General Build Hardware Questions

[TSx]

I apologize for the length of this post. I've taken to the path of upgrading every few years with virtually a complete overhaul, as to not have to worry about parts for a while.

That being said, my last core upgrade was several years ago now, and this is what I've been running:

- INTEL BX80557E6600 Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40 GHz 1066 MHz Socket 775 4MB Processor
- OCZ Gold Series 4GB (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5400) CL 4-4-4-12 Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ26672048ELGEGXT-K
- MSI 975X Platinum Motherboard
- eVGA Nvidia 7800GT (runs at 1280x1024)
- Kingston SSDNow 64GB SSD (boot, Windows 7)
- IBM 80GB IDE HD (OS backup, Windows XP)
- Samsung HD103SJ 1TB SATA HD
- ViewSonic VP930b 19" LCD
- SoundBlaster Audigy LS
- Antec True Power Trio TP3-650 650W ATX12V Power Supply

I design web and iPhone games as well as design user interfaces for PC games, so while I do a lot with gaming, I rarely need the top end specs, and for work purposes, am focused on small graphics and still frame rates. My PC work is primarily on MMORPG's that are designed for the masses, meaning you don't need a top end machine to run.

When I'm not working, I like to watch Netflix streams, play some SC2; and I'll definitely play Diablo 3 when it comes out. I'm in and out of Photoshop and Flash (CS4, but I should be getting CS5 soon). I really don't do anything else that would even begin to tax even my current system. Basically, the upgrade is primarily to ensure games run smoothly while still allowing me to work without being in any way impaired.

I know how to put the parts together, I know how to make the system work, but I don't know a lot about the individual components.

My ignorance...
I've been using this dual core Intel processor for years now, and I still don't understand the benefits (or detriments) to it. I thought the theory was to allow multiple tasks to run simultaneously, like Photoshop on one core and Flash on the other...or to allow some smarter programs to make use of multiple cores, like a game rendering the UI on one core and the level on another...am I even in the ballpark on this one?

- I know that most processors now are quad core; are programs and games making use of that now?

- I know this motherboard was 'forward compatible' to some extent, but I don't know if it would be good enough for current model processors.

- Am I correct in assuming that my processor would hold me back if I went with a higher end video card when talking about moderate/high settings on SC2 or D3? Or would a video card upgrade bring everything up to speed?

- I can't think of anything I do that runs more than 4gb of ram, or even gets close to 4gb really. Is the stuff I have compatible with newer boards or do I need to look at ram also?

- Is my power supply sufficient to run the newer components?

I don't like to do anything with overclocking as my machines all run all the time, and don't really think crossfire or sli would be something I'd want to mess with. My home office is upstairs and with multiple computers running, it gets pretty warm. My cooling isn't horrible, but is definitely not 100% optimal. Changing cases isn't currently an option based on where it fits though, so that is one limitation.

I'm budgeting probably around $300 for the processor, $100 for the motherboard, $300 for the video card, and I'm unsure on the ram or power supply. I'd like to spend under $1,000 in total, but I'm a bit flexible because I do want a system that I won't have to touch for another 3-5 years.

Thanks in advance, I really appreciate the input.

 

[Sp12]

My ignorance...
I've been using this dual core Intel processor for years now, and I still don't understand the benefits (or detriments) to it. I thought the theory was to allow multiple tasks to run simultaneously, like Photoshop on one core and Flash on the other...or to allow some smarter programs to make use of multiple cores, like a game rendering the UI on one core and the level on another...am I even in the ballpark on this one?

Pretty much.

- I know that most processors now are quad core; are programs and games making use of that now?

Yes, newer games are increasingly able to use quad cores, and some apps/games can use even more than that.

- I know this motherboard was 'forward compatible' to some extent, but I don't know if it would be good enough for current model processors.

No.

- Am I correct in assuming that my processor would hold me back if I went with a higher end video card when talking about moderate/high settings on SC2 or D3? Or would a video card upgrade bring everything up to speed?

Both of them are bottlenecks TBH, but the 6600 is probably the worse one for SC2.

- I can't think of anything I do that runs more than 4gb of ram, or even gets close to 4gb really. Is the stuff I have compatible with newer boards or do I need to look at ram also?

Probably new ram unless you went with an old AMD board. (not recommended)

- Is my power supply sufficient to run the newer components?

Maybe, but they degrade over time.

I do want a system that I won't have to touch for another 3-5 years.

Thanks in advance, I really appreciate the input.

No such thing as a system that will game well for the next 5, 4, or even really 3 years. Computers just move too fast for that to work.

