[Romega]

Hello everyone!

I need some advice about what I should do with regards to picking out a processor for the new PC which I am going to buy within the next 3 weeks. So, here is the specificiations which I have put together for my new PC (Please note, these are the components which I am hoping to buy).

Intel Conroe Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66 Ghz
Asus Striker Extreme 680i
4x 1GB Ballistix Tracer DDR2-800 PC2-6400
2x 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA-II
XFX Geforce 8800GTX 768MB PCI-E
Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro

Additional hardware:-
Thermaltake VA9000SWA Kandalf PC case
Enermax Galaxy 1000W PSU
Zalman CNPS9700-LED Skt LGA775 heatsink

Software:-
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-Bit Edition

Now, my main problem is deciding on which processor to purchase, I am not sure which to buy, the Intel Conroe Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66 Ghz (Quad Core) processor or the Intel Conroe Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93 Ghz(Dual Core). I have read lots and lots of reviews about them both, however, I truely do not know which one to buy because they are both good processors and they both cost virtually almost the same amount of money (Quad Core costs £634.44 [$1,249.65 USD] and the Dual Core costs £622.69 [$1,226.51 USD]).

Please also note, that I will solely use this PC for gaming, working in Microsoft Office sometimes and other applications, listening to and burning music, watching DVDs and obviously surfing the Internet. Also, I shall not overclock this processor or anything else in this new system.

I have also read in the reviews, that the Quad Core is suprisingly slow for gaming, due to most of the games relying on a single core processor, and each core in this Quad Core is 2.66 GHZ, where as the X6800 would be better for gaming because it is 2.93 GHZ. However, for multi-tasking, the Quad Core is a champion. I have also read that the creators of Half-Life (Valve) and Microsoft shall be creating and reaslising Multi-Core supporting games in the future, so then Quad Core would come in very hand and would shine. So the way I see it, if I get Quad Core now, it is a future investment for me in the long run, but if I get the Dual Core, I will have to upgrade to Quad Core in the future. But what I really wanna know is whether it is worth me buying Quad Core right now for what I said I would use it for? Or should I get Dual Core and upgrade to a (possibly better) Quad Core processor in the future?

I would be greatful if someone could help me make a descision for me please!

Thank you :up:

 

[Compiler]

Youre statements and questions are quite good. Your concern is valid and YOU are aware of it...

And THAT is the trick... Future games will use more cores... but that'll be a while. But I think the 6800 can be overclocked more...

Here is a recommendation to save some $$ and get performance.

Refer to the chart below, the difference in performance between the X6800 and E6700 is tiny. And the E6700 cost HALF THE PRICE. Even the QX6700 is no faster than the E6700 because the both run at the SAME MHz.

The difference in performance between the X6800 and the E6700 is about 3~10fps (when the game is already playing about 60~200fps)
Do a little overclocking for a few more fps... but not much. You're already FAST.

CPU CHART:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=464&chart=166

Video chart:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&model1=529&model2=537&chart=213

The other thing is that a 1000watt PSU is NOT needed. I think this power issue is often caused by a lot of people buying junky 350~500watt PSUs which blow up rather than a GOOD solid PSU to begin with. But that's okay with the PSU industry - they get to charge extra for such power supplies. I have build servers with 350watt PFC that ran dual CPUs, dual network cards, 4HDs, 8 cooling fans... no problems.

A good enermax, Antec or other reputable 500~550watt PSU will handle your setup (and I am not sold on SLI - as 6-8 months later, something FASTER comes out that is faster than the SLI setup. IE: 7900GTX sli vs a single 8800gts

It'll save some money and help creating fake issues with good PSUs. read this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36066

That guy had 2x 8800GTX cards installed.

Then later, about a year when Quad cores are faster and cheaper and more games are USING it - then buy it.

 

[Romega]

Hmm thanks. However, lets consider the E6700 for a moment, true the clock speed on both counts are virtually the same, however, non the less one of the CPUs is dual core and the other is quad. More programs, whilst running a game, would benefit from utilizing the other 3 cores while one core is being utilized by a game. Would it not?

