Building a computer

[Pop]

So I'm building a computer. It's my first time actually building a computer, I've had various prefabs that I've modified over the years, but it seems like I'm always finding myself on the low end of the spectrum, processor-wise. I plan on spending around $1,000, give or take 400. These are prospective things I've been looking at. If anybody knows of something better that could easily replace any of these, or see a conflict I'm cluelessly overlooking, do tell.

 

Here's what I'm thinking thus far (I looked for it all on newegg) -

MSI P7N Diamond LGA 775 Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz

2-4 orders of 2 gigs RAM

Probably an adequate 22" monitor

From there, all I need to buy is an adequate power source and some cooling. I plan on having this built by the end of April. I'm contemplating saving up an extra $600 and getting a Core 2 Extreme, which would kick up the Ghz to 3.0 on all four cores.

[samm]

"Extreme" line is known for excessively bad performance/money, as it always is the case with top-of-the-line products. There are so many fast intel processors around right now, that this wouldn't be a clever investment, especially when the whole setup of Core2s is so easily overclockable

[WITHTEETH]

I would just get the E8400 Wolfdale like Bok has. It only has 2 cores, but not many apps take advantage of 4 yet, especially games.

 

Motherboard looks good, are you planing on doing SLI?

 

4 gigs of ram if your going to do VISTA.

 

What case are you planning on getting? I have a Gigabyte 570 Aurora thats awesome, Bok has a CM Stacker 830 and there is a new CM Cosmo out too.

 

I have consider antec always as a sweet spot for quality and power wattage. I have a 650 Trio and it works great, runs cool.

[Pop]

I haven't decided what case / power source I'm going to use.

 

I'm thinking quad core because I've got the money and I want this computer to last some time into the future, when games do utilize that tech.

[WITHTEETH]

I haven't decided what case / power source I'm going to use.

 

I'm thinking quad core because I've got the money and I want this computer to last some time into the future, when games do utilize that tech.

You could always get a midgrade CPU like a E8400 or E6600 (Bok has one for sale ) and make sure your mobo can upgrade to a better Quad. Just make sure your mobo will support a good quad in the future. And buy another midrange Quad (which would be a better then a present mid range quad now) later on when the games can actually utilize the power. Unless you only want to upgrade the CPU once, then go all out.

 

If you plan on using SLI make sure to get a bit more power, and also look at the GPU Power plugs, make sure they have 8pci Plug adapter and not just the traditional 6.

[Pop]

I'll keep that in mind.

[samm]

4 gigs of ram if your going to do VISTA.

Also keep in mind that >=4GB Ram are only used if you have a 64bit version of your OS.

[WITHTEETH]

4 gigs even works on my WinXP 32bit, why wouldn't it work on Vista 32 bit?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Vista will run fine with 2GB of RAM, but if you have the money get 4GB.

[samm]

4 gigs even works on my WinXP 32bit, why wouldn't it work on Vista 32 bit?

I thought XP and Vista both could only use about 3.5 GB even if more would be available? They would work anyway, but it would be of no use to install 4 GB.

[Azure79]

I read the 64 bit version of Vista could support 8gb of memory.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vis...shop/index.html.

 

I'm planning to do this.

 

[SteveThaiBinh]

4 gigs even works on my WinXP 32bit, why wouldn't it work on Vista 32 bit?

It does? Mine has a limit of 2.8, I think.

[taks]

4 gigs even works on my WinXP 32bit, why wouldn't it work on Vista 32 bit?

it "works" but if you run dxdiag you'll notice it only recognizes somewhere around 3 GB of that. whether or not the other 1 GB is actually being used is hard to find information on. i've heard rumors that it actually becomes reserved memory for the OS, so you may still be getting some benefit.

 

i would recommend saving money by opting for the dual-core rather than a quad. you can get a faster processor for the same money, and you'll really only notice the difference if you're into heavy multi-tasking. i.e., most apps (including games) thread out to a single core unless they have been written specifically for multi-core implementation. the extra cores then really only help if there is more than one big app running.

 

in any case, adding cores does not provide the same speedup, e.g. a quad is not 4 times faster than a single. memory conflicts drive this - from a common cache and a single bus - along with a few other issues, and it works out to something closer to a log2(num_cores) for your speedup. 2 cores averages out to sqrt(2):1, 4 cores is 2:1, etc, AT BEST, which assumes the app was written for multi-core implementation to begin with.

 

taks

[Moatilliatta]

it "works" but if you run dxdiag you'll notice it only recognizes somewhere around 3 GB of that.

Closer to 3,5 GB.

 

Also if you will only get a minor performance boost from 64-bit OS you might want to do what Toms hardware suggests:

if you already use Windows Vista and are considering making the switch to 64 bits, you may find yourself wondering whether you'll have to buy another software license. Users that bought Windows Vista Ultimate need not worry, since the installation disc contains both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the OS. For all other versions, you can order 64-bit installation discs directly from Microsoft; you'll have to pay only a nominal fee for shipping and handling. Beware, though, that this offer only applies to full retail versions of Vista.