 

[mfenn]

I apologize for the length of this post. I've taken to the path of upgrading every few years with virtually a complete overhaul, as to not have to worry about parts for a while.

That being said, my last core upgrade was several years ago now, and this is what I've been running:

- INTEL BX80557E6600 Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40 GHz 1066 MHz Socket 775 4MB Processor
- OCZ Gold Series 4GB (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5400) CL 4-4-4-12 Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ26672048ELGEGXT-K
- MSI 975X Platinum Motherboard
- eVGA Nvidia 7800GT (runs at 1280x1024)
- Kingston SSDNow 64GB SSD (boot, Windows 7)
- IBM 80GB IDE HD (OS backup, Windows XP)
- Samsung HD103SJ 1TB SATA HD
- ViewSonic VP930b 19" LCD
- SoundBlaster Audigy LS
- Antec True Power Trio TP3-650 650W ATX12V Power Supply

I design web and iPhone games as well as design user interfaces for PC games, so while I do a lot with gaming, I rarely need the top end specs, and for work purposes, am focused on small graphics and still frame rates. My PC work is primarily on MMORPG's that are designed for the masses, meaning you don't need a top end machine to run.

When I'm not working, I like to watch Netflix streams, play some SC2; and I'll definitely play Diablo 3 when it comes out. I'm in and out of Photoshop and Flash (CS4, but I should be getting CS5 soon). I really don't do anything else that would even begin to tax even my current system. Basically, the upgrade is primarily to ensure games run smoothly while still allowing me to work without being in any way impaired.

I know how to put the parts together, I know how to make the system work, but I don't know a lot about the individual components.

My ignorance...
I've been using this dual core Intel processor for years now, and I still don't understand the benefits (or detriments) to it. I thought the theory was to allow multiple tasks to run simultaneously, like Photoshop on one core and Flash on the other...or to allow some smarter programs to make use of multiple cores, like a game rendering the UI on one core and the level on another...am I even in the ballpark on this one?

Yes, you are correct. Many programs are multi-threaded (able to use more than one core) these days.

- I know that most processors now are quad core; are programs and games making use of that now?

To some extent, yes. I think that the trend to more and more parallelism will only continue.

- I know this motherboard was 'forward compatible' to some extent, but I don't know if it would be good enough for current model processors.

No, it isn't.

- Am I correct in assuming that my processor would hold me back if I went with a higher end video card when talking about moderate/high settings on SC2 or D3? Or would a video card upgrade bring everything up to speed?

You are correct that a new GPU will be largely bottlenecked by a stock-clocked E6600.

- I can't think of anything I do that runs more than 4gb of ram, or even gets close to 4gb really. Is the stuff I have compatible with newer boards or do I need to look at ram also?

Intel's new platform is all DDR3. Current AMD processors can use DDR2 or DDR3 with the appropriate motherboard, but the next generation will be DDR3 only.

- Is my power supply sufficient to run the newer components?

It should be fine. I believe that model has 2 PCIe power connectors, one 6-pin and one 6+2-pin?

I don't like to do anything with overclocking as my machines all run all the time, and don't really think crossfire or sli would be something I'd want to mess with. My home office is upstairs and with multiple computers running, it gets pretty warm. My cooling isn't horrible, but is definitely not 100% optimal. Changing cases isn't currently an option based on where it fits though, so that is one limitation.

I'm budgeting probably around $300 for the processor, $100 for the motherboard, $300 for the video card, and I'm unsure on the ram or power supply. I'd like to spend under $1,000 in total, but I'm a bit flexible because I do want a system that I won't have to touch for another 3-5 years.

Thanks in advance, I really appreciate the input.

So I take it you only need the CPU, mobo, RAM, and GPU? As long as your current case is ATX, it will be fine.

Here's a build that I posted in another thread, tweaked a bit for your situation.
Core i5 760 $210
Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 + GTX 470 combo $380 AR
G.Skill DDR3 1333 4GB $83
Total w/o monitor $673 AR

You'll really want to upgrade your monitor as well. Here are a couple of suggestions:

ASUS VW266H $260 AR - A little more expensive than the 1080P ones, but I think the extra vertical pixels are worth it.
OR
HP LP2465 refurb $210 - If you're willing to go with a refurb, this is a ridiculous deal. A 24" S-PVA panel for $210? Sign me up!

 

[darkewaffle]

Seeing as he's running at 1280x1024, it's not asking too much to be future proof for a couple years of games.

Are you planning on upgrading your monitor at any point?

And because the socket your processor / mobo uses are long discontinued, you probably will be looking at a complete upgrade. You will need new RAM because your current DDR2 RAM has been superseded by DDR3 as standard on almost all modern motherboards.