Also, judging from the performance charts which I have seen, for the Q6700 and X6800, they're both fast processors, X6800 is a tad faster than the Q6700, however I have been thinking... From the system which I will have:

Intel Conroe Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66 Ghz
Asus Striker Extreme 680i
4x 1GB Ballistix Tracer DDR2-800 PC2-6400
2x 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA-II
XFX Geforce 8800GTX 768MB PCI-E
Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro

Additional hardware:-
Thermaltake VA9000SWA Kandalf PC case
Enermax Galaxy 1000W PSU
Zalman CNPS9700-LED Skt LGA775 heatsink

Software:-
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-Bit Edition

I believe that the difference between the 2 processors would be insignificant, especially because I won't be overclocking the CPU or Graphics Card nor RAM. Also, I have taken to account the screen resolution in which every game would be set to, 1024 x 768. Now I have a 15" TFT monitor which has a refresh rate of 75 hz, and the maximum screen resolution on my monitor is 1024x768. From the chart which you linked me to before, if let's say for example, Quake 4 was running on a 32-bit processor at a screen resoloution of 1024x768, on a X6800 CPU, Quake 4 would run 187 fps, whereas the Q6700 would run Quake 4 at 182 fps. This shows that even though the Q6700 is slow, it's not extremely slow as lets say the E6400. The Q6700 is only 5 fps slower than the X6800.

Next I looked at the performance chart for F.E.A.R. Now on this chart, it did not show the fps for the Q6700, however because the Q6700 has the same speed as the E6700, I compared that speed to the X6800. The Q6700 runs F.E.A.R. on a speed of 133 fps on a 32-bit processor at a screen resoloution of 1024 x 768, and the X6800 runs F.E.A.R on a speed of 138 fps on the X6800 on a 32-bit processor at a screen resoloution of 1024 x 768. Again the Q6700 is only 5fps slower than the X6800, again, on a screen resoloution of 1024 X 768, I wouldn't really tell the difference.

I even looked at the multi-tasking performance chart comparison for the Q6700 and the X6800 and with all hands down, the Q6700 beats the X6800.

So overall, I believe for my system, and especially for my monitors maximum screen resolution of only 1024 x 768 @ 75 hz, the Q6700 Quad Core processor would be ideal for my new system because it is only slightly slower in its clock speed than the X6800, however, where the Q6700 lacks the speed, it makes up for by having 4 cores and an 8MB Cache size. The FSB is 1066, which is exactly the same as the X6800's FSB.

However, I would appreciate it if you could confirm my thoughts and see if I am right about these two processors. I'm still in between the two however, I'm starting to think that there isn't really much difference between the Q6700 and the X6800 except that one is Dual Core and the other is Quad Core. The price difference between the two is also insignificant as well, it's only a meer £12 [$27 USD] price difference between the two processors. True although NO program or game are as of yet multi-core compatible this present day, would it not be a good idea for me to get Quad Core right now as an investment for the future? I would really love to hear your opinions or suggestions which you have to give me about this subject.

 

[Romega]

Hello!

This is the system in which I am hoping to build and have operational within the next 3 weeks or so.

Main hardware:-
Intel Conroe Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66 Ghz
Asus Striker Extreme 680i
4x 1GB Ballistix Tracer DDR2-800 PC2-6400
2x 500GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA-II
XFX Geforce 8800GTX 768MB PCI-E
Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro

Additional hardware:-
Thermaltake VA9000SWA Kandalf PC case
Enermax Galaxy 1000W PSU
Zalman CNPS9700-LED Skt LGA775 heatsink
Sony AWG170A DVD-RW DL (Silver)
Sweex Internal Card Reader 53-in-1 USB 2.0
3½" Silver Floppy Drive
Aerocool Coolwatch-SV

Software:-
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-Bit Edition
Norton Anti-Virus 2007

Now I have been looking at some more additional hardware which I am interested in purchasing. Firstly, I need a new mouse. So I have been looking at the Logitech G7 laser wireless gaming mouse and the new Logitech MX Revolution Laser wireless mouse, and I was wondering, which one should I get? Personally, from what I have read in some reviews, the MX Revolution is slightly better than the G7 because the the MX's does not take AAA batteries, instead it uses a rechargable battery, however non the less the battery life is more or less virtually the same. The price of the G7 is £49.35 [$96.92 USD] and the MX is £57.52 [$112.97 USD]. There is only an £8 [$15 USD] difference between the two and personally, the MX looks more sexier than the G7 does.

