Judge my "bang for the buck" gaming rig hardware

[Salvador]

It has been a while since I specced a system and I want to build the best bang for the buck gaming rig. I don't want to venture into DDR3 or i7 yet because of the money and the limited motherboard selections. Plus, I know that as soon as I build this, I'll be able to get something much better and cheaper in 6 months anyway.

I'm looking for something that will handle any game made now and in the next 6 months at least. I heard that a lot of games don't utilize quad core cpu's yet, so I think that I'm better off going with a faster dual core cpu at this point.

Here's what I have so far. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to comment.

Intel E8500 or Q6600 (I'm planning on adding an aftermarket cooler)
Asus P5Q Pro or Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P (I'd like to stay under $200 with the mobo)
ATI 4870 or nVidia GTX 260 (Never heard of either, but they both keep popping up)
Corsair Dominator DDR2 2 x 2gb (4gb)
Antec 900 case
WD Caviar (not sure if I should go with a SATA 3.0 gb/s or go for a Raptor as a boot drive)
PSU.. Probably something by Seasonic, OCZ, PCP&C, etc.. Not sure how much power I'll need though.
I've got the rest of the peripherals covered. I think.

TIA,

Sal

Edit: Just changed a few things since the last post.

 

[philbrown23]

I say grab the E8500 as the newer Q6600's overclock terribly unless you can find a Q6600 with a VID under 1.25v. Also get the Asus P5Q-E basically same as the deluxe but 40 bucks cheaper, both the PRO ans the gigabyte board you listed have poor mosfet cooling or get the gigabyte EP45 UD3P.if you get an intel based chipset motherboard grab the ati card so eventually you can add a second card if you need to. as for ram buy a nice cheap 4GB (2X2GB) kit. just my 2 cents.

 

[Salvador]

Originally posted by: philbrown23
I say grab the E8500 as the newer Q6600's overclock terribly unless you can find a Q6600 with a VID under 1.25v. Also get the Asus P5Q-E basically same as the deluxe but 40 bucks cheaper, both the PRO ans the gigabyte board you listed have poor mosfet cooling or get the gigabyte EP45 UD3P.if you get an intel based chipset motherboard grab the ati card so eventually you can add a second card if you need to. as for ram buy a nice cheap 4GB (2X2GB) kit. just my 2 cents.

Thanks for the response. I'm confused on one thing though. You said that both boards that I listed had poor mosfet cooling, but then you recommended the same Gigabyte board that I had listed? Did you mean another Gigabyte model?

Won't an Intel board support two nVidia cards or is it just for the nVidia chipset boards?

If you think I overshot or undershot on anything here, please feel free to let me know. I don't know if I'm scrimping on the cpu and mobo for the graphics card or the other way around.

I tell you.. If you lose touch of what's going on in the pc hardware world for 6 months or more, you're lost.

 

[DSF]

X58 is the only Intel chipset supporting SLi. Don't worry about it though, one graphics card offers more bang for the buck than two.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Salvador

Won't an Intel board support two nVidia cards or is it just for the nVidia chipset boards?

I tell you.. If you lose touch of what's going on in the pc hardware world for 6 months or more, you're lost.

1. Current P35, P45, etc Intel based MBs will support two nVidia cards... Just not in SLI mode.
2. Reading threads and a few articles would bring you up to speed in about 1 to 2 hours.

 

[Salvador]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Salvador

Won't an Intel board support two nVidia cards or is it just for the nVidia chipset boards?

I tell you.. If you lose touch of what's going on in the pc hardware world for 6 months or more, you're lost.

1. Current P35, P45, etc Intel based MBs will support two nVidia cards... Just not in SLI mode.
2. Reading threads and a few articles would bring you up to speed in about 1 to 2 hours.

Thanks for the replies. I have been reading threads and articles. I'm still needing to find that "sweet" spot though between getting something that will give me everything that I need now for gaming without spending too much on a socket 775 system or going with the socket 1366 this early in the game.

I see some cool boards like the Asus Rampage or Maximus, but they are $250-$300. I'm sure that they are great boards, but that seems like a lot for socket 775 system with the new systems out. I can easily go overboard with cpu's too. I see some quad cores that are over $300 still. The disadvantage of the socket 1366 seems to be the price and lack of selection of motherboards as well as the the price difference between the DDR2 and DDR3 RAM. Am I wrong?

I think that I'm set on picking up a P45 board and going with the ATI HD4870 1gb single card. I'm still not sure on which motherboard or if I want to go with a quad core or dual core.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think somewhere down this path you lost 'bang for the buck'.

