Computer-construction tips please!

[Valiant]

Awwww! C'mmon Jeff!
It couldn't hurt to have a little angry soldier-computer with legs (unless the legs kick you in the nuts?)

 

[Athenian200]

Thanks for the tips so far guys! Keep em coming. My eyes are opening.


As for sound (re harddrives etc), it's really not an issue for me. If I can hear my hardware then my music/game volume clearly isn't high enough.

And $5000 isn't a totally iron-clad cap. Alas, I have no sense of perspective when it comes to Fallout 3. Tips for saving money are still appreciated, though, and will get due consideration.

I'll just say that there's a good chance you could get all the stuff I suggested, and the stuff they're suggesting (like hi-resolution monitors), and have a really good system. If you do, it might go a little over (although it might stay in range since you've still got about $1000 unspent on the system I suggested). but I'd rather send something myself than have you save money and get lesser equipment.

I looked into it, and I think you could easily get a monitor and sound card like they describe for about $700 more than I described earlier. That would leave you with about $300 (out of the $5000) for your mouse, keyboard, case, cooling system, OS, and speakers. If you go even a little over (which you may not have to), then you can get the whole thing done right. You should know that one reason I'm suggesting such high requirements is because it's hard to get XP these days, and if you get stuck with Vista, you need a lot more hardware to do the same thing at the same speed. Trust me, I've got Vista on the new computer my father purchased for me, and even though it's got pretty high-end stuff (including 4GB ram, although it's fairly slow ram), everything runs rather sluggishly if I put a mildly demanding task on it. In fact, I'll probably end up not playing games on it at all, and just running SETI@Home on it while surfing the Internet and running several Office 2007 applications. That kind of multitasking is about all it seems to be good at (possibly due to the fact that he got a Q6600 quad-core). Not only that, it sucks three times as much power as my old computer, and I had to move it upstairs because it kept tripping the circuit breaker when it was on the same circuit as my refrigerator or TV set.


One tip... you can cut the memory cost in half by only buying one (rather than two) of the packages I mentioned. This would give you 4GB rather than 8GB, but you probably don't really need 8GB right now, and you could always upgrade later. Please don't skimp on RAM speed, though. You'll regret it.

 

[millerm277]

You should know that one reason I'm suggesting such high requirements is because it's hard to get XP these days, and if you get stuck with Vista, you need a lot more hardware to do the same thing at the same speed.

$139.99. Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows XP Professional With SP2C - Operating Systems

I'm not sure how much longer it is going to be sold for though...I think the cut-off date may be sometime relatively soon. (Of course, it will still be available through less legal means...)

 

[Xander]

#1 There's no real point getting an extreme processor unless you're overclocking.. well not really... and if you burnt it out could you replace it?

#2 In terms of graphics cards you'd best have a good long hard look into reviews as the Nvidia offerings seem to be a little stale now, to me anyway. Each new model is pretty much the same as the previous one. Personally I backed ATi this time and the 3870x2 which I got works well... perhaps not so many screaming frames per second but each one seems to look more polished than the Nvidia versions..

#3 Raptors are okay if you have money to burn but the present terabyte offerings are pretty damn quick and far more cost effective.. as for RAID I think Anandtech reviewed it and found little performance gain for a desktop. The main thing is to put your games on a different harddrive. Perhaps one raptor and one TB drive? Oh and keep your eyes open for the Velociraptor. Larger (320GB) and 30% quicker than a raptor 150GB.

#4 Memory. If you go for DDR3 then spend a LOT of money otherwise it's just a label. DDR2 however, you can get decent speed for less cash these days.

Oh and have a look at the elite stuff on Homepage | Custom PC They're usually pretty good if a little behind the bleeding edge. Xtreme Systems forum may also be a good place to ask around. They have systems that would make Bill Gates weep for joy!! Think liquid nitrogen cooling geeks and you're pretty close

Oh and for an OS, Vista IS faster... there's no doubt there but it's buggy. XP is fine but 64 bit is my choice of preference and I very rarely have any compatibility problems... what I do find is that I end up with a less bloated system after six months as most bloat ware tends to target the 32bit suckers... errm I mean customers

Edit :-
You're getting a monitor too? Well I just bought the HP 24" widescreen and it's dreamy. Sure it's a TN panel but with the price of the "proper" panels being a whole hell of a lot more money.. I don't care.