Secondly, I have been looking around for some very good 7.1 surround sound speakers, and only two speakers have caught my eye, the Creative Inspire T7900 7.1 Speakers and the Creative GigaWorks S750 7.1 Surround Speaker system with Decoder. Now please note, I don't know really much about speakers, I only just learned a bit about sound cards just recently, however I really don't know much about speakers. So besides from the price difference (the T7900 is £66.39 [$130.39 USD] and the GigaWorks S750 is at a wallet shredding £264.83 [$520.15 USD]) does anyone know anything about these two speakers who could actually help me decide on which to get? I have already read reviews on these two speakers, and from what I could tell, the T7900 is rubbish in comparison to the GigaWorks S750, but is that true?

Also, my final question isn't really about a piece of hardware, it's about a piece of software. Now you have seen my new computer systems specs (at the top of this thread), do you think that Windows Vista Home Premium Edition 32-Bit would run on this machine? I personally do not doubt that it wouldn't run as smooth as butter, because from the reviews I have read, if anyone were to purchase a brand new PC right now, chances are that machine would be Vista compatible, plus I made sure that the components I am purchasing are Vista compatible.

But what my real big question is this, I was considering of buying Vista Home Premium as the main operating system for when my new system is completed. Now again, I have read lots of reviews about the final version of Vista (both 32 and 64 bit versions) and I have read that the 32 Bit version, should work fine on a rather new system and should run all of the applications and games which are out today (or older games such as Half Life), true as when XP was released I am expecting Vista to have a few minor bugs, but not major problems with compatibility issues and hardware issues, well from what I have read in the reviews which I have seen. Should I get Vista Home Premium 32-bit AND Windows Media Center and install Windows Media Center first as the main OS and then by using Partition Magic 8.0, partition my primary HD and reserve about 25 GB of NTFS space for Vista to install into and then have a dual bootable OS on my new system?

This is the Windows Vista review I read about its installation, compatibility, everything: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp

I would appreciate any suggestions which you can give me about which mouse to pick, which speakers to pick and what to do about Vista.

Thank you.

 

[Compiler]

Its a waste of $500USD.. as the difference between the is 5fps....

For that $500USD, you could purchase a Samsung or other high-end 20" LCD-Display with a DVI port to enhance the gaming experince. 1024x768 is low res.... why are you spending so much money for so much horse power that you're not going to use.

If you want to impress someone or get a better experince - get the bigger monitor that will give you 1600x1200 or 1440x1050 RES... not some dinky 15" LCD with only a VGA port.

My $150US GF7600 does quite well in 1600x1200 is most of my games.

So my answer is the same as before:

1 - E6700 (not the X6800 or QX6700)
2 - 550~600watt PSU
3 - 20~21" LCD Monitor with DVI cable (usually included)

You have selected a 1000watt $370USD PSU, while enermax, Antec or Thermaltake 600watt PSU for $100~130USD will easily power the system.

Future investment? That doesn't really happen with computers, much. When that Quadcore 6700 becomes usable for mainstream, it'll be about $400 and it'll be faster.

Look at it this way. There are people who blew $800~900 for SLI x2 6800Ultra cards, but when it I really had the need to upgrade my video card about a year after the release of the such video cards, I spend $175 for a high end 7600GT that is faster in most games.
How was their investment? An Investment is buying something that will make MORE money later. 6800GT/Ultra cards are worth about $100 nowadays on the performance scale.

You want to spend almost $800USD extra on parts that will not change the performance or visually look any different to anyone else. A 1000watt PSU looks no different than a 400watt PSU - unless it has 14K gold trim and other eye-candy stuff, but that could also be placed onto a 300watt $20 PSU.

If you want to invest... email me, I got ideas to spend money that can have returns.

 

[Compiler]

The other thing you need to NOT do is start 2 NEW threads about the same thing. Which is asking people to help you spend $3000~4000 on a toy.


Also, with such a detailed purchase - you need to hire a personal TECH shopper. I do build systems for millionaires which I charge a rates.

