Opinions on these components for my new Gaming PC...

[retroborg]

Hello,
I'm going to buy some pc components to build a new rig and I'm thinking about getting the following:

INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6600 2.40 GHZ LGA775 - 1066 FSB
RAM DDR2 KINGSTON KHX6400D2/1G HYPERX 1GB PC6400 800MHZ, Timings: 5-5-5-15
ASUS P5B P965 / ICH8 Intel chipset
ASUS EN7950GT/HTDP 512MB PCI-E

This PC is mainly aimed for 2D/3D gaming (2D Emulators, Doom3, Quake4, HL2,Prey, new upcoming 3D games, etc..) and I'm not going to intall more than one GPU in SLI mode or what ever, so I choose the cheaper P965 Intel Chipset M/B, rather than the more expensive 975X ASUS boards.
Also I might use this M/B to upgrade to a Quad Core CPU, later on when they become affordable.

1. Instead of the INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6600 2.40, would it be wiser to get INTEL CORE 2 DUO E6400 2.13 GHZ LGA775, based on performance/price ratio?

2. Is it worth spending the extra money and getting a 975x ASUS M/B instead of the P965 / ICH8, in terms of overall performance based on my needs?

3. I have not deciced whether I should get the more expensive ASUS EN7950GT/HTDP 512MB PCI-E GPU, or get the cheaper:
ASUS EN7900GS TOP/2DHT 256MB PCI-E, which comes factory overclocked:
Engine Clock: 590 MHz.
Memory Clock: 1.44GHz (720MHz DDR3)

That's higher than the stock 7950GT specs & in some benchmarks it even scores close to the 7950GT performance!
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2086&cid=3&pg=1

4. Should I get the 1GB PC6400 DDR2 800MHZ Kingston Ram, or just get a cheaper 1GB 667MHZ DDR2 Twinmos RAM, CAS Latency: 5?
Will the 800MHZ grant me a greater difference in performance over the 667MHZ RAM, to justify the higher cost?

Any opinions will be highly appreciated
Thanks in advance.

[Krispy Kritter]

Without specifically answering your questions, here is what I suggest. Unless you have money to burn and frequently upgrade, don't base any current buying decisions on what you "may" do in the future. Computer technology changes too fast. It has been my experience, that by the time you are ready or can afford to upgrade, there will be better/faster/different hardware available.

For MB choice, get whichever board supports the options that you currently want/need.

For cpu, it typically boils down to what you feel comfortable spending. There is typically a point where price increases dramatically for a lower increase in power/speed.

Video cards - with the exception of the SE cards, most cards in a given family perform fairly equal. Visit a site such as tomshardware.com where there is a card comparison where you can see the difference. As with cpu's, there is a point where you will pay more for less.

Memory - memory is the exception to the rule. Memory type doesn't change often, so you can safely spend more now for quality/faster memory and be able to use it in later upgrades. You can just as easily buy just what you need for your current board without worry. Typically it is best to get whichever brand/speed is recommended by the MB maker. Unless you are planning to over clock, there is no need to purchase faster memory than the MB requires. The only consideration to make now is whether or not you plan to upgrade/switch from XP to Vista. 1gig is sufficient for XP, but if Vista is in your future get 2gig.

There are no right or wrong answers. It all boils down to how much you want or can afford to spend.

Hope this helps.

[rkgibbons]

I think you'll benefit more by going with the slightly slower processor (the e6400) and using the money to buy an extra 1GB of RAM.

The clockspeed difference between the 6600 and 6400 is relatively small, and you'll be future-proofing yourself better by getting additional ram (cuz Vista is being released this month, and she's sure to be a memory bitch).

BTW, both of those motherboards should suit you fine.

[retroborg]

OK, so here are some interesting notes to keep in mind for anybody getting a new pc:

1. Cheaper Core Micro-Architecture: Core 2 Duo E4300 CPU Review)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e4300.html

2. 8900/8950/8850? Nvidia is preparing a faster version of the G80 for launch around the same time that ATI launches its new card. The full article can be found here:
http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=36106

3. Cheaper GeForce 8800 Cards In Mid Feb:
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4472

4. New cheaper low end G80 cards coming around March:
8600 Ultra
8600 GT
8300 GT
8300 GS
http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=4834

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beareyes.com.cn%2F2%2Flib%2F2...language_tools

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beareyes.com.cn%2F2%2Flib%2F2...language_tools