Sound card wise, I'd caution against XFi cards, they tend to cause problems. I'd reckon your best bet is to find yourself an audiophile site and get a cheap card (they pay hundreds for theirs so cheap is not necessarily cheap if you catch my drift). If you want a gamer card then check out Razors card. It's pricey (more than an XFi 64Mb!!!) but I'm hoping they don't have as many bugs as the XFis (Creative are terrible for drivers... just ask the Linux XFi crowd).

Case wise (an oft overlooked part) if you don't mind noise and want to stick with air cooling then get the Antec 900. Nothing else competes for the price... not even close. If it's watercooling that's wetting your appetite then good luck.. that little quandary took me several months until I gave up and bought the Thermaltake Mozart as a "screw this I'm getting the biggest f'in case on the market!!!".

 

[Athenian200]

All these seem to be good suggestions, but...

#1 There's no real point getting an extreme processor unless you're overclocking.. well not really... and if you burnt it out could you replace it?

I wasn't suggesting he overclock it, but there don't seem to be any other quad-core processors that go very fast. They all seem really slow at 2.66GHz or 2.40GHz. The EE has 3.0GHz, and that's ultimately why I selected it... you have to go down to a dual-core in order to get 3.0GHz otherwise.

#3 Raptors are okay if you have money to burn but the present terabyte offerings are pretty damn quick and far more cost effective.. as for RAID I think Anandtech reviewed it and found little performance gain for a desktop. The main thing is to put your games on a different harddrive. Perhaps one raptor and one TB drive? Oh and keep your eyes open for the Velociraptor. Larger (320GB) and 30% quicker than a raptor 150GB.

That might be useful. I was looking at the Velociraptor myself in a review, but it didn't appear to be out yet. The main thing I was considering is that he really wants this in particular for playing one specific game with such a fast computer that he can react more quickly than his opponents even while running everything at full settings, and not as much general storage.

I know RAID 0 is supposed to improve performance to some degree, although I don't know how much.

#4 Memory. If you go for DDR3 then spend a LOT of money otherwise it's just a label. DDR2 however, you can get decent speed for less cash these days.

DDR2 has been pretty slow in my experience. It only seems to go up to 800MHz. How much would he need to spend in order to make sure it's not just a label?

Also, I'm a bit confused as to why everyone is pointing out ways to save money rather than improve performance, because I really got the impression that that wasn't really what he was interested in doing. He's building a $5000 computer for a favorite game, and wants it to run as well as possible. It's almost like it's hard-wired into your minds to look for the best deals rather than the best quality.

 

[Xander]

I knew as soon as I saw you'd posted after me that you'd argue

You must be getting predictable

I wasn't suggesting he overclock it, but there don't seem to be any other quad-core processors that go very fast. They all seem really slow at 2.66GHz or 2.40GHz. The EE has 3.0GHz, and that's ultimately why I selected it... you have to go down to a dual-core in order to get 3.0GHz otherwise.

The extreme processors have their multiplier unbound which increases the overclocking potential. Not overclocking them seems a waste and to be honest, it's not the processor speed which will inhibit game performance.

That might be useful. I was looking at the Velociraptor myself in a review, but it didn't appear to be out yet. The main thing I was considering is that he really wants this in particular for playing one specific game with such a fast computer that he can react more quickly than his opponents even while running everything at full settings, and not as much general storage.

The Velociraptor is due out soon, I think it's available on pre order about now though.

As for performance, it'll make no difference to most in game speeds only load times. I have two Samsung 500Gbs and not only are they quick enough to keep pace with Crysis but also a darn sight quieter than a vibrating raptor

Now if noise isn't an issue then yes they're a great reliable drive but at

 

[millerm277]

The extreme processors have their multiplier unbound which increases the overclocking potential.

Yup, but often they are also the processors that are at the maximum of what is currently possible, so they have much less "headroom" to go up, as compared to overclocking a processor that is much slower up to that speed. And really, why deal with the potential instabilities and other things that can go along with overclocking, if you can afford the best anyway. (unless you can't stop tweaking things like me).

