NEW RIG after 9 years

[$uCkY-p|aYeR]

Started out with:
Biostar Tforce 6100-939 socket
AMD Athlon 3500+ Single Core
Raptor Drive 10000RPM sata1
Geforce 8600GTS
1GB DDR/400mhz ram
1 Sata Dvd Burner
1 IDE DVD Burner
Windows XP Pro

This was built around end of 2001 beginning of 2002 hard drive and vid card was updated around 2 years ago. I actually bought from someone in this clan or the other one..Can't remember who tho..

Now finally after 9 years I am splurging and buying what I want.
Biostar AM3 AMD 790GX
Phenom II X4 965 3.4GHz
8GB DDR3 1333MHz
2 VelociRaptor 140GB 10000RPM sata2 (will be raid 0)
3 Sata DVD Burners(I copy alot of movies 3rd one is for light scribing titles while coping with the other 2)
GTX260 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 - taking chance on this one should run pretty good. I liked the specs but was toss up between GDDR3 and GDDR5..
Windows 7 Pro 64bit



Monday Can't come fast enough

[Zero Hour]

Such a bad call doing raid-0 on your drives. You will have no reliability as there are so many fault points. If you're going to buy two of them (they are 150gb, not 140gb anyway), just buy an ssd and it will crush those disks. I mean for $50 more you can get an X-25M 160GB :)

Second, that processor is a little weak especially since TF2 is mostly cpu bound. I'd spend a little more. Use this as a good performance guide http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=48&c=1

If it's too late, oh well, enjoy it!

[Freaky_Angelus]

the 965 can easily OC to 4 ghz stable without even changing the stock cooler, so that should be fine..

However.. Nvidia has been rebranding their OLD 9800 chips.. to GTX240 and GTX260.

I might suggest a huge update on those chips as well as the fact that the 4870 is equal if not faster than the 260, the 4890 is faster and runs with less heat/power and the 5xxx series is also out and pretty cheap..

If you want Nvidia.. wait till they (finally) release their GT300 chips...

Right now, ATI has the upper hand and the 5 series is pretty cheap as well.. The Vapor-X 5770 / 5850 / 5870 are with a excellent cooler imo the best choice right now (unless you won the lottery.. there is a 5970 around)

[Clone]

Suck a bad call doing raid-0 on your drives. You will have no reliability as there are so many fault points. If you're going to buy two of them (they are 150gb, not 140gb anyway), just buy an ssd and it will crush those disks. I mean for $50 more you can get an X-25M 160GB :)

Second, that processor is a little weak especially since TF2 is mostly cpu bound. I'd spend a little more. Use this as a good performance guide http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=48&c=1

If it's too late, oh well, enjoy it!

Intel sucks for gaming, they are not near efficient enough and waste power. As a gamer stick with the AMD; screw multi-tasking, be fiscal and use less power and save money on the Electricty bill.

Also don't get a Nivdia, get a ATI they're a lot better if your going to be playing movies because you can do HDMI and also they have higher quality. Unless of course you want to go 3D than stitck with the 260. However, with that said, being able to do Eyefinity set-up 2-4 different moniters with a 5000 series will be a lot more worthwhile than having zip by your face as you'l be able to see more than your enemies.

[Cosmic_Shame]

Intel sucks for gaming, they are not near efficient enough and waste power. As a gamer stick with the AMD; screw multi-tasking, be fiscal and use less power and save money on the Electricty bill.


i dissagree completely there. As for gameing wise i would get intel's chips cuz they are faster. Intel's new stuff is extremely fast and power efficient compared to their old Dual cores. All AMD processors that i have run a car that has had turds dumped into the engine

freaky will do the arguing for me when he sees this post, so i dont have 2 hahahahaha

[Zero Hour]

Intel bad for games? AMD has Intel beat in the value market, but intel has some fantastic processors. The top 6 processors for the link I provided were all intel, so I'm not sure how you could conclude they 'suck for gaming'.