 

[Romega]

Ok, I have taken in what you have said and I'm gonna do that, because I have talked to alot of other people about this as well and also I have read that Intel are already designing/contemplating 8 Cores CPUs for 2008! So I agree with what you say, when Quad Core is BIG, I'll get a very good one, but until then, I'll get a dual core CPU. So in addition, here's the new items which I have found which you said should be adequet for my new system.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (Retail) £340.69 [$669.14]
Enermax Noisetaker II 600W ATX 12V V2.0 SLi Ready PSU £91.59 [$179.89 USD]

Do you know or think that this E6700 CPU is compatible with the ASUS Striker Extreme 680i motherboards chipset? And also do you think that the new PSU which I have chosen will do for the system?

To be honest now, I have been saving up money to buy a new PC now for ages, and just recently (and I have no idea why as of yet) my current old system died. So I decided with the release of Vista coming very soon now, why not build another system (I built the first one myself). Granted the current system I had wasn't THE best, and it was fairly old about 3 years or so, however I was hoping it would last me an extra year or so until I really needed to build another system.

As for the monitor, my birthday is approaching very soon and I was hoping that my parents could get me a 24" Samsung, dual DVI and a HD output monitor for my new system. I've mentioned it to them by passing, and so far, my chances look good. :up:

 

[Compiler]

1 - Of course its compatible... All Core2 CPUs are compatible. Only Quads become a question - but its usually a bios update.

2 - good on the CPU & PSU, I liked my noisetaker (stupid name) - its in my #2 system, er. When I upgrade, my current #1 becomes #2, and the old #2 gets SOLD and I use the money to help build the new #1. So my last upgrade was about $330 out of pocket.

I also like my Antec NEO power supply as its modular (Only plug in the cables you need) that is about $110 for 550watt. Thats up to you.

Understand about the monitor... Great monitor.

 

[Romega]

I have another issue now, and it's concerning the RAM for the new system, now I know pretty much the technical workings of RAM and what it does, what it can do, etc. However, I am only aware of the good RAM manufacturers such as Crucial, Kingston, Crosair, etc, however the RAM which I wish to purchase are 4x 1GB Ballistix Tracer DDR2-800 PC2-6400, and they cost a bomb all together £502.84 [$987.62], which to me personally is expensive, cos the rule and fact I live by is, RAM is cheap, and RAM gets cheaper everyday, so why is this so expensive?

Should I look for another 4GB of RAM for less somewhere else? Does it HAVE to be a good make such as Kingston, Crucial, etc? The reason I require 4GB of RAM is for two things: Vista and Gaming/Multi-tasking. That's it, cos in the review I read, Vista would require at least 1-2 GB of RAM to run smoothly. The other 2 GB of RAM would go towards Gaming/Multi-Tasking. The mobo which I am going to buy can at least support up to 8GB, but to me that's overkill.

Also with regards to the other thread which I posted about the mouse, speakers and Vista, please may I have your opinion on those items as well please. Thank you.

(PS.) Found that E6700 somewhere even more cheaper than I previously mentioned before

 

[Clumbsy_Mage]

You're spending over £2,000 on a new 64-bit system and then spending under £100 on a 32-bit operating system, why aren't you buying the 64-bit version of Vista Ultimate instead of buying the 32-bit Vista Home?

 

[Compiler]

DDR2-800Mhz is expensive. But read reviews on www.anandtech.com... should get 4gb for about $500~600USD. At least you're not buying an Apple PowerMac or Intel Xeon setup with SDR-RAM (Another intel nightmare) - that's about $1000 for 4GB and its SLOWER than DDR-II.

- Not impressed with vista. 2GB just to run would be another sign of bad product from M$. My XP setup eat about 300mb upon boot up, leaves me with 1.7GB for everything else. vista shouldn't eat more than 600~700mb with the fancy aero interface. Otherwise, WHaT does vista really offer the end user? What does it ACTUALLY do that is special that isn't done on Mac or Linux.... nothing.

mouse, speaker - you decide. feel and hear for yourself. vista - cheapest version I guess.