It's not the processor speed which will inhibit game performance.

I'd say almost any of the Core 2 Duo's out there will be pretty much equal as far as game performance goes, because games are much more heavily tied to the graphics card. (Unless you have a really terrible processor, but that wouldn't happen with any of what's been suggested.)

 

[Xander]

Yup, but often they are also the processors that are at the maximum of what is currently possible, so they have much less "headroom" to go up, as compared to overclocking a processor that is much slower up to that speed. And really, why deal with the potential instabilities and other things that can go along with overclocking, if you can afford the best anyway. (unless you can't stop tweaking things like me).

Oh I wouldn't recommend overclocking unless I didn't like the person and thought they would stuff it up.. or if they're especially irritating..

As for "the maximum of what is currently possible"... you should see Xtreme Systems.. 3ghz nothing when you introduce liquid nitrogen and other ridiculous solutions

They really do mean the Xtreme bit.

Also, as a general warning to tripleJ, the current top speed stuff is often more unreliable, causes more problems and can actually be slower than other more established components.

Basically the bleeding edge seems to be a precarious surface. Unless everything is "just so" you get problems and problems accompany a slower computer like the smell follows raw fish.

I'd say almost any of the Core 2 Duo's out there will be pretty much equal as far as game performance goes, because games are much more heavily tied to the graphics card. (Unless you have a really terrible processor, but that wouldn't happen with any of what's been suggested.)

JJJ,
Get a good motherboard, I've got an X38 Bearlake and that works fine but you could get an X48 if you want DDR3, get a good graphics card (pay attention to the memory access width as that often cramps a good card), decent speed memory and a quick hard drive. Sorted.
-Raptors are okay but won't make your computer lightspeed

-DDR3 is nice but probably half the performance is inaccessible right now (perhaps if you intend keeping this PC "forever" then DDR3 would be a good investment)

-The top graphics cards are all well and good but you're paying to be at the top (a hefty fee too) and often the performance returns aren't worth it

-Raging processors and lightning graphics cards are all well and good but they wither and die without a good solid board (check out the Gigabyte DQ6 model range) and decent cooling (stick to air unless you like clenching ).

Oh and if you're like me and want to know what's hot and what's not by way of readin every review you can get your mits on then try TrustedReviews - The UKs premier source of Technology News and Reviews they seem to talk sense and with UK markets you should have it if we have... probably about two weeks before but we won't worry about that.

 

[Xander]

Thinking of cooling that reminds me... one piece of advice I was given was to remove the tacky cooling pads from the motherboards heatsinks and replace it with something like Artic Silver Ceramique. Also when looking at processors, don't necessarily stick to the stock heatsink, they're usually terrible. Get a decent one (Thermalright produce the best at the moment (last time I checked) for air cooling. Oh and use some Zalman STG1 (I find it's better than Arctic Silver's stuff), dead easy to apply and works great, on your cooler. If you get good cooling then your computer shouldn't glitch and also it'll last longer. Esp important if your house tends to be hot.

 

[Athenian200]

The extreme processors have their multiplier unbound which increases the overclocking potential. Not overclocking them seems a waste and to be honest, it's not the processor speed which will inhibit game performance.

If they made a regular quad-core without an unlocked multiplier at anywhere near same speed, I would have suggested that.

So, what's your suggestion? Go down to dual-core for better speed, or stick with a sluggish regular Q6XXX processor which won't go higher than 2.66GHz? My father unfortunately got me a Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (which I didn't ask him to ), and it doesn't even run most applications as quickly as my old E6600 with a 2.66GHz processor. So you can't tell me processor speed doesn't make a difference. I even notice it on boot time, application start time, even while waiting for areas to load in games. Perhaps I'm just so impatient that I notice performance differences that would elude most people.

The Velociraptor is due out soon, I think it's available on pre order about now though.

As for performance, it'll make no difference to most in game speeds only load times. I have two Samsung 500Gbs and not only are they quick enough to keep pace with Crysis but also a darn sight quieter than a vibrating raptor

Well in that case, he should probably look out for them in case he needs the speed. But if he doesn't get a Raptor, he should at least get a drive with a larger buffer and the best SATA connection available. Basically, I'm saying don't go too cheap for bigger storage. I honestly have never been able to use more than 60% of a 200GB drive, and that was when I was incredibly lazy about cleaning it up for several years. The drive died before I even got close to it's capacity. You're probably right about RAID, although it still might improve performance slightly.