[Cosmic_Shame]

ya according to that website zero posted my e8400 is only worse than 2 AMD processors, so im doin good hahahaha

[eddo]

Congrats on the new rig. Who cares what hardware it has.

I am positive the new rig will be so much better than the old one.

As long as you are happy with the new rig, then that is all that matters.

[Clone]

I disagree, Intel only gets higher benchmarks because they ARE more powerful, however they arn't near as effcient and lack when only doing one thing. It burns though energy that doesn't need to be used.

[Freaky_Angelus]

Well then a big doh! from over here..

Intel gets higher benches due to being more powerfull.. That is kinda what someone aimes for right? I agree that needless power being used is not great, but we are not building a spacestation with an energybudget (btw fun to do during a project.. you can't believe how hard the disagreement can get over a few Mhz vs a random arm component!)

Intel is rather good imo and the older Q and E series cores were insane to OC.. My Q6600 has been running 3.0Ghz for 2 years now and with a new mobo this summer to have better support for two PCIe 2.0 lanes, I'm gonna push it till either 70 celsius under load or 3.6Ghz (around there is the max) whichever comes first.

Now the 965 is like that.. cheap, fast and on stock cooler a 4.0Ghz is easy to maintain.

I would say a great buy.

Using the link: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=53&c=1 does make me smile.. knew I had a great cpu for the past 2 years, but :D that good?

[Clone]

Well then a big doh! from over here..

Intel gets higher benches due to being more powerfull.. That is kinda what someone aimes for right? I agree that needless power being used is not great, but we are not building a spacestation with an energybudget (btw fun to do during a project.. you can't believe how hard the disagreement can get over a few Mhz vs a random arm component!)

Intel is rather good imo and the older Q and E series cores were insane to OC.. My Q6600 has been running 3.0Ghz for 2 years now and with a new mobo this summer to have better support for two PCIe 2.0 lanes, I'm gonna push it till either 70 celsius under load or 3.6Ghz (around there is the max) whichever comes first.

Now the 965 is like that.. cheap, fast and on stock cooler a 4.0Ghz is easy to maintain.

I would say a great buy.

Using the link: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=53&c=1 does make me smile.. knew I had a great cpu for the past 2 years, but :D that good?



well sounds like we agree. Intel, although being more powerful, wastes energy so AMD is a better CPU. :bigsmile:

[Zero Hour]

Intel is rather good imo and the older Q and E series cores were insane to OC.. My Q6600 has been running 3.0Ghz for 2 years now and with a new mobo this summer to have better support for two PCIe 2.0 lanes, I'm gonna push it till either 70 celsius under load or 3.6Ghz (around there is the max) whichever comes first.

Now the 965 is like that.. cheap, fast and on stock cooler a 4.0Ghz is easy to maintain.

I would say a great buy.

Using the link: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=53&c=1 does make me smile.. knew I had a great cpu for the past 2 years, but :D that good?Same processor I have, and it's almost 3 years old!! Agreed, I run mine clocked at 3.0GHz, no vcore increase and I've never had a problem. I've had mine as high as 3.4GHz but it wasn't so stable, the temp wasn't that high but I've also got a Tuniq tower on it.

Sorry clone that's stupid. That's like saying that your ford focus is "better" than a formula 1 because it's more fuel efficient. We're going for performance here, not how many AAA batteries you can run your computer on.

Same goes to Eddo, hardware does matter... Now if he got it all for free, I wouldn't have a problem, but since you want the best performance per dollar it matters greatly.

[Snix]

sucky, u got a new rig but hows come u havent been online, time to send the wiffy to her parents for the weekend and get a good frag going!!!!

[Cosmic_Shame]

Sorry clone that's stupid. That's like saying that your ford focus is "better" than a formula 1 because it's more fuel efficient. We're going for performance here, not how many AAA batteries you can run your computer on.


hahaha that made me chuckle

[StarYoshi]

Intel CPUs are smaller and more efficient. AMD processors are not more energy efficient, you have it backward. The ONLY advantage to AMD is the price/performance value of the processors and platform. ONLY. The GTX 260 is solid but for $100 more you should get the Radeon HD 5850. DirectX 11 and fantastic performance for a long time.

