Final Configuration

[MadBadger]

Well, I'm about to take the plunge, but I wanted to run my build by you guys one last time. I've changed some components around after putting more thought into exactly what I need the system for.

Besides everyday tasks, this is what I'll be using it for:

1) Photo Editing (will do a fair amount of this)
2) Gaming (probably won?t have much time for this, but when I do I like to enjoy what the game has to offer)
3) Watching TV (I don?t watch much, so the local channels are fine)

Other notes:

-I?m going to be traveling for an extended period in about a year and a half, so this system really only needs to last until then.

-I?m in the process of moving to San Francisco right now. I expect space to be tight at my new place (still haven't nailed that down yet), so I plan on using this system as a PC/mini entertainment center (think multifunctional).

-I don?t plan on overclocking anything.

So, this is what I?m looking at:

CPU ? C2D e6600
$315
-Debating wheter or not to drop this down to an e6400. I figured an e6600 would come in handy for photo editing.

Motherboard ? Intel G965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard
$140
-Decided to go with an Intel board since they seem to have the best reputation for reliability, stability, and support.

RAM ? 2gb Twin2X2048-5400C4
$165
-Are there any problems associated with underclocking memory to keep it synchronised with the FSB?

Hard Drive ? Seagate 320 gb 7200.10
$90

Optical Drive ? Pioneer DVR-111d
$36
-Seems well regarded at CRLabs.com.

Case ? Ultra Aluminus
$40

PSU ? OCZ GameXtreme 700W
$105
-Definitely overkill, but I ordered it already and it doesn't hurt anything. Will probably still be usable for a while down the line.

Video Card ? ATI Card ? Between 1900XT, 1950 pro, maybe one in the 1800 line.
$150-$250
-I decided to go with ATI because I'm thinking of turning this into an HTPC at some point in the future.

HDTV Tuner ? ATI HDTV Wonder PCI TV Tuner Remote Control Edition
$50

Printer ? Canon Pixma mp500
~$100

Display ? Samsung 215tw
(~$145 via OD sale, pending inspection of a display model next week; I hope it?s not a piece of junk)

Total - $1346-$1446

I might pick up a keyboard, mouse, and soundcard if I see some good sales (max +$100 more).

I was also looking at this compact DVD/Audio system ? Sony DAV-DX255. It packs a lot of functionality into a small package (DVD/CD player, Tuner, Clock, Alarm, can accept input from PC, plays MP3s) and it sounds pretty good.

There she is. Thoughts? Comments? Will it work?

edit- better link for the audio system

 

[MadBadger]

I forgot to include the original build:

Processor Core 2 Duo E6600 (775 - 2.4 GHz 2048K)
Motherboard Intel 975x D975XBXLKR *possibly ASUS P5W DH*
Memory CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit [Ordered]
Video Card Sapphire Radeon X1900XT 256MB *possibly 1950 pro*
Primary HDD Western Digital Raptor WD740ADFD 74GB 10,000 RPM
Secondary HDD Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD5000YS 500GB 7200 RP
Optical Drive NEC ND-3550A 16X DVD+/-RW
Case Silver Ultra Aluminus case [Ordered]
Power Supply OCZ GameXStream OCZ700GXSSLI ATX12V 700W Power Supply 100 - 240 V [Ordered]

The original was much more game oriented. I decided to change things after being realistic about how much gaming I'd really have time to do. That, and I was looking to use the setup as a mini entertainment system.

The biggest change seems to be the motherboard. Going from a 775 board to a 765 board, is there a large difference in performance? Which one is better for productivity? Gaming?

Expert advice much appreciated!

Cheers. :beer:

 

[Baked]

You forgot to buy fans for the case. The Ultra Aluminus doesn't come with any fans! I don't like the Ultra Aluminus 'cause the intake fan is completely blocked off by the HD cage. Get a pair of Seagate 7200.10 and save some money. The Asus P5W DH is very popular, but also very expensive. You won't see that much of a difference using a P965 chipset mobo like the ASUS P5B Deluxe or GIGABYTE GA-965P-DS3. If you plan on overclocking your system, get the Arctic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 from provantage.com for under $25 shipped.

 

[akshayt]

If you are going with a conroe get a 975 chipset, for an allendale get a 965 chipset.

 

[MadBadger]

Baked - Whoops, you're right!