5. L2 Cache: 4MB or 2MB?
If you're planning to keep the cpu for some time, and you're into Overclocking, the 6600 4MB L2 Cache CPU might be a better choice:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

6. FSB Bottlenecks: Is 1333MHz Necessary?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6

7. DDR2 533 better price for value:
(Intel Core 2: Is high speed memory worth its price?)
http://core2memory.notlong.com/

8. ASRock M/B not so great for overclocking:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=1908020&frmKeyword=&STA...VIEWTMP=Linear

09. C2D 6600 better overclocker:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18

10. Fun trivia info:
Interestingly enough, the Intel CPU with the highest Cache memory, is the Itanium 2 CPU with an impressive 24MB L3 cache!
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL98T

11. All the Intel CPUs in full detail specs (Pentium I and up)
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Default.aspx

[rhegedus]

For games, you're unlikely to see any real difference between a single core AMD 4200+ and the fastest quad core.

It's all about the graphics card.

[Krispy Kritter]

For games, you're unlikely to see any real difference between a single core AMD 4200+ and the fastest quad core.

It's all about the graphics card.

For the current crop of games.

[rhegedus]

Which future games require dual/quad core?

[TheFamilyMan]

My two cents:
1. IMO Asus graphics cards are overpriced and are not that much (if any) better.
2. Get a 2G dual channel RAM kit, in the future you'll be glad you did. As for speed and latency, the above posts cover it very well.

[Krispy Kritter]

Which future games require dual/quad core?

Valve currently has a project underway (or could be completed by now) to modify the Source engine (HL2 and others) to detect and utilize 2 or more cores. I'm sure there are others that are/will be doing this also, now that dual core cpu's are becoming more popular.

[rhegedus]

How will this help?

Unless the CPU will take back some of the computing currently performed by the GPU, I don't see an advantage.

Even games/simulators that need lots of physics/mathematics calculations manage quite well currently.

[Krispy Kritter]

The more cpu power a pc has, the more cycles that can be assigned to any of the given tasks within the programming. Most of the video processing is no longer processed by the cpu because of the advancement in video cards with onboard gpu's. However, there are other aspects of any given game engine, such as AI. For most games, each of the different portions of code, such as AI, are given a percentage of the cpu cycles which may vary by cpu speed. Also keep in mind that games are designed to run your cpu at 100% to utilize the full power of your pc. So if the game engine only checks for cpu speed and not the number of cores, the game will only run at speed equivalent to your cpu speed, which will leave your other core(s) basically doing nothing. If the engine detects multiple cores, it can then spread the load across the other core(s). With a properly written app/game that can detect and use multiple cores, you get the benefit of faster processing across the cores without the need to buy a higher speed cpu.

[rhegedus]

However, there are other aspects of any given game engine, such as AI. For most games, each of the different portions of code, such as AI, are given a percentage of the cpu cycles which may vary by cpu speed. Also keep in mind that games are designed to run your cpu at 100% to utilize the full power of your pc. So if the game engine only checks for cpu speed and not the number of cores, the game will only run at speed equivalent to your cpu speed, which will leave your other core(s) basically doing nothing. If the engine detects multiple cores, it can then spread the load across the other core(s). With a properly written app/game that can detect and use multiple cores, you get the benefit of faster processing across the cores without the need to buy a higher speed cpu.

Current games are dependant upon GPU, not CPU. They do not run CPUs at 100% power if combined with a decent VGA card - if they did, then one would see an improvement in performance other than that provided by the GPU.

The February 2007 edition of CustomPC ran benchmarks on 54 processors over a variety of applications. For games, there was no significant difference in performance between even a quad core and a single core:

Quake 4 (1280x1024): Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 = 60fps, AMD Athlon 64 3800+ = 60fps

Even the moster that is Medieval II : Total War (1280x1024) played at a very respectable 26fps on the Athlon 64 3800+ compared to 32fps on the Q6600. Your eyes could not tell the difference.

In (UK) price terms, a £89 Athlon 64 3800+ kept up with the £575 Quad Core Q6600. That's nearly £500 wasted...

If someone is buying a PC for gaming, they'd be better off buying the cheaper CPU and getting a decent VGA card and spending what's left over on games themselves.

In the PC world, today's cutting edge is tomorrow's run of the mill - I'd feel pretty pissed off spending hundreds of £ on a CPU with no real advantage now only to find that it's half the price in 3 months time.