Intel Chips also overclock further generally. Core i7 750/860/920 can all hit 4Ghz.
AMD Chips are GREAT value chips and many can unlock additional cores. My phenom II X2 550 unlocked and OC'd to 3.75Ghz Quad Core. My Sempron 140 unlocked and OC'd to 3.75Ghz Dual Core.

If you are only playing games and NOT running virtual machines or doing extensive programming, 8GB is NOT worth the current price premium over 4GB. Once prices normalize it will be but not until DDR3 gets under $80 for a good 4GB set.

[$uCkY-p|aYeR]

Snix working on it.. Got to get my desk downstairs where i set my computer up cause been watching movies online. They play smooth with new rig used to jerk alot.

As for as CPU I like AMD and as far as I could see on Newegg that was the fastest quad core I could get so can't get any faster. Yes the video card I was leary about. HD I aint looking for stability with raid 0. I was just going for some extra speed and have to say I am more then impressed with everything. I can copy a movie in about 7-15 minutes. Took almost 20-30 minutes before. Installing programs goes really fast. shoot I installed firefox and didn't even see the bar come up when copying files clicked next and finished showed up. I don't care about bench marks.

Now the only test I have is TF2 and not really a test. As long as I can get steady 120fps without dropping below that ever then I got perfect rig for me.
Which I will be very pissed if I don't... I doubt I will have a problem.

[mullet]

Intel CPUs are smaller and more efficient. AMD processors are not more energy efficient, you have it backward. The ONLY advantage to AMD is the price/performance value of the processors and platform. ONLY. The GTX 260 is solid but for $100 more you should get the Radeon HD 5850. DirectX 11 and fantastic performance for a long time.

Intel Chips also overclock further generally. Core i7 750/860/920 can all hit 4Ghz.
AMD Chips are GREAT value chips and many can unlock additional cores. My phenom II X2 550 unlocked and OC'd to 3.75Ghz Quad Core. My Sempron 140 unlocked and OC'd to 3.75Ghz Dual Core.

If you are only playing games and NOT running virtual machines or doing extensive programming, 8GB is NOT worth the current price premium over 4GB. Once prices normalize it will be but not until DDR3 gets under $80 for a good 4GB set.


Correct. Some of the assumptions in this thread are way off. $uCkY, I think you have a good PC there but I would look at a ATI card if you can swing it and just get 4GB of memory.

[$uCkY-p|aYeR]

Oh.. Yea I agree its been long time since i bought video card.. Back in the day Nvidia was the shit and after looking around I noticed that ATI is the way to go.. little to late now tho hahah.. But I will be looking at a different one if I am not happy with this one.

Yea 4gb would have been plenty.. I just said fuck it getting 2gb per slot.

[mullet]

Cool, I am sure you will be happy with it, big jump from what you had.

[stewlounse]

I agree, intel got the pwn on amd right now.

[Brains]

I've always chosen intel over amd, nvidia over ati....but right now nvidia isn't really the huge favorite since ati cards have such a huge bang for their buck. but intel over amd for sure. I'm still waiting for the gtx300 cards though (since switching to ati cards now would require a total system rebuild ahah)

[StarYoshi]

Yeah it will be a much nicer rig. I just had to say a few words of wisdom :D The GTX 260 is still w00t, I had one for a while :P

[Freaky_Angelus]

My mistake.. the 240 and 250 are full rebrands.. the 260 appears to be a new card..

Anywho: Why not to buy Nvidia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/NVIDIA-Plans-GeForce-GTS-240-and-GTS-250-for-CeBIT-2009-103713.shtml) as they rebrand their shit..

So.. what's the next cpu thread?

[Zero Hour]

For Clone...

Bamm!

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/pcs/2010/02/24/energy-efficient-hardware-investigated/1

[Clone]

For Clone...

