building a new computer

[gooberguy]

Hey all!

my computer is aging, its about 4 years old, and we all know that in tech years thats a lifetime and some. so im looking to build a new pc, but i have not been reading about tech like i use to, and often get confused with dual core quad core and all this, what should i be looking to buy? a few of my current parts should be reusable, correct me im wrong. what i plan on re-using is my sata hd my 2 ide cd/dvd burners, power supply and my 8600gt pci-express x 16. so what should i be looking into getting with a ~500 dollars budget? i do some light gaming now, use to be a avid wow player but just have been playing sims lately haha i do a lot of audio/video editing if that helps.

this may sound like a GIVE ME WHAT TO BUY SO I CAN BUY IT post, but i assure you it is not, i want to get some conversation going on new technology and what should be considered when making a purchase. also a side note, i plan on buying newegg, they never have done me wrong.

thanks!

[MOVIEGEEK]

I think Moores Law is dying,we are witnessing the limit of CPU technology.
I would spend the money on more RAM and a faster videocard,everything else in your arsenal looks good.

[gooberguy]

i don't know, i feel like my single core athlon 64 3500+, and 2gb of ddr pc3200 ram is not cutting it anymore.

[ocgw]

My advice will probably be to go to www.newegg.com and get a "5 egg" mobo that no one has had problems w/ after being bought and reviewed by over a hundred ppl that will take a newer budget quad core cpu, and inexpensive but quality DDR2 ram for starters

I use a Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD4P mobo, "5-eggs", supports the AMD Phenom II X4 cpu, up 16GB of DDR2 1066 ram, and 8 sata ports for $110USD

ocgw

peace

[gooberguy]

ocgw, that is good advice, as i have done it before, but it seems like i have always been buying the best rated gear (i know they are best rated for a reason) but this time i would like to learn a little bit more about pc tech before just buying things that are well rated and i think will work together

[ocgw]

ocgw, that is good advice, as i have done it before, but it seems like i have always been buying the best rated gear (i know they are best rated for a reason) but this time i would like to learn a little bit more about pc tech before just buying things that are well rated and i think will work together

thx gooberguy, I know if a hundred mostly "newbies" have not had a problem, complaint, or DOA w/ a mobo, I have a decent chance of being happy w/ it myself lol

mobo = most important part of the system

in my most humble of opinions

ocgw

peace

[Braindrain]

If you're a heavy gamer, I agree with your reused parts.

Can you also reuse your case? If it was a good one, probably makes sense. I'm assuming you're keeping all your other peripherals (LCD, keyboard, mouse, etc).

If everything above rings true, then all you're looking for is a mobo, RAM, and CPU. For ~$500, you could get a very decent mobo, high spec'd quad core (AMD or Intel, but probably not the i7), 2/4 GB of RAM, and 2 - 1TB HDD's (for video editing). Wouldn't recommend 8GB unless you're running Vista 64.

[budz]

Here's a Intel suggestion that's under $500.00

Intel E8400 C2D cpu, $164.99, FREE SHIPPING
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

Gigabyte EP45-UD3R motherboard, $119.99 ($104.99 after $15.00 MIR) FREE SHIPPING
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128359

Evga Nvidia 9500GT, 1gb pci-express video card, $69.99 ($54.99 after $15.00 MIR) FREE SHIPPING
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130395

GSkill PI Black 4gb DDR2-800 Ram, $59.99 FREE SHIPPING
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231209

Subtotal $414.96
NO SHIPPING CHARGES
Total $414.96


You could probably use a better video card since you game or get a new power supply. Add $50.00 for a Intel Q9400 cpu. Just my 2 cents!

[gooberguy]

budz, the cpu you listed is dual core, with evolving technology, shouldnt i be looking into getting a quad core?

also with memory, whats the standard nowadays? w

[budz]

budz, the cpu you listed is dual core, with evolving technology, shouldnt i be looking into getting a quad core?

also with memory, whats the standard nowadays? w

If you're heavy into gaming it's suggested to get a core 2 duo E8400, E8500 or E8600. If you're going to do lots of multi-tasking like photoshop & video encoding then get a Intel quad core cpu. If you can afford a Intel Q9550 that would be ideal to purchase or get a Q9400. The Gigabyte motherboard I linked is one of the best motherboards at the moment. The Gigabyte EP45-UD3P is the big brother to the UD3R. Difference is if you're into gaming the UD3P is able to do crossfire and the UD3P is not. Also these motherboards can overclock very well. I have my Q9550 overclocked to 3.60ghz using the UD3P.