I think your PSU will be fine as long as you don't decide you need a GTX 480 or a 5970 or something really outlandish.

Seeing as you'll really only be needing a CPU, RAM, mobo, and GPU you should be able to get yourself a very nice system with $1000. AMD or Intel would suit you well either way; advantages to AMD being less spent overall and/or a higher budget for your GPU, as well as better upgrade overhead; though that probably isn't too important to you. Advantages of Intel being better processor performance overall right now, but more expensive components.

 

[TSx]

Thanks for the feedback!

I don't have any real preference between AMD and Intel; I used AMD for several upgrades prior to this current build, and I remember going with the Intel because it was supposed to be better for both gaming and image processing.

I haven't looked at RAM prices in ages, but I'm sure they still fluctuate a bit, meaning the best deals are a week to week type of thing? I looked for the old AAT pricing history tool but it seems like it's not working anymore; too bad.

I actually have been looking at a new monitor, but I haven't brought myself to make the switch yet. The one I've had my eye on is the ASUS VW246H.

I really, really like the display on this ViewSonic. When dealing with UI and graphic design, this is the best monitor I've owned or worked on. I've used many other monitors including other ViewSonics, Apples, Acer, a few Samsung and LG, an HP or two, a few AOC's, and even a Hanns-G. The color crispness is just a notch above on this particular ViewSonic.

Now, while I sound very sure of this one being the best, I also have no doubt there are others equally as good, if not better. It's just one of those situations where it's hard to top something that is really good. I never thought the monitor would bottleneck a system, though. I was mostly looking at it to increase the size. I run multiple systems instead of multiple monitors, and all of the others use 22" screens running 1680x1050. I'd be likely to run the 24" on a resolution that kept the icons and fonts and such at approximately the same size; so probably somewhere in the realm of 1900x1200 or something in that range. It would be good if the video card could run games at that resolution while still keeping graphics at as high a quality as possible.

When I mentioned gaming, I should have clarified a bit more. I looked to see when I did the majority of this current upgrade; the processor, board, and ram were purchased in November of 2006, while the video card was purchased in February of 2006. I mostly played World of Warcraft during that time, and Starcraft 2 is really the first 'big' game since. I don't do any FPS gaming and the next big game I'll get will be Diablo 3, which will probably last me a while. I don't have a clue on specs for it, but I think something moderately high end right now should work well for it (I hope at least).

Power supplies are something I know very little about overall. I've tried to understand their numbers and ratings, but always wind up confused. The Antec I'm using is this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817371001 It lists the two spec's you mentioned above; 1 x 6-Pin, 1 x 6+2-Pin, though I honestly have no idea what that means. It's rated at 80,000 hours, and I'm probably only at about half that! heh.

Another thing came to mind that I didn't mention before. I like to hook my computer up to my TV to watch movies via Netflix. I'm sure most video cards come standard with TV-out options now, most probably via either DVI or HDMI, but does one type (nvidia or ATI) have a better track record for running smoother for that? I've had issues with nvidia drivers recently with S-Video TV out, notably causing my TV display to only run in black and white (I still haven't figured that one out), and several years back I know nvidia removed the option of displaying the TV/secondary display in full screen during video playback (easily circumvented by stretching the display, dragging a window, and maximizing the video.) I had kind of been leaning towards giving ATI another shot, but then I saw some posts about how ATI drivers were lagging behind on updates, so now I'm not sure either way. I do have one caveat there; I won't go with an eVGA card (hours and hours of support issues with my initial four 7800GT cards severely artifacting; turned out to be a bad batch, but the tech support headache really turned me away from their company.)

When I went with the 7800GT, the 7800GTX was the only video card that was really 'better'. I'd like to do something like that again to make it last a while, but probably stay away from the absolute top echelon because there's usually such a drastic price gap. Same reason I went with the Kingston SSD ($80) instead of the Corsair or Intel (~$300) models at the time.

Again I do appreciate the feedback and insight.

Edit Clarifications: The monitor was actually the VH242H, I couldn't see any real difference in the VW series to the VH, and the VH is $180 after MIR at Buy.com or through Amazon.

Also, the screen resolution on the 24" would be 1920x1080, possibly less on the width; the height would remain the same as my 22" monitors it seems.

 

[mfenn]

The VW only has DVI whereas the VH has HDMI and (crappy) speakers, I believe.

I'm pretty sure the the build that I posted above meets your specifications to a T.

If you want a good monitor for design work, look no farther than a PVA panel like the HP I linked or an IPS panel like the Dell U2311H.

 

[darkewaffle]

Well mfenn already gave you a good Intel setup, so I'd run with that if it suits you.