You're discounting the performance impact of all these things individually as negligable, but I want you to consider something... taken together, won't they make a bigger impact and result in a less powerful system where you can't do things quite as well or quickly?

And you still haven't answered my main question... why is everyone's mind so focused on "best deals" rather than "best quality" or "best performance"? It's like you're all internally assured that that's the most important thing.

 

[Xander]

Another thing that's occurred to me which should help, if you are going to use SATA drives makes sure you set the BIOS to use AHCI or it'll treat them like IDE drives (ie you can't use NCQ). If you do use AHCI then make sure to download the correct drivers to input when you install windows (ie you'll need to hammer F6 as windows begins to install (it does prompt you but not for long)).

If you want to use RAID (oh and raid 0 is the fast one, raid 5 would be a bit of a waste of time for a games machine) then you'll need to do the same except setting the BIOS to RAID and getting RAID drivers on the floppies.

As an aside, consider getting a hard drive just for the things you wish to keep. Then should you need to reformat your computer then all those downloaded drivers, saved games, emails and whatever can be kept nice and safe on that separate hard drive.

 

[Xander]

If they made a regular quad-core without an unlocked multiplier at anywhere near same speed, I would have suggested that.

So, what's your suggestion? Go down to dual-core for better speed, or stick with a sluggish regular Q6XXX processor which won't go higher than 2.66GHz? My father unfortunately got me a Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (which I didn't ask him to ), and it doesn't even run most applications as quickly as my old E6600 with a 2.66GHz processor. So you can't tell me processor speed doesn't make a difference. I even notice it on boot time, application start time, even while waiting for areas to load in games. Perhaps I'm just so impatient that I notice performance differences that would elude most people.

Mine's a 2.4 and I can't say that a score of 5.8 on Vista is slow. Plus how much do you pay to get that 5% difference which you may notice sometimes? It's inefficient.

Get a processor with a high FSB and relax is my motto.

Well in that case, he should probably look out for them in case he needs the speed. But if he doesn't get a Raptor, he should at least get a drive with a larger buffer and the best SATA connection available. Basically, I'm saying don't go too cheap for bigger storage. I honestly have never been able to use more than 60% of a 200GB drive, and that was when I was incredibly lazy about cleaning it up for several years. The drive died before I even got close to it's capacity. You're probably right about RAID, although it still might improve performance slightly.

My storage drive is getting close to half full and I don't load drives more than half full because it makes them incredibly sluggish. Even Raptors don't survive well unless you take care of them. My friends prize raptor went through HDtach and came out lower than ATA100!! Super advertised speed is NOT a guarantee of actual performance. That why half of the reviewers state specifically that they are synthetic benchmarks and not real world results.

As for real world stuff, the raptor loads slower than my drive on FarCry.. go figure.

You're discounting the performance impact of all these things individually as negligable, but I want you to consider something... taken together, won't they make a bigger impact and result in a less powerful system where you can't do things quite as well or quickly?

It's about bottlenecks not centres of excellence. A fast processor is playing with itself half the time unless your OS is configured correctly, your motherboard can keep up, you have fast enough memory, a fast enough optimised hard drive etc etc etc.

You get more bang for your buck (a whole truck load more) by paying attention to what services you're running and defragging your drive than you will tacking on a high speed processor to a dog of a system.

And you still haven't answered my main question... why is everyone's mind so focused on "best deals" rather than "best quality" or "best performance"? It's like you're all internally assured that that's the most important thing.

Because you're not advising on the best components. Have a look at SSD drives and then tell me how cheap and slow your raptor really is. It's a question of everything in moderation.

Personally I never start looking at components until I've chosen a motherboard, the most often overlooked component. After that I'm more concerned with the power supply than I am what hard drive I buy. Get one of the first two wrong and you're just throwing money down a pit.

 

[Athenian200]

Mine's a 2.4 and I can't say that a score of 5.8 on Vista is slow. Plus how much do you pay to get that 5% difference which you may notice sometimes? It's inefficient.