You may want to invest in a aftermarket cpu cooler as well since the stock Intel one is crappy. It uses push-pins to secure it to the mobo. So depending on how big your computer case is will determine what aftermarket cpu cooler to use. My personal favorite is the CM Hyper 212 and CM GeminII S. Most of popular cpu coolers are very LARGE so your computer case dimensions is very important.

The xigmatek 1283 & xigmatekv dark knight, Thermalright TRUE & Prolimatech Megahalem are the favorites that people use. Supposedly the Prolimatech Megahalem beat out the TRUE. Anyway these are the most popular ones that people use. If you're getting a Quad & you use the cpu cooler like the xigmatek's you'll have to apply the thermal paste on the cpu and on the cpu cooler as well. The cpu coolers with heatpipes have to have it applied as well as on the cpu itself.

http://www.frostytech.com/top5heatsinks.cfm

http://www.frostytech.com/articlesearch.cfm?SearchValue=&Search=Search&Category=198&Ca...ch=Get+Listing

Xigmatek 1283,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233003

Xigmatek 1283V Dark knight,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233029

Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme Heatpipe
http://www.petrastechshop.com/thulhecpucos.html

CM GeminII S,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103046

CM HYPER 212,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103040

For ram that GSKill PI Black is good ram for overclocking. I've been using GSKill DDR2-800, DDR2-1000 and Mushkin DDR2-1066 ram for my own computers and for ones that I build for others.

[DarrellS]

The link for the Coolermaster Hyper 212 is wrong.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103040

It's a good heatsink and fan. I've had mine for over a year and haven't had any overheating problems living in the Arizona desert. I'm running 34*C right now according to CPUID Hardware Monitor. It's 82*F in my computer room.

[budz]

The link for the Coolermaster Hyper 212 is wrong.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103040

It's a good heatsink and fan. I've had mine for over a year and haven't had any overheating problems living in the Arizona desert. I'm running 34*C right now according to CPUID Hardware Monitor. It's 82*F in my computer room.

The links were just opposite of each other. It's fixed now.

I have my CM Hyper 212 with the push/pull configuration. It keeps my Q9550 and E8400 cool!

[lordsmurf]

My experience is a dual-core encodes faster than a quad core. It all comes down to the single cores being faster -- the pieces are indeed more important than the whole.

[budz]

My experience is a dual-core encodes faster than a quad core. It all comes down to the single cores being faster -- the pieces are indeed more important than the whole.

I beg to differ with you LS. My Q9550 encodes much faster than my E8400 cpu. Both motherboards are Gigabyte's. I don't do any BD encoding just DVD REBUILDER PRO.

[ocgw]

My experience is a dual-core encodes faster than a quad core. It all comes down to the single cores being faster -- the pieces are indeed more important than the whole.

That may be true when a encoding program can't use all 4 cores, but how many encoding programs are limited to 2 core now? Not many I would imagine

BD Rebuilder can use all 8 cores physical cores, & all 8 hyperthreading cores (total of 16 threads) of a dual quad Xeon PC now if if you drop in the latest x264 encoder and encode 2 blu ray movies simutaneously

ocgw

peace

[rallynavvie]

mobo = most important part of the system

I don't agree with that. The motherboard may be the second most important part of the system but the PSU will always be the most important part. The PSU powers everything in your case and if it goes out, especially if it goes out catastrophically, it will take every one of those components with it. You need to make sure you have a quality, not necessarily higher wattage rating, power supply that can handle your system more than anything else in that case.

Which leads me to my next question: what PSU are your re-using for the new rig? Though I've had good luck with some of my PSUs going on 6 years old I feel I am taking a risk letting them go that long. Two are Antec and two are PC Power & Cooling, one of the latter being the 6 year old PSU (driving almost non-stop 24/7 for that period).

Also despite the availability of cheap memory and the omnipresence of x64 versions of Windows I still don't recommend getting more than 4GB of memory. The new Intel i7 chips may help address more memory otherwise more memory can actually slow you down since Windows has to address all of it whether you use it or not.

Quad-core is only going to be noticeably faster with multi-threaded applications. Otherwise for most other applications (and I do mean most) the money is better spent on a faster clock dual-core. Lately I've just been watching the CPU meter in my main workstation's sidebar just alternate duty between all 8 cores. And some encoders are only using up to 4 cores anyway, I guess they figured nobody with more than 4 would be using their consumer-grade rubbish encoders anyway

Video card really depends on use case. If you're a gamer or use the system for CAD/3D work then you'll need to spend more money. If you just need HD video playback and multiple display support almost any of the current generation of entry-level cards will do (like a GeForce 9400 for instance).