For an AMD setup I'd probably say go ahead and get yourself a 1055T (Or 1090T if you think you want the performance bump, but you're really paying for the unlocked multiplier more than anything else) since you won't be overclocking and 6 cores should ensure good performance for a few generations.

RAM is pretty simple. Pick a good brand and run with it, some of the Intel sockets might benefit from a 6GB Tri Channel kit, but otherwise 4GB will be fine and prices really only fluctuate downward. You might not see the best deal every week, but you won't be getting ripped off either. About $100 for a 4GB kit, about $160 for a 6GB kit.

For displays, I'm a devout NEC user. But it's all preference. Chances are you'll be more than happy with a 23 or 24inch TN panel with 1080P resolution. ASUS seems to make some good consumer grade displays nowadays.

For your GPU solution, high end but not bleeding edge, that's perfect for a 5850 or a GTX 470. The 470 will outperform the 5850 pretty regularly at a slight price premium, but is also a hotter and louder card. The GTX 460 is also an excellent value card, but at a higher resolution I'm not sure how well it will hold up a couple years down the road. Personally I think I would go 5850 or 460, and then if you feel it's needed, you could very easily pop in a second card in a year or two from now and xfire or SLi to keep up.

I wouldn't worry about the powersupply. Unless you end up with extra budget and really want to upgrade it, your current one will be sufficient.

As for TV-out, if your TV has an HDMI input you're pretty much all set. I can't say I know whether ati or nvidia has better support for this use though.

With that said, here's what I'm thinking.

AMD 1055T + ASUS M4A87TD Mobo, $270

Mushkin Blackline 2x2GB Kit, $92 ($82 AR)

ASUS GTX 460, $230

That'll put you at about $580 all together shipped and you have some fairly significant upgrade overhead with Bulldozer or SLi if you ever find the need, and it also leaves you $420 for a monitor and/or a PSU if you're concerned about it. Further, the 1055T and 460 both overclock very well if you find yourself wanting for a cheap performance increase.

 

[TSx]

On the monitors, you guys used a few acronyms I wasn't familiar with... PVA panel, and IPS panel, as well as TN panel. I'll admit I have no idea what makes one LCD different from another.

My viewing point is center on in an ideally lit room with monitors straight ahead (no tilt) and about 18-24" away from me; so I don't know what settings I would look at to see which display was the best for me. I'm not sure what matte/gloss screens do differently, and like I said above, I just don't even know what those acronyms describe.

Staying on monitors; the HP linked above (I have no issues with refurb btw, they're often better than new) lists that it runs at 1920x1200, would that be in line with the 1680x1050 I run now, or is the 1900x1080 closer? I honestly can't tell the difference between the different monitors from their specs. I would be connecting DVI to DVI, and not using audio on the monitor, so some of the 'extras' are just extra.

For video card, I don't mind noise, but heat could be a concern if it's significant. Is stock cooling good enough to support it? I've changed gpu heatsink/fan before but I'd really prefer not doing it if I could avoid it. My case only has one 120mm exhaust fan, no intake, so I don't want to chance frying a card. Same reason I was against SLI or Crossfire, the added heat didn't seem a safe option.

Both options you've listed so far are well under what I was thinking it would cost me, so that's definitely a plus. I thought the processor alone would run closer to the $250-$300 range.

 

[mfenn]

On the monitors, you guys used a few acronyms I wasn't familiar with... PVA panel, and IPS panel, as well as TN panel. I'll admit I have no idea what makes one LCD different from another.

My viewing point is center on in an ideally lit room with monitors straight ahead (no tilt) and about 18-24" away from me; so I don't know what settings I would look at to see which display was the best for me. I'm not sure what matte/gloss screens do differently, and like I said above, I just don't even know what those acronyms describe.

Staying on monitors; the HP linked above (I have no issues with refurb btw, they're often better than new) lists that it runs at 1920x1200, would that be in line with the 1680x1050 I run now, or is the 1900x1080 closer? I honestly can't tell the difference between the different monitors from their specs. I would be connecting DVI to DVI, and not using audio on the monitor, so some of the 'extras' are just extra.

For video card, I don't mind noise, but heat could be a concern if it's significant. Is stock cooling good enough to support it? I've changed gpu heatsink/fan before but I'd really prefer not doing it if I could avoid it. My case only has one 120mm exhaust fan, no intake, so I don't want to chance frying a card. Same reason I was against SLI or Crossfire, the added heat didn't seem a safe option.

Both options you've listed so far are well under what I was thinking it would cost me, so that's definitely a plus. I thought the processor alone would run closer to the $250-$300 range.