[retroborg]

That may be true for modern 3D games, but that’s not the case for 2D games which are heavily dependant on CPU frequencies and especially the cache memory. The video card in this case would act as a humble frame buffer. That's the way it is for 2D (even some 3D) Arcade emulators, especially MAME which is very CPU/RAM sensitive!
Even some of the higher pumped frequency Intel/AMD CPUs, would have a hard time keeping up those pesky 60FPS and output high quality sound with no distortions, in MAME emu! Especially the TAITO (RayForce, RayStorm), Psikyo Hitachi SH-2 / SEGA Titan ST-V based games (Radiant Silvergun) and yes, even the 3D SEGA Model 2/3 emulated games, would all put those high powered GPUs into shame!

[glockjs]

with quad cores, ddr3, and dx10 vid cards around the corner imo its a bad time to upgrade for a gaming rig.

[rhegedus]

That may be true for modern 3D games, but that’s not the case for 2D games which are heavily dependant on CPU frequencies and especially the cache memory. The video card in this case would act as a humble frame buffer. That's the way it is for 2D (even some 3D) Arcade emulators, especially MAME which is very CPU/RAM sensitive!

Games like....?

[Krispy Kritter]

However, there are other aspects of any given game engine, such as AI. For most games, each of the different portions of code, such as AI, are given a percentage of the cpu cycles which may vary by cpu speed. Also keep in mind that games are designed to run your cpu at 100% to utilize the full power of your pc. So if the game engine only checks for cpu speed and not the number of cores, the game will only run at speed equivalent to your cpu speed, which will leave your other core(s) basically doing nothing. If the engine detects multiple cores, it can then spread the load across the other core(s). With a properly written app/game that can detect and use multiple cores, you get the benefit of faster processing across the cores without the need to buy a higher speed cpu.

Current games are dependant upon GPU, not CPU. They do not run CPUs at 100% power if combined with a decent VGA card - if they did, then one would see an improvement in performance other than that provided by the GPU.

The February 2007 edition of CustomPC ran benchmarks on 54 processors over a variety of applications. For games, there was no significant difference in performance between even a quad core and a single core:

Quake 4 (1280x1024): Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 = 60fps, AMD Athlon 64 3800+ = 60fps

Even the moster that is Medieval II : Total War (1280x1024) played at a very respectable 26fps on the Athlon 64 3800+ compared to 32fps on the Q6600. Your eyes could not tell the difference.

In (UK) price terms, a £89 Athlon 64 3800+ kept up with the £575 Quad Core Q6600. That's nearly £500 wasted...

If someone is buying a PC for gaming, they'd be better off buying the cheaper CPU and getting a decent VGA card and spending what's left over on games themselves.

In the PC world, today's cutting edge is tomorrow's run of the mill - I'd feel pretty pissed off spending hundreds of £ on a CPU with no real advantage now only to find that it's half the price in 3 months time.

For today's games, including those you referenced above which are NOT written to uitlize multi core cpu's, I totally agree with you. I was only pointing out that in the near future, multi core cpus will be beneficial for gaming. Also, if you view speed comparisons/benchmarks using the same video card with multiple cpu's from older 1ghz up to today's quad core beasts, you will see that as cpu speed increases, video speed increases. It's not all about gpu or cpu, they are dependant upon each other.

Games aside for a moment, I'm sure most everyone here is familiar with dvd backups. I use a program called DVD2One to "shrink" movies to fit onto a SL disc. There is roughly a 30% speed increase when using the program with a dual core cpu.

If you want more info, I believe the article was in the December PC Gamer. I can double check if you like.

Also, per Google: http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/source-multicore/index.x?pg=1

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=hl2+source+multi+core+update

[rhegedus]

OK, so there may some benefit to games of multi cores in the future, but there is no reason to buy one now when they are priced at a premium.

The compromise would be to buy a motherboard that accepts single core CPUs and multi-core CPUs and to buy a single core now and then upgrade when the price of dual cores comes down.

[Krispy Kritter]

Everything always comes down to money, as I stated in the very first post. And unless you are a person that frequently upgrades, it is a waste of money to buy low to midrange hardware now expecting to upgrade in the future. Technology changes too fast. This whole ongoing post was the reason why I didn't recommend any specific hardware.

And just an FYI, I see real world performance differences NOW between my dual core (2ghz) and my "faster" single core (2.6Ghz).

And to the OP, sorry for the thread hijack. Post back with what hardware you get and how it works for you.


Peace out.