[lordsmurf]

but how many encoding programs are limited to 2 core now? Not many I would imagine

Most professional software, such as Adobe.

Some of us use our systems for more than copying DVDs or creating Youtube vids with $30-ware/freeware.
And even with more cores, the quality of much of that software is substandard.

[ocgw]

but how many encoding programs are limited to 2 core now? Not many I would imagine

Most professional software, such as Adobe.

Some of us use our systems for more than copying DVDs or creating Youtube vids with $30-ware/freeware.
And even with more cores, the quality of much of that software is substandard.

You can utilize all your cores by running more instances

ps. I have Adobe Premier, Adobe CS4, Avid Liquid Pro, etc, and you are right, I prefer some cheaper programs, and freeware, does that make me a bad man? lol, I only shoot a few weddings as a hobby, my day job is automotive engineering

My goal is to shoot better photos and videos and do less editing, "w/ editing less is more"

I also prefer Lightroom to Photoshop lol

ocgw

peace

[ocgw]

mobo = most important part of the system

I don't agree with that. The motherboard may be the second most important part of the system but the PSU will always be the most important part. The PSU powers everything in your case and if it goes out, especially if it goes out catastrophically, it will take every one of those components with it. You need to make sure you have a quality, not necessarily higher wattage rating, power supply that can handle your system more than anything else in that case.

Which leads me to my next question: what PSU are your re-using for the new rig? Though I've had good luck with some of my PSUs going on 6 years old I feel I am taking a risk letting them go that long. Two are Antec and two are PC Power & Cooling, one of the latter being the 6 year old PSU (driving almost non-stop 24/7 for that period).

Also despite the availability of cheap memory and the omnipresence of x64 versions of Windows I still don't recommend getting more than 4GB of memory. The new Intel i7 chips may help address more memory otherwise more memory can actually slow you down since Windows has to address all of it whether you use it or not.

Quad-core is only going to be noticeably faster with multi-threaded applications. Otherwise for most other applications (and I do mean most) the money is better spent on a faster clock dual-core. Lately I've just been watching the CPU meter in my main workstation's sidebar just alternate duty between all 8 cores. And some encoders are only using up to 4 cores anyway, I guess they figured nobody with more than 4 would be using their consumer-grade rubbish encoders anyway

Video card really depends on use case. If you're a gamer or use the system for CAD/3D work then you'll need to spend more money. If you just need HD video playback and multiple display support almost any of the current generation of entry-level cards will do (like a GeForce 9400 for instance).

You need an i7 to address more than 4GB of memory?, please

I am running 8GB of DDR2 1066 on my AMD Phenom II like a dream

ocgw

peace

[rallynavvie]

You need an i7 to address more than 4GB of memory?, please

I am running 8GB of DDR2 1066 on my AMD Phenom II like a dream

The i7 platform may help address that extra memory because the MCH is on die instead of separate. I didn't say you can't run more than 4GB on anything else, just that the different architecture would help. The days where "more memory = more performance" have gone. Too much memory means Windows has to address all that unused memory for nothing. More is not always better. If you actually require more than 4GB on a regular interval then it might be worth it, but it's not such a simple task as that. Also keep in mind that as you increase the addressing load on your MCH and OS that the chance for errors is more likely. There is a reason server/workstation systems that support large amounts of memory usually require it to be ECC.

FWIW I run 32GB on my cruddy little 5410s only because I am generally running tests and development on 3-8 VMs at once which each use 2-4GB. I have yet to see any performance increases within any of my Adobe apps due to the copious amount of memory.

[ocgw]

You need an i7 to address more than 4GB of memory?, please

I am running 8GB of DDR2 1066 on my AMD Phenom II like a dream

The i7 platform may help address that extra memory because the MCH is on die instead of separate. I didn't say you can't run more than 4GB on anything else, just that the different architecture would help. The days where "more memory = more performance" have gone. Too much memory means Windows has to address all that unused memory for nothing. More is not always better. If you actually require more than 4GB on a regular interval then it might be worth it, but it's not such a simple task as that. Also keep in mind that as you increase the addressing load on your MCH and OS that the chance for errors is more likely. There is a reason server/workstation systems that support large amounts of memory usually require it to be ECC.

FWIW I run 32GB on my cruddy little 5410s only because I am generally running tests and development on 3-8 VMs at once which each use 2-4GB. I have yet to see any performance increases within any of my Adobe apps due to the copious amount of memory.