Get a processor with a high FSB and relax is my motto.

Well, it's possible that something else is configured badly on it... my guess is that it's that 800MHz DDR2.

It's about bottlenecks not centres of excellence. A fast processor is playing with itself half the time unless your OS is configured correctly, your motherboard can keep up, you have fast enough memory, a fast enough optimised hard drive etc etc etc.

You get more bang for your buck (a whole truck load more) by paying attention to what services you're running and defragging your drive than you will tacking on a high speed processor to a dog of a system.

That sounds right, then. I've always been careful to shut down unneeded services and such when running an intensive application. I even kept a K6-2 accessing the internet well enough with Flash on a regular basis by configuring it to run Firefox as it's shell automatically instead of Explorer. It just seems like I have a lot less control in Vista.

I wonder how much better we could run applications if we could pare Windows down so that only enough of it were run in order to run the specific application we're trying to get the performance out of, instead of having the whole mess open all the time?

I do still think that getting fast memory, a good video card, and a good motherboard is important, though. Probably more important than a fast processor, considering how fast all of them are these days. Hard drive really only affects you while you load it into memory.

Because you're not advising on the best components. Have a look at SSD drives and then tell me how cheap and slow your raptor really is. It's a question of everything in moderation.

Personally I never start looking at components until I've chosen a motherboard, the most often overlooked component. After that I'm more concerned with the power supply than I am what hard drive I buy. Get one of the first two wrong and you're just throwing money down a pit.

Well, yes. You have to make sure everything is compatible with the motherboard you've chosen, and that it's well-designed enough to do everything you want. And without a good power supply, you could fry components, or not have enough capacity to do what you want.

SSD drives... I've heard about them, but I haven't seen any consumer-level models. Some of those would bring you close to the performance of running your whole system out of a RAM drive rather than on a Hard Drive. Yeah, who wouldn't want one of those?

I know I argue a lot, but that's because I find it harder to learn unless I argue. If I didn't respect you, I'd dismiss you without arguing.

 

[Xander]

Well, it's possible that something else is configured badly on it... my guess is that it's that 800MHz DDR2.

800 ain't bad... 900 does seem to be obviously faster though. If you've got Corsair you should be able to just add about .1 of a volt and set it to 900 though. Not that I'd suggest such lightly.. not when OCZ1150mhz is sooo cheap.

That sounds right, then. I've always been careful to shut down unneeded services and such when running an intensive application. I even kept a K6-2 accessing the internet well enough with Flash on a regular basis by configuring it to run Firefox as it's shell automatically instead of Explorer. It just seems like I have a lot less control in Vista.

Less control in Vista? Nah *snigger*... I figure that Vista is more enthusiast level. It took me about two weeks to firstly figure out that I needed to unlock the admin account and secondly to find out how

I do still think that getting fast memory and a good video card is important, though. Probably more important than a fast processor, considering how fast all of them are these days.

Now there you're probably bang on. Memory speed is crucial. As is latency... but I'm not getting into that debate (no not even if you're really argumentative ).

Basically I'd advise getting the fastest memory with the tightest timings. In that order I prioritise them, right or wrong... who knows.

Well, yes. You have to make sure everything is compatible with the motherboard you've chosen, and that it's well-designed enough to do everything you want. And without a good power supply, you could fry components, or not have enough capacity to do what you want.

And a stable enough power feed so it doesn't drop half a volt suddenly and make the whole thing go unstable!

SSD drives... I've heard about them, but I haven't seen any consumer-level models. Some of those would bring you close to the performance of running your whole system out of a RAM drive rather than on a Hard Drive. Yeah, who wouldn't want one of those?

Well if commercially available is 600 quid approx for about 64Gb then yes they are. Oh and yes they are quick.. I'd bet Xtreme Systems has had several on test for a while now... they're addicts!!

I know I argue a lot, but that's because I find it harder to learn unless I argue. If I didn't respect you, I'd dismiss you without arguing.