Bamm!

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/pcs/2010/02/24/energy-efficient-hardware-investigated/1

AMD is still better though. Building a Intel may cause compatability issues when using an ATI graphics card. And since Nvida doesn't take time to make new graphics card for their Intel users, AMD is still better.

[Cosmic_Shame]

AMD is still better though. Building a Intel may cause compatability issues when using an ATI graphics card. And since Nvida doesn't take time to make new graphics card for their Intel users, AMD is still better.
dude where do u get this stuff. ATI has problems with every system with there drivers, they make bad drivers its not cuz of the CPU. all GPU's are compatible with every single system AMD or Intel,
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261956-28-video-cards-work-intel

i googled the answer and it told me u were wrong :)

[$uCkY-p|aYeR]

LOL... I don't know why it matters about Intel VS AMD I have watched people argue for years for either one and there always seems to be someone from each side that finds something that says one is better then the other. There is always a benchmark or something out there that will show this. I should do a search I bet I can find a benchmark comparison of 2 CPU's and one will say AMD is better and one says INTEL is better. I have always been an AMD fan even if they aren't up to par. I try never to argue that there better even if it is true. Cause people always stick to what they prefer.

I say lets leave the CPU to what a person prefers cause no one will ever win the fight.

Shoot mine has been running as smooth as I want. Getting the fps I want never drops now. I burned a movie with DVDfab. At the same time on the 3 dvd drive I was light scribing the movie name into the dvd and while all that was going I was watching netflix movie and ran perfect movie burned just as fast as if I wasn't doing anything on the computer.

I should say I wasn't burning a movie at the top it was decoding it or whatever before the burn.

[Clone]

dude where do u get this stuff. ATI has problems with every system with there drivers, they make bad drivers its not cuz of the CPU. all GPU's are compatible with every single system AMD or Intel,
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261956-28-video-cards-work-intel

i googled the answer and it told me u were wrong :)

no no no. you can get compatibility problems, they're unlikely but you're screwed if you do get them.

[Clone]

Sorry clone that's stupid. That's like saying that your ford focus is "better" than a formula 1 because it's more fuel efficient. We're going for performance here, not how many AAA batteries you can run your computer on.



what i said wasn't stupid. Why not get your money back just by using your computer?

[Clone]

Intel CPUs are smaller and more efficient. AMD processors are not more energy efficient, you have it backward. The ONLY advantage to AMD is the price/performance value of the processors and platform. ONLY. The GTX 260 is solid but for $100 more you should get the Radeon HD 5850. DirectX 11 and fantastic performance for a long time.

Intel Chips also overclock further generally. Core i7 750/860/920 can all hit 4Ghz.
AMD Chips are GREAT value chips and many can unlock additional cores. My phenom II X2 550 unlocked and OC'd to 3.75Ghz Quad Core. My Sempron 140 unlocked and OC'd to 3.75Ghz Dual Core.

If you are only playing games and NOT running virtual machines or doing extensive programming, 8GB is NOT worth the current price premium over 4GB. Once prices normalize it will be but not until DDR3 gets :smile:under $80 for a good 4GB set.

oh well okay, you have enlightened my mind.:smile:

[Homfry]

what i said wasn't stupid. Why not get your money back just by using your computer?

So if I make a COOOMPPTA it will generate money for me? So I can make it rain on the booty train?

better yet I'll just buy a solar power calculator instead so I can plug that shit into the grid and make mad benji's.

that arguement is terrible. Your computer will never "make" you money. the only thing you can compare are the relative costs associated with running both for a long period of time. When you do that you could see that one of them would cost you less money in the long term. However, as per my suggestion buying a 10 dollar solar powered calculator will have any computer beat in terms of long term cost. You need to make desicions based on what you are really looking to make a computer for along with taking into account all other relavent factors and not make some dumb decision based on some single arbitrary parameter.

ignoring the fact that what you said was incorrect, it still was stupid as zero hour and I described above.