I was planning on getting either Yate Loons or maybe these Ultra brand fans

I don't plan on overclocking anything but thanks for the suggestion.

akshayt - What are the differences? What's the performance difference between the 975 and 965 when paired with a conroe?

Cheers. :beer:

 

[Baked]

Get a few Yate Loon D12Ls from SVC.com for $3 a pop.

BTW, the E6600 w/ its 4MB cache is only useful if you do a lot of video encoding. If you're going for straight gaming (or majority of the time), get the E6400 and a P965 mobo and you're set.

 

[MadBadger]

Other than regular use, I'll mainly be using it for photo editing.

I just assumed the e6600 would increase my productivity with that. Am I missing something? Does the 965 chipset somehow limit the e6600? Keep in mind I'll be running everything at stock speeds. I might underclock the memory if it increases performance though.

Would I be better off putting an extra $100 in the mobo (975 instead of 965) or the cpu (e6600 instead of e6400)? I'm trying to keep the total around $1500.

 

[Baked]

In that case, you should definitely get the E6400 w/ a P965. You get an avg. of 3.5% performance increase with the extra two MB cache. It's just a general knowledge that E6300/E6400 are more compatible w/ P965 chipset and E6600 and up are more compatible w/ 975X. I'm running the Gigabyte DS3 mobo w/ E6400 right now (see sig) and it's extremely stable. But some people like the extra "stability" of Asus mobo, so there's the Asus P5B Deluxe. Both are P965 mobos. I find the DS3 easier to overclock 'cause there are fewer settings to tweak to get the same kind of overclock you'll get with the P5B, and it's a lot cheaper too. In any case, you should get the Arctic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 heatsink 'cause it cools a lot better and quieter than the retail heatsink. And if you decide to push the CPU some, you can.

BTW, in regards to underclocking your memory to match the CPU FSB, you don't have to do that with the C2D. With the Corsair DDR2 800 RAM, you can simply do a 1:1 400FSB with the memory and CPU. For the E6400, this will give you a 3.2GHz clock.

 

[MadBadger]

Ah ok, e6400 it is then, thanks! :thumbsup:

Just to clarify things, wouldn't I also gain a performance increase of 5-10% by using the e6600 simply through the increased CPU speed (2.4 Ghz vs. 2.1 Ghz)? Or is there something about the 965 chipset that limits that?

Also, about the memory, I actually plan on using the Corsair 667 DDR2 RAM. I think there might be some confusion about the build I'm planning on using. The build listed in the second post was my original plan, this build is the current plan :

CPU ? C2D e6600 --> Changing to e6400
Motherboard ? Intel G965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard
RAM ? 2gb Twin2X2048-5400C4 (667 CAS 4)
Hard Drive ? Seagate 320 gb 7200.10
Optical Drive ? Pioneer DVR-111d
Case ? Ultra Aluminus
PSU ? OCZ GameXtreme 700W
Video Card ? ATI Card ? Between 1900XT, 1950 pro, maybe one in the 1800 line.
HDTV Tuner ? ATI HDTV Wonder PCI TV Tuner Remote Control Edition
Printer ? Canon Pixma mp500
Display ? Samsung 215tw

I may be mistaken here, but I thought that 667 RAM performed worse than 533 RAM in conroe systems because it was farther from a 1:1 ratio than the 533 RAM (and a 1:1 ratio seems to be an optimal ratio with conroe builds). Using that logic, 800 Mhz RAM should be worse, but apparently 800 RAM is just so fast that it overcomes the asynchronous operation between the FSB and Memory. Am I misunderstanding something here? Please let me know if I am.

Lastly, what do you think about that intel board? Here's a comparison between it and other cards in the same price range - link

In a few years, when I move on to my next system, I'm planning on using this board for either an HTPC setup or a RAID array of some sort. It seems like the intel board is well equiped to handle either. Am I missing something?

I also like that intel seems to be known for being stable and reliable (is this true?) I read this everywhere, but I don't have first hand knowledge on the matter.

 

[mrfatboy]

this article gives a 6% increase for bf 2142 with the 4mb cache.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/battlefield_2142_cpu_shootout/page3.asp

I'm in the same boat. e6600 or e6400. I have done tons of reading and it's a 50/50 split.

My main cpu tasks are playing BF2 or burning DVD's. But i guess you still have to consider future proofing as best as you can. When and If I switch over to Vista and need a DX10 card it seems I would be better off with the E6600. Correct ????