Wikipedia has a good article on the different types of LCDs. Essentially it boils down to:
TN: fast response times, bad viewing angles, bad color accuracy, cheap
Anything else: slower response times, good viewing angles, potentially good color accuracy, more expensive.

Matte and glossy just refer to the type of coating on the LCD panel. A matte screen will look dull or flat when turned off, whereas a glossy screen is reflective. Glossy screens can give the perception of better colors, but also have issues with glare and reflections.

1920x1200 and 1680x1050 are both 16:10 aspect ratios, whereas 1920x1080 is 16:9. What you have now on your VP930b is 1280x1024 which is 5:4 aspect. As far as dot pitch (i.e. how big the actual pixels are) goes, your current monitor is 0.294mm whereas a 24" 1920x1200 screen would be .270mm. Thus, any image with a fixed DPI (text mostly) would look very slightly smaller on the 24" monitor. For comparison, a 23" 1080P screen as a dot pitch of 0.265mm and the ASUS 25.5" 1080P has a dot pitch of 0.294mm.


As for the GPU, the GTX series does run hotter than the Radeon's, but it's within safe limits, so I wouldn't worry about it. They are louder, but you said that that isn't an issue.

 

[TSx]

I read through the Wikipedia article; a lot of this stuff can get incredibly confusing when broken down to the component level. I used a dpi calculator to compare the current 22" systems I have running 1680x1050 and there is a slight difference from the 19" to the 22", even though I don't notice it much. I'm probably just used to it by now. That makes me think that I wouldn't notice a difference from either 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. I have to use a 27-inch iMac one place I work and I find those entirely too big, so I've been cautious at going with anything larger than a 22-24".

 

[TSx]

The graphics card itself seems to be far less of a gap than it used to be, with the GTX 470 being better, but $100 more than the GTX 460. Is that $100 going to buy an additional year in future performance?

Along the same lines, there were several processors that seemed like they were in the 'high end' range while still under $300. I read a bit on the i7 vs. i5 stuff, that part didn't seem to be a big difference, especially for what I do. But would one of these be more likely to hold out for a longer period of time?

Earlier two mentioned:
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T ~$200
Intel Core i5 760 ~$205

Others:
Intel Core i7 930 ~$280
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93 GHz ~$285
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ~$285

If the longevity would increase by even 6-12 months, I'd consider the extra $80 there worth it, more so than the video card difference.

You mentioned RAM...if I show a normal load with my usual programs (non-gaming) at around 2300-2400 out of 4100 currently, is there any reason to bump to 6gb? I honestly don't know how much ram games use, but when I have a game up, my work programs are all closed, so it would be the base windows 7 (1gb?) plus the game.

 

[mfenn]

The graphics card itself seems to be far less of a gap than it used to be, with the GTX 470 being better, but $100 more than the GTX 460. Is that $100 going to buy an additional year in future performance?

The difference is more like $40 between the GTX 460 1GB and the GTX 470, so yes I think it is worth it.

Along the same lines, there were several processors that seemed like they were in the 'high end' range while still under $300. I read a bit on the i7 vs. i5 stuff, that part didn't seem to be a big difference, especially for what I do. But would one of these be more likely to hold out for a longer period of time?

Earlier two mentioned:
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T ~$200
Intel Core i5 760 ~$205

Others:
Intel Core i7 930 ~$280
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93 GHz ~$285
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ~$285

If the longevity would increase by even 6-12 months, I'd consider the extra $80 there worth it, more so than the video card difference.

No, there is not an extra $100 worth of performance in any of those more expensive options.

You mentioned RAM...if I show a normal load with my usual programs (non-gaming) at around 2300-2400 out of 4100 currently, is there any reason to bump to 6gb? I honestly don't know how much ram games use, but when I have a game up, my work programs are all closed, so it would be the base windows 7 (1gb?) plus the game.

IMHO, 4GB is plenty for normal uses. If you get 2x2GB, you can always move to 8GB later on if you feel the need.

 

[TSx]

If I went with the 470 (same case as the 480 I believe?) I would need a new power supply though, wouldn't I? I only did a quick glance to see the prices, so with some deal hunting, $40 would definitely be worth it; unless the additional power supply cost was +$100 or something. I haven't priced psu's in a while either.

 

[mfenn]

If I went with the 470 (same case as the 480 I believe?) I would need a new power supply though, wouldn't I? I only did a quick glance to see the prices, so with some deal hunting, $40 would definitely be worth it; unless the additional power supply cost was +$100 or something. I haven't priced psu's in a while either.

A 470 will be fine on a 650W. A 480 would be pushing it.

A 480 is still up around $450 whereas you can get 470's for $270-280 all day long.