And wait with ordering the 64-bit till most or at least enough programs are 64-bit (They aren't yet, right?).

[WITHTEETH]

The Quad core from intel are really two Core2Duos slapped together, not integrated well. It works ok, but some say its not a TRUE quad core.

 

If you really have the extra money you could just get a better cooler and overclock the SOB! Or dump it on a better GPU, thats the biggest performance factor.

[angshuman]

The Quad core from intel are really two Core2Duos slapped together, not integrated well. It works ok, but some say its not a TRUE quad core.

"Some" here would be AMD. There's no really strict definition of what a "true" quad core should be. As end users, we get 4 cores in a single socket either way. As I mentioned previously in the CPU thread, the disadvantage to Intel's approach starts becoming apparent only with a 3+ threaded application with *heavy* data sharing across the threads. With multitasking, as well as with threaded apps that do not share data, there's no drawback at all. On the other hand, the slapping-together approach allows Intel to get much better yields, which translates to higher clock speeds and larger caches at reasonable prices for us. These two factors have a much greater impact on end-user-perceived performance. I think Intel's approach is brilliant, given the current state of available applications.

[taks]

Closer to 3,5 GB.

depends upon your installation. mine is just under 3.1 GB ("true" GB, though that works out to about 3.3 billion bytes, since a G is 1024^3). i've heard that others have more. oh, i'm using 32-bit XP professional.

 

taks

[taks]

With multitasking, as well as with threaded apps that do not share data, there's no drawback at all.

well, there's still only one bus to the memory, so there are always unavoidable conflicts. if an app is small enough to run completely out of local cache, these conflicts will be minimized.

 

the 4-core broadcom chip i was using was a "true" quad, with a separate L1 cache for each core and one shared L2 (128 kB for the L1, 2 MB for the L2 as i recall). one big benefit this chip had was a 256-bit local bus dubbed the "z-bus." unfortunately, their built-in memory controller (the chip was also a true system on a chip) wasn't very efficient so we had a lot of bus conflicts that were difficult to resolve, i.e. you had to write your code in such a manner that each core accessed memory at a different time.

 

taks

[Moatilliatta]

Closer to 3,5 GB.

depends upon your installation. mine is just under 3.1 GB ("true" GB, though that works out to about 3.3 billion bytes, since a G is 1024^3). i've heard that others have more. oh, i'm using 32-bit XP professional.

 

taks

I didn't know it could vary that much (or even vary at all). I'm using vista 32-bit, so I guess that could make a difference as well.

[WITHTEETH]

Whatever you do get your graphic cad and CPU last. They change prices drastically.

 

I typically go somethign in this order

 

Case > Case Accessories > Powerspply > Drives > Mobo > RAM > CPU > GPU

 

Go to the hardOCP Forum under hot deals for awesome sales.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Thread pruned slightly. There now being threads devoted to Windows Vista elsewhere in the forum, please discuss its merits (or otherwise) over there.

[walkerguy]

Hmm. Wanted to add to the building computer thread but I guess I can't.

[taks]

I didn't know it could vary that much (or even vary at all). I'm using vista 32-bit, so I guess that could make a difference as well.

originally, neither did i and i had read reports of 3.5 GB so i was hoping. that said, the "3.5 GB" might have been actually "3.5 billion bytes" which is closer to 3.2 GB in reality. once i installed, and got everything going, i was a bit disappointed. there is a big improvement over 2 GB either way. once i go to a 64-bit OS that won't be an issue and i'll likely upgrade to 8 GB as well.

 

from a game standpoint going to 8 GB won't be a big deal, but from a MATLAB standpoint, it will be huge. i have to play a lot of tricks to get simulations to run properly because each vector requires contiguous memory space. when vectors are double-precision, complex (i.e. 128 bits per element) with several million elements and a dozen or so vectors/matrices, even at 4 GB i have a hard time finding contiguous memory blocks that large.

 

taks

[samm]

from a game standpoint going to 8 GB won't be a big deal, but from a MATLAB standpoint, it will be huge. i have to play a lot of tricks to get simulations to run properly because each vector requires contiguous memory space. when vectors are double-precision, complex (i.e. 128 bits per element) with several million elements and a dozen or so vectors/matrices, even at 4 GB i have a hard time finding contiguous memory blocks that large.

Sometimes limitations like that enforce you to be a better programmer. I never had troubles with memory so far, but I never did program any simulations...

 

It's good to hear that >2GB really do make a difference in vista, this will affect my plannings for a new computer.

[Pop]

Okay, bought it today.

 

Case

SLI capable Intel Motherboard

500w power source

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz processor (The Wolfdale was out of stock, and we wanted to get all of our stuff from the same source. Besides, money.)

2 gigs of Ram for $45 (yay!)

and A nice little CPU Cooler

 

I plan on getting a nice 20" screen soon and after that, some SLI investment, which will unfortunately entail getting a newer, better power source.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Pop