 

[Clumbsy_Mage]

Its main selling point is it offers DirectX 10, not that valuable now but when the DX10 games start coming out it will be. And it recognises and makes use of 4GB RAM as opposed to WinXP/2K/9x, negating your point about memory usage.

 

[Clumbsy_Mage]

I have another issue now, and it's concerning the RAM for the new system, now I know pretty much the technical workings of RAM and what it does, what it can do, etc. However, I am only aware of the good RAM manufacturers such as Crucial, Kingston, Crosair, etc, however the RAM which I wish to purchase are 4x 1GB Ballistix Tracer DDR2-800 PC2-6400, and they cost a bomb all together £502.84 [$987.62], which to me personally is expensive, cos the rule and fact I live by is, RAM is cheap, and RAM gets cheaper everyday, so why is this so expensive?

Should I look for another 4GB of RAM for less somewhere else? Does it HAVE to be a good make such as Kingston, Crucial, etc? The reason I require 4GB of RAM is for two things: Vista and Gaming/Multi-tasking. That's it, cos in the review I read, Vista would require at least 1-2 GB of RAM to run smoothly. The other 2 GB of RAM would go towards Gaming/Multi-Tasking. The mobo which I am going to buy can at least support up to 8GB, but to me that's overkill.

Also with regards to the other thread which I posted about the mouse, speakers and Vista, please may I have your opinion on those items as well please. Thank you.

(PS.) Found that E6700 somewhere even more cheaper than I previously mentioned before

After having actually read that, no, RAM is not cheap, it has been going up in price actually, and you're expected to pay upwards of £200 for a brand new 2GB matched pair of high calibre, ie a pair with tight timings (< 4-4-4-12) that operate at these timings on higher frequencies (> 400MHz) with the overclocking enthusiast in mind.

 

[schusterjo]

DDR2-800Mhz is expensive. But read reviews on www.anandtech.com... should get 4gb for about $500~600USD. At least you're not buying an Apple PowerMac or Intel Xeon setup with SDR-RAM (Another intel nightmare) - that's about $1000 for 4GB and its SLOWER than DDR-II.

- Not impressed with vista. 2GB just to run would be another sign of bad product from M$. My XP setup eat about 300mb upon boot up, leaves me with 1.7GB for everything else. vista shouldn't eat more than 600~700mb with the fancy aero interface. Otherwise, WHaT does vista really offer the end user? What does it ACTUALLY do that is special that isn't done on Mac or Linux.... nothing.

mouse, speaker - you decide. feel and hear for yourself. vista - cheapest version I guess.

A totally different interface and build. Why does Vista want so much memory to run at top performance? It runs the OS and the drivers totally separate now. drivers are like their own little OS's in Vista, This will allow for better speed and most of all increase viewing pleasure.
Another advantage to this is supposedly it is crash proof by doing this. If one has an issue the other is still up and going allowing the other to reset. (this is the part i would like to wait and see if it actually works) tested a few bata's. Anyways No you will not "need" huge amounts of ram to run Vista but over 1G is a good ideal,

Windows 3.1
something like
640k basic memory and 2 BM

Windows 95
Computer/Processor
486DX / 25 MHz or higher processor.

Memory
8 MB of memory; more memory improves performance.

Hard Disk
45 MB of free hard disk space, depending on your system configuration and the options you choose to install.

Windows 98
486DX 66 MHz or better processor (Pentium recommended)

• 16 megabytes (MB) of memory (24 MB recommended)

• 120 MB minimum of free hard-disk space (Note that typical installation requires approximately 195 MB of free hard-disk space, but may range between 120 MB to 295 MB, depending

Windows XP

Pentium 233 MHz or faster processor

128 MB RAM to 256 MB
1.5 GB hard disk space

Vista
1GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1GB of system memory
• Support for DirectX9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128MB of graphics memory (minimum) Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32bits per pixel
• 40GB of hard drive capacity with 15GB free space

As you can see every OS has needed more, whats the big surprise that Vista is going to need more? Hardware is getting faster why not add more?

 

[JohnWill]

ONE thread on a single issue, please do not carpet bomb the forum with multiple threads on the same topic. Continue here: http://forums.techguy.org/hardware/532430-my-pc-its-last-leg.html