Your exact words were,"The new Intel i7 chips may help address more memory otherwise more memory can actually slow you down"

I benchmark my system and see no performance decrease from using 8GB of ram w/ my Phenom II rather than 4, so all that nonsense about needing an Intel solution to use more than 4GB of ram "or it will slow you down" is just technobabble (pure rubish)

As a matter of fact I get 12.5GB/s bandwith w/ DDR2 1066 on my AMD based system as reported by Sandra whether I am using 4GB of ram or 8GB of ram which is almost equivilant to DDR3 1333 on a Intel system, I had to upgrade mobo's to run 8GB of ram, and ran on 4GB of the same ram (2GB OCZ DDR2 1066 Platinum sticks) for months so I know my benchmarks are the same bandwith w/ double the capacity

You thought I was guessing?

I am not here to promote AMD, but when you Intel "fans" just start "makin' chit up" I got to speak up

ocgw

peace

[ocgw]

double post

[rallynavvie]

so all that nonsense about needing an Intel solution to use more than 4GB of ram is just technobabble (pure rubish)

Well I'm not sure who said you needed an Intel solution for that but it wasn't me

I think we've all pegged you for an AMD fanboy since almost every post mentions your CPU. There's nothing wrong with AMD, I was an AMD user back when there were P3 Xeons. We are glad to have your AMD enthusiasm on the forums here but please supply a little more information to support yourself instead of simply "my system runs awesome with this". The benchmarks you have provided above is just such information

[ocgw]

so all that nonsense about needing an Intel solution to use more than 4GB of ram is just technobabble (pure rubish)

Well I'm not sure who said you needed an Intel solution for that but it wasn't me

I think we've all pegged you for an AMD fanboy since almost every post mentions your CPU. There's nothing wrong with AMD, I was an AMD user back when there were P3 Xeons. We are glad to have your AMD enthusiasm on the forums here but please supply a little more information to support yourself instead of simply "my system runs awesome with this". The benchmarks you have provided above is just such information

I will jog your memory rallynavvie, but it is "all good" homey

Your exact words were,"The new Intel i7 chips may help address more memory otherwise more memory can actually slow you down"

I am a more than happy AMD user, but not necessarily a fanboy, I will buy what ever is the best for the money @ the time of purchase, had an equivilant Intel cpu been "on sale" for the right price the day I bought my Phenom II X4 940 we woundn't even be having this conversation lol

note: My advice to the OP was to get a "5 egg mobo, a budget quad, & lesser expensive DDR2", that's it, then I told what mobo I was using as an example, I just pointed him in the right direction, but I left it up to him to make up his own mind

Now I have seen SYSTEMS run slower w/ more memory, but it is not because of the memory, it is because of the mobo's power supply not being able to handle the load

cpu's and memory used to run off the 3.3v rail of the ps, but now that the transistors have got so small, amd run off such low voltages the mobo has to convert power from the 12v rail for the cpu and memory to use

For instance my old mobo which was spec'd to run 8GB of ram and up to DDR2 1066 would run 4GB of DDR2 1066 @ DDR2 1066, but would only run 8GB of DDR2 1066 @ DDR2 800

But my new mobo which is spec'd to run up to DDR2 1333, and up to 16GB of ram runs my whole 8GB of DDR2 1066 (same exact memory) @ DDR2 1066 100% stable @ LESS than spec voltage (2.0v rather than 2.2v)

The key limiting factor in my experience is not windows addressing the memory, or where the memory controller resides, but the mobo's OB ps being able to power the memory, since system memory and cpu's no longer are powered directly by the main psu

btw I got this insight on a project in computer hardware class which led me to call Gigabyte on the phone to find out exactly why I could not run my 4 identical 2GB sticks of memory @ their rated speeds @ rated v

I initially bought my new mobo for my backup rig, but seeing it was spec'd for 16GB I knew it was too good for the backup rig, having faith that the old main pc mobo's OB psu was the "bottleneck" I changed the new mobo into the main pc, and the main pc mobo into the backup pc, it was a lot of work, but it proved Gigabyte techs right, and I am super happy

ocgw-HTPC fanboi & blu ray whore lol

peace

[rallynavvie]

There is a bit of difference between "may help" and "needed" for more memory was my point. I never said an i7 was required or needed for exceeding 4GB, just that the architecture might help performance. However that could just as easily be attributed to the fact they run DDR3. I won't bother learn much more about Nehalem architecture until it comes to the retail Xeons but I understand the architecture changes.

I would hope voltages are not making much difference in memory performance. If there are any voltage fluctuations beyond a few percent then you're risking errors or failure in your memory. Part of the reason for registers is to allow more DIMM slots by taking some of the load off the memory controller and putting it on the stick. That's why my FB-DIMMs run so ridiculously hot, and also the reason they don't perform as well as workstation DDR2/DDR3 (the buffer slows it by a cycle). That is one of the reasons you only see 4 DIMMs on desktop systems. Despite where the power is relayed from it needs to be properly regulated by the VDIMM in to keep it within the memory spec. That requires a good PSU and a quality board (or at least quality components on that board).