You? Argue? I hadn't noticed
It's all good. I used to do exactly the same thing. People explain more when you back them up against the wall

(Note to admins... is there a fix for the whole cutting off posts after a monetary symbol cause it's really irritating.. Thanks)

 

[Athenian200]

800 ain't bad... 900 does seem to be obviously faster though. If you've got Corsair you should be able to just add about .1 of a volt and set it to 900 though. Not that I'd suggest such lightly.. not when OCZ1150mhz is sooo cheap.

Less control in Vista? Nah *snigger*... I figure that Vista is more enthusiast level. It took me about two weeks to firstly figure out that I needed to unlock the admin account and secondly to find out how

That's probably right... I've already managed to disable UAC. I just haven't figured out how to get rid of all those start-up services, or whether the performance gain I get from disabling Aero is worth it. It seems so to me, but my father insists that Aero adds important features, and seemed frustrated that the first thing I wanted to do was disable it (insisting the computer could run just as well with it enabled). I honestly haven't found anything other than transparent windows and flip-3d, which seem pretty superfluous.

Now there you're probably bang on. Memory speed is crucial. As is latency... but I'm not getting into that debate (no not even if you're really argumentative ).

Basically I'd advise getting the fastest memory with the tightest timings. In that order I prioritise them, right or wrong... who knows.

What if I agree with you? I think memory timings/latency are important as well. Whether I bought memory or not would be related to that. Unfortunately, my father picked out old 800MHz gaming memory, when after looking I realized that DDR2 goes higher than that, and even has better timings these days. That explains why everything else in my system is 5.9, but my memory is only 5.0, and I'm annoyed with the performance.

And a stable enough power feed so it doesn't drop half a volt suddenly and make the whole thing go unstable!

Yes. Some people say you even need a UPS thing with a battery to create "clean" power in order to protect the computer from typical energy spikes that wouldn't have affected older ones. What do you think of that?

 

[Xander]

That's probably right... I've already managed to disable UAC. I just haven't figured out how to get rid of all those start-up services, or whether the performance gain I get from disabling Aero is worth it. It seems so to me, but my father insists that Aero adds important features, and seemed frustrated that I wanted to disable it. I honestly haven't found anything other than transparent windows and flip-3d, which seem pretty superfluous.

Aero is nice, I used it, and the memory it uses is negligible. What you probably haven't done is allow the new cache system to get used to you. Try to suffer for a couple of months without doing the IT equivalent of root canal surgery and see how it goes.

What if I agree with you?

Then I'll swiftly change my opinion lest you get bored

I think memory timings/latency are important as well. Whether I bought memory or not would be related to that. Unfortunately, my father picked out old 800MHz gaming memory, when after looking I realized that DDR2 goes higher than that, and even has better timings these days. That explains why everything else in my system is 5.9, but my memory is only 5.0, and I'm annoyed with the performance.

5.0 oh yeah that's sooo slow. Anyone ever told you you're impatient?

Next time, OCZ 1150mhz. Just check the motherboard first. Oh and they run hotter and at 2.3 volts (at least I think it's 2.3 ... could be 2.1).

Yes. Some people say you even need a UPS thing with a battery to create "clean" power in order to protect the computer from typical energy spikes that wouldn't have affected older ones. What do you think of that?

Hmm I think that's a nice toy. Bit redundant though isn't it? You can get expensive surge protectors to do that.... or just a decent power supply.

 

[Athenian200]

Aero is nice, I used it, and the memory it uses is negligible. What you probably haven't done is allow the new cache system to get used to you. Try to suffer for a couple of months without doing the IT equivalent of root canal surgery and see how it goes.

That would be hard. I don't really tend to use my computer the same way consistently enough for anything to "get used" to me. I'm rather different from the average computer user. I think I enjoy configuring a computer more than I enjoy using it. In fact, if I were expected to just use a computer without configuring/messing with it, I'd probably get bored. I'm always trying to make it do something or other as well as it can.

It's rather strange... I'm content to do everything else in life the same way fairly consistently, but I would get irritated if I had to do that on my computer.

Hmm I think that's a nice toy. Bit redundant though isn't it? You can get expensive surge protectors to do that.... or just a decent power supply.

That's what I thought, too. I see all kinds of power regulation stuff inside a power supply, so it seems to me that the processor should be safe with or without an external UPS cleaning up "dirty" power.

