expensive.

Out of all you've just named, the X24600+ is the cheapest..

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 06 Mar 2007, 18:40

BrontoX wrote:I don't think it would but why not buy a Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 or E6600 (E6400=2.13Ghz ; E6600=2.4Ghz) the X2 4600+ is around 300$ and the E6400 is 250$ and the E6400 beats the X2 4600+ and the X2 5000+ and it's cheaper.
The E6600 is 340$ and it beats all AMD CPUs but it's a little more expensive.

I don't know where you are getting your prices, but:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... de=80727-9
And for PSZeta:

For the resolution, I'm guessing 1024x768 seeing as i have the standard 19" LCD. And I don't know too much about video cards and specs but from what i heard on other forums the 8600ULTRA is supposed to be a lot better than the 7900, but I/they could be wrong.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview ... erthread=y

EDIT: Also, if it helps, the set-up i'm going for...

_______________________________________________________________________

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 4600+ Socket AM2 (65W) Retail ***Free Shipping** $189.00

CASE: Thermaltake Dream Tower Series -Tsunami VA3000BNA Aluminum Mid Tower Case (Black) Retail ***Free Shipping*** $109.75

HDD: Western Digital Caviar SE WD1600JS 160GB Serial ATA II 7200RPM Hard Drive w/8MB Buffer and Serial ATA Signal Cable Bundle ***Free Shipping*** $68.00

MEMORY: OCZ OCZ2G8001GK 1GB Kit DDR2 PC2-6400 Gold GX XTC Dual Channel Memory Retail ***Free Shipping*** $99.90

MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte M51GM-S2G GeForce 6100 + nForce 430 Athlon 64(FX)(X2) SktAM2 DDR2 M-ATX Motherboard w/Audio, Gigabit LAN, Serial ATA Retail ***Free Shipping*** $82.99

POWER: Logisys PS550AC 550W Acrylic Power Supply w/PCI-Express & Dual Blue LED Fan Retail ***Free Shipping*** $49.99

OS: Microsoft Windows Vista HOME Premium 32-bit English Single-Pack DVD OEM ***Free Shipping*** $119.99

VIDEO CARD: EVGA 320-P2-N815-AR e-GeForce 8800 GTS Superclocked 320MB GDDR3 PCI-Express Retail ***Free Shipping*** $304.99

Subtotal: $1024.61

The Gravedigger · Post by **The Gravedigger** » 06 Mar 2007, 19:09

If you can only manage to get 1024*768 out of a 19" LCD monitor there is something drastically wrong....

Heck, it's either going to be 1280*1024 or 1440*900 (widescreen)

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 06 Mar 2007, 19:13

The Gravedigger wrote:If you can only manage to get 1024*768 out of a 19" LCD monitor there is something drastically wrong....

Heck, it's either going to be 1280*1024 or 1440*900 (widescreen)

I'm sure the problem is my video card now. With the ATI Radeon 9550 (probably the worst purchase of my life) the best i can get is 1024x768.