BTW I don't just make this stuff up, I do have a lot of history with multi-threading and gross amounts of memory

[ocgw]

There is a bit of difference between "may help" and "needed" for more memory was my point. I never said an i7 was required or needed for exceeding 4GB, just that the architecture might help performance. However that could just as easily be attributed to the fact they run DDR3. I won't bother learn much more about Nehalem architecture until it comes to the retail Xeons but I understand the architecture changes.

I would hope voltages are not making much difference in memory performance. If there are any voltage fluctuations beyond a few percent then you're risking errors or failure in your memory. Part of the reason for registers is to allow more DIMM slots by taking some of the load off the memory controller and putting it on the stick. That's why my FB-DIMMs run so ridiculously hot, and also the reason they don't perform as well as workstation DDR2/DDR3 (the buffer slows it by a cycle). That is one of the reasons you only see 4 DIMMs on desktop systems. Despite where the power is relayed from it needs to be properly regulated by the VDIMM in to keep it within the memory spec. That requires a good PSU and a quality board (or at least quality components on that board).

BTW I don't just make this stuff up, I do have a lot of history with multi-threading and gross amounts of memory

sorry bro' I know you are not just "makin' chit up", maybe exagerating a lil', (or making a valid point but have come to the wrong conclusion as to the root cause) but not just "makin' chit up" LOL, too much memory can slow a mobo down if the mobo is "over spec'd" in the first place I suppose

but like I said, I "got to the bottom" of why memory is limited in some consumer mobo's w/ non-ECC ram, the new gigabyte "2 ounce" mobo's over come these limitation whether they are AMD, or Intel w/ a heavy 8+2 phase power supply, and extra heavyy power and ground traces

In the past I planned on buying a dual socket server board, but got side tracked, and never got around to it, I am glad that consumer mobo's have come along way now tho' because like I am explaining, there is no longer a penalty for running 8GB of ram on a consumer mobo, I do wonder however if my mobo would meet it's spec of running 16GB of ram, but I will probably never find out as I know I am not using the 8GB I already have lol

ocgw

peace

[lordsmurf]

You can utilize all your cores by running more instances

Yes, sure -- but the per-core speed is lower than the dual-core per-core speed, so it's still slower than having two dual-cores on a KVM. In some cases, it's even slower than a 5-year-old single core! The idea that quad cores are "faster" is proving itself to be bullshit. The software simply is not there. A high-end dual-core is a much better performer!

[rallynavvie]

Do you mean comparing clock-for-clock between dual and quad? A 3.0 GHz C2Q is going to have almost double the pure processing power as a 3.0 GHz C2D when using a fully multi-threaded app, but not exactly double. I run into memory buffer or HDD I/O issues with MainConcept using all 8 cores so it isn't as much the processors as the rest of the platform. I would guess roughly 15% diminishing returns per core added for performance, but that's just an estimate.

If you're comparing performance to dollars spent than the C2D is probably going to be champion. And as I said before most apps are not multi-threaded and are going to benefit from the faster clock rather than 4 cores.

[ocgw]

You can utilize all your cores by running more instances

Yes, sure -- but the per-core speed is lower than the dual-core per-core speed, so it's still slower than having two dual-cores on a KVM. In some cases, it's even slower than a 5-year-old single core! The idea that quad cores are "faster" is proving itself to be bullshit. The software simply is not there. A high-end dual-core is a much better performer!

Well sure (2) dual cores are gonna' beat 1 quad core, that only makes sense, but I really doubt any 5-year-old single core cpu is gonna' beat my quad

I have heard guys argue that a fast dual core is better for games than a slower clock speed quad-core, but never heard that a dual core was better for encoding

More often than not I am encoding w/ BD Rebuilder, my 4-year-old 6000+ was taking 2 days to encode a movie, my new quad is doing it in 3-5hrs

I have never heard of anyone having a fast time w/ a dual core cpu w/ BD Rebuilder, it would be "interesting" to see someone do this

Sounds like you are the man for the job

"Opum, job opportunity" (quote from the movie Saving Pvt. Ryan) lol

ocgw

peace

[mrswla]

I have never heard of anyone having a fast time w/ a dual core cpu w/ BD Rebuilder, it would be "interesting" to see someone do this

ocgw

peace

I second this. I have a dual core 3.0 ghz intel that takes a minimum of 24 hours to encode. But most average around 36 hours.