 

[Xander]

That would be hard. I don't really tend to use my computer the same way consistently enough for anything to "get used" to me. I'm rather different from the average computer user. I think I enjoy configuring a computer more than I enjoy using it. In fact, if I were expected to just use a computer without configuring/messing with it, I'd probably get bored. I'm always trying to make it do something or other as well as it can.

It's rather strange... I'm content to do everything else in life the same way fairly consistently, but I would get irritated if I had to do that on my computer.

A fellow tinkerer. Basically you have years of high end computers failing to work ahead of you. Hair loss, caffeine addiction and high blood pressure shall be your companion in life

That's what I thought, too. I see all kinds of power regulation stuff inside a power supply, so it seems to me that the processor should be safe with or without an external UPS cleaning up "dirty" power.

Well it should have some effect. Two filters are better than one and all that.. however a decent PSU and some of them nice japanese solid state digital capacitors should do fine. Hence I recommend the DQ6.

Mind you there's lots of hocus pocus in computing. For example I won't use Asus stuff... for me it always goes wrong but for others it's great stuff. Mind you I think I've hit just about every problem in the book.

Btw, try searching for msconfig and running it as administrator to stop programs running at startup, you've probably tried that but it's worth a shot.|

 

[Ender]

I honestly have never been able to use more than 60% of a 200GB drive, and that was when I was incredibly lazy about cleaning it up for several years. The drive died before I even got close to it's capacity.

There is of course people like me on the other hand who have less then 350GB unused of the 1.25TB total space available.

Edit: I spent a lil time messin around on the Australian PC store sites etc and came up with this rough overview of a system. The only parts I left out are the keyboard and mouse since they're really down to personal preference. If I was spendin about $5k this is more or less what I'd get myself.

Theres a bunch of things you can change around if you wanted too.

Ditch the raptors and go for a 2nd 1TB drive, or ditch the 1TB drive all together.

Vidcard wise it's a Tri-Crossfire setup, you could go for a Dual-Crossfire in which case I'd suggest the single 3870X2 as it leaves room for future expansion, or ditch the 3870 and get a second 3870X2 for a Quad-Crossfire setup.

Edit2: For fun I did a comparison as to what this system would cost me here in Canada, spurred mainly by the fact the Logitech G15 Keyboard is still near $90aus Anyway, after pricing it out and converting the currencies, a system like this is at least $800aus cheaper here.... You guys are getting screwed price wise

 

[millerm277]

If they made a regular quad-core without an unlocked multiplier at anywhere near same speed, I would have suggested that.

So, what's your suggestion? Go down to dual-core for better speed, or stick with a sluggish regular Q6XXX processor which won't go higher than 2.66GHz? My father unfortunately got me a Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (which I didn't ask him to ), and it doesn't even run most applications as quickly as my old E6600 with a 2.66GHz processor. So you can't tell me processor speed doesn't make a difference. I even notice it on boot time, application start time, even while waiting for areas to load in games. Perhaps I'm just so impatient that I notice performance differences that would elude most people.

Well in that case, he should probably look out for them in case he needs the speed. But if he doesn't get a Raptor, he should at least get a drive with a larger buffer and the best SATA connection available. Basically, I'm saying don't go too cheap for bigger storage.

I honestly have never been able to use more than 60% of a 200GB drive, and that was when I was incredibly lazy about cleaning it up for several years.

Wow...I'm pushing 1.5TB currently. Then again, I've got at least 25000 songs ripped in in FLAC, along with my entire movie collection, plus ISO's of various operating systems and software.

You're discounting the performance impact of all these things individually as negligable, but I want you to consider something... taken together, won't they make a bigger impact and result in a less powerful system where you can't do things quite as well or quickly?

The idea is to reduce costs in areas where you won't have any major impact, even when combined together.

And you still haven't answered my main question... why is everyone's mind so focused on "best deals" rather than "best quality" or "best performance"? It's like you're all internally assured that that's the most important thing.

Because most people don't enjoy spending money to get nothing worthwhile in return? Getting the best of everything sounds nice, but when one notch down from the absolute best does the same thing, and as far as you can tell, just as well....and costs half the price, why wouldn't you get it instead?

Also, on an unrelated note, I suggest checking out Sisoft Sandra Lite for some more in depth computer benchmarks.