The e7300/Asus P5Q SE for $200 or even the X2 7750/Biostar 790gx combo for $160 should be 'good enough' juice for your HD 4870 1Gb.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Salvador
I think that I'm set on picking up a P45 board and going with the ATI HD4870 1gb single card. I'm still not sure on which motherboard or if I want to go with a quad core or dual core.

1. Think about how you actually use a PC.
2. Read reviews of current CPUs.
3. Make your processor pick, one which performs best based on your usage (taking price in account also).

 

[Salvador]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I think somewhere down this path you lost 'bang for the buck'.

The e7300/Asus P5Q SE for $200 or even the X2 7750/Biostar 790gx combo for $160 should be 'good enough' juice for your HD 4870 1Gb.

What card(s) would be more in line with the system that I'm trying to put together?

What I'm looking for is a system that will handle every game out now and within 6 months at least. All the rest of it is easy, so if it can handle the games, everything else will be cake.

Should I go cheaper and upgrade sooner to the next platform or am I in the right ballpark with my picks?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Salvador

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I think somewhere down this path you lost 'bang for the buck'.

The e7300/Asus P5Q SE for $200 or even the X2 7750/Biostar 790gx combo for $160 should be 'good enough' juice for your HD 4870 1Gb.

What card(s) would be more in line with the system that I'm trying to put together?

What I'm looking for is a system that will handle every game out now and within 6 months at least. All the rest of it is easy, so if it can handle the games, everything else will be cake.

Should I go cheaper and upgrade sooner to the next platform or am I in the right ballpark with my picks?

The HD4870 1Gb is designed to handle the most demanding games at high resolutions and complex textures. The more you crank the AA the better it seems to 'perform' against the competition.

'Handle' is one of those 'relative' terms - it differs from person to person. My best advice to you is to make the decision you are most comfortable with making and don't let us make the decision for you. And be really, really happy with your decision - it's your money.

I don't see where the e8500 will gain you anything over an e8400 (or e7300 or X2 7750 for that matter especially in our 'bang fer duh buck'). You are looking at a potential $70-$100 difference right there that can be made up easily with a slight tweak to your resolution, detail, settings and AA/AF level, etc.

And that cash goes nicely toward your other needs (and sorry you didn't jump on the $60 Antec 900s from a few week ago .... )

It's all just dandy Enjoy!

 

[Salvador]

There's honestly going to be no difference between a E7300, E8400 and the E8500? I thought that the E8500 was priced right because it was $70 less than the E8600. There's only $25 between the E8400 and the E8500, so that's no biggie. There is a big difference between the E7300 though.

Even though I'm starting with one hdd and one graphics card, I think that I'd like the option to add a second card for Crossfire and the possibility to add RAID. So.. I'll probably want a bit more board. I wish I could make up my mind..

I'm definitely going with the HD4870, so at least that decision is made.

Thanks again. If anyone else has any suggestions, please feel free.

Sal

 

[Blain]

* The E7300 is priced so much lower because it specs out less than the E8XXX line.
E7300 = 2.66GHz, 1066FSB, 3MB L2 cache
E8500 = 3.16GHz, 1333FSB, 6MB L2 cache

* Tell me what monitor you're going to be gaming with and I'll tell you if you might need Crossfired HD4870/1GB's, or even a single HD4870/1GB.

* You don't need RAID anything. Stick with a 640GB-1TB WD "Black" or the 300GB VelociRaptor and you're golden.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Salvador
There's honestly going to be no difference between a E7300, E8400 and the E8500? I thought that the E8500 was priced right because it was $70 less than the E8600. There's only $25 between the E8400 and the E8500, so that's no biggie. There is a big difference between the E7300 though.

Even though I'm starting with one hdd and one graphics card, I think that I'd like the option to add a second card for Crossfire and the possibility to add RAID. So.. I'll probably want a bit more board. I wish I could make up my mind..

I'm definitely going with the HD4870, so at least that decision is made.

Thanks again. If anyone else has any suggestions, please feel free.

Sal

I would get the E8400 if I was you. The price difference from the 8500 and 8400 would basically pay for a cpu cooler like the Freezer7 which would give you decent overclocks.

Also you haven't stated what rez you game at which is important in choosing what videocard you purchase and if you even need to go Xfire.

 

[DSF]

If you're willing to overclock I'd get the E7300. If it feels too slow, crank it up a notch. It will easily go over 3 GHz.

As for adding a second graphics card later, it's not usually an effective upgrade strategy. By the time you get around to popping the second card in buying a single new card would've been more of an upgrade.

As far as RAID, I assume you mean RAID 0, and there's no real point for a basic desktop user. (Especially since you're thinking about adding RAID later, which would mean