I am going to be buying this system unless somebody can convice me otherwise.

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=3232994



Baked makes some good points (plus we both live in San Diego ) Please convince me more.

 

[MadBadger]

It looks like they're using an nforce4 board in that review. Too bad it's not a 965 board

Any knowledgeable folks around right now?

Just want to make sure my logic is sound and that I'm not totally

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: mrfatboy
this article gives a 6% increase for bf 2142 with the 4mb cache.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/battlefield_2142_cpu_shootout/page3.asp

I'm in the same boat. e6600 or e6400. I have done tons of reading and it's a 50/50 split.

My main cpu tasks are playing BF2 or burning DVD's. But i guess you still have to consider future proofing as best as you can. When and If I switch over to Vista and need a DX10 card it seems I would be better off with the E6600. Correct ????

I am going to be buying this system unless somebody can convice me otherwise.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=3232994">https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion......t/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=3232994</a>



Baked makes some good points (plus we both live in San Diego ) Please convince me more.

Yeah, at 800x600 with no AA/AF, you get a whopping 6%. At 1600x1200, there is ZERO difference. At 1280x1024 there will be ZERO difference.

The GPU is still the limiting factor for 99% of the people that play at a higher resolution than 800x600 with lowest settings.

In terms of heavy AI calculations, like those found in Oblivion, a faster CPU clock is going to be more important.

 

[mrfatboy]

This is how I currently see it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If you are not overclocking the E6600 gets you 12% faster raw GHZ speed plus the 6% extra speed thru the 4mb cache. I am not sure really how to represent an overall precentage. Any math majors out there?

If you are overclocking, it seems that having a DS3 board, 800ddr and a E6400 is the better choice because that combo can do 3.2ghz (8 multiplier * 400) which gets you a 1:1 ratio with mem easier.

Overclocking with a DS3 board, 800ddr and E6600 you would have to use 3.6ghz (9 multiplier * 400) to get a 1:1 ratio. I believe this would be harder to achieve.

Does any of this make sense? Am I right or wrong? If I am right I might have just talked myself out of an E6600.

 

[MadBadger]

Don't tell me I stumped the AT forum...do I win something?

 

[mrfatboy]

I hear crickets! Come on everybody, share the knowledge

 

[mrfatboy]

hey badger,


did you read this?

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2854

e6600 and e6400 info on ds3. It seems like the e6600 is better. Did I read it right?

 

[MadBadger]

mrfatboy - No, I didn't read that yet. Thanks for the heads up.

You did read the article right. It was saying how past issues with the Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 BIOS were limiting the degree of overclocking that's achievable with the faster E6600+ processors and how the F7 release cleared these issues up. It was also saying how the D9 micron memory module (no clue what this is) was preventing any further overclocking for E6300 and E6400 processors (since the FSB is locked at a maximum of 450 Mhz and those were stable since previous BIOS releases; apparently with other 965 boards 600 Mhz FSB speeds are achievable). The improvement for the E6600 processor was that they were able to overclock it with a 450 Mhz FSB (whereas previously they were having troubles with FSB speeds > than 400 Mhz).

But, this article was dealing just with the Gigabyte GA-965 motherboard. I'm assuming that results will vary between different motherboards.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the E6600 is better than the E6400 when you are running at stock speeds, it's just saying that you can run a higher CPU speed right now with an E6600 processor due to the current situation with the BIOS releases.

You could probably assume that under stock speeds the E6600 would be better than the E6400. I haven't seen any information out there that suggests otherwise. Maybe for overclocking the E6400 would be superior (in some cases), but I don't want to overclock.

I don't see why the E6400 would be better than the E6600 in a 965 board when running at stock speeds. The CPU speed should be higher which should increase the overall performance. It's just a question of how much of an increase it is and whether or not it's worth the extra $100.

I'm not sure where Baked and akshayt are coming from unless they thought that I was interested in overclocking. But even if that were the case, it doesn't seem like sweeping statements can be made, since there are differences with the BIOS releases of the different motherboard manufacturers.

So I'm assuming that under stock conditions the E6600 performs better. For overclocking, it just depends on which board you are thinking of using because with certain boards you might have a hard time achieving stable conditions with an E6600 and a 400 Mhz FSB, whereas on that same board you might be able to achieve stable conditions with an E6400 running at 450+Mhz, allowing for an overall higher CPU speed with the E6400.

:laugh:

Anyhow, great, I think that helped a lot with understanding the current situation between the 965 chipset, the 975 chipset and the different Conroe processors.

Still doesn't help with the memory question. Although I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the bajillion reviews that I've recently read, it stated that 667 RAM performed worse than 533 RAM in certain instances due to the other than 1:1 ratio.

I'm also pretty certain that Intel is the leader in the reliability/stability department.

Still not sure which would be the better investment though. Going for an E6400/975 or an E6600/965. I want to stand firm and keep it around $1500, so E6600/975 is out of the question.

The only benefit that I can see for the E6400/975 is that it has a lot more room for expansion and it would probably be the better choice for maintaining stable overclocked systems (although I'm sure that varies widely between choices of motherboards and memory).

Since I don't need more room for expansion and since I don't plan on overclocking, I don't see the reason to choose that combination over an E6600/965.

Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure I've got a decent handle on the current situation between Conroe compatible chipsets and the different Conroe processors.

Anyways, as far as the best choice for you, that depends on your budget, intended use and whether or not you are going to overclock (and how much you want to overclock). I could only give you educated guesses though, since I don't have practical experience with overclocking, or Conroe systems.

So, yea. That was a long one.

Feel free to correct any mistakes that you might see.

Cheers. :beer:

 

[mrfatboy]

It seems that you should get a E6400 and 533 Ram if you are not overclocking. I would also suggest that DS3 board. There are a lot of people that have them and there is tons of support for it. I don't read/see many people with the intel board. I am not saying it is bad but if I have a problem I like to know there are a lot of people that can help me

Going back to the article - The thing that confuses me is that they say the E6400 is better for 965 chipset. However, their test is with a E6600 and they state how much better it is now thru the new F7 bios. But they never say if it is ultimately better or not. did I miss something?

For me stability is an absolute. You have to be careful reading these forumns because people stay there board is stable - but for how long? My PC is on for 24/7. Having it reboot every 8-12 hours is not stable for me.

I also want the PC to last a while. If I can overclock a E6400 to 3.2ghz and it is stable but is burns out in a year. That's no good either. I have no idea how much wear and tear this overclock would have.

But the one thing I do know is that I like to tinker around a bit. This would be a good opportunity to learn about overclocking and have some fun.

So for a $150 (faster ram and cpu) more, a DS3, 800ddr2, and an E6600 would let me do this. It also gives me a faster non overclockig system, future proofs me a little with a faster processor and ram when and If I go to Vista and DX10.

A E6400 and 533ddr gives you no room to play. A e6400 and 800ddr gives you a lot of room to play if you wanted or needed.

Hell, it's only money

 

[MadBadger]

mrfatboy - As far as I remember (don't have time to read through it again), they didn't make any generalizations about the E6400 being better with the 965 chipset than the E6600.

The whole article was about that one 965 Gigabyte board and it's evolution through the various BIOS updates. What they did say was that up until the F7 update, the E6400 and E6300 were better because they were able to achieve stable systems with a higher FSB. The higher achievable FSB speed basically resulted in diminished benefits for overclocking an E6600 processor. Why spend $100 more for the E6600 when you can overclock to the same speed with an E6400?

At they end of the article I believe they did mention that at this moment, the E6600 seems to be the sweet spot for that board.

Like I mentioned earlier, I don't plan on overclocking this system and I don't need room for upgrades, so I don't see any reason to not go with an E6600 and a 965 board (in my case). I'm going to stick with the Intel board, I think. Seems like they have the best support right now and very shortly things are going to get very busy for me and I'm not going to have time to deal with hiccups.

I can't give you advice on the overclocking since I haven't done any, but I think you need to be prepared for the worst. If you decide to overclock, then I think you need to be realistic and be ready if things go bad (loss of time, money, the inconvenience etc.)

Good luck with your build! :beer:

 

[mrfatboy]

Here is an excerpt from that article

" Of course, we continue to believe the E6300 or E6400 CPUs are best suited for the P965 chipset. This is especially true for those who want to overclock these processors as the P965 chipset has proven itself up to the 600FSB level to date, although the memory performance penalty at that level is horrendous"

Then at the end, as you mentioned they say the e6600 is the sweet spot due to the new f7 bios.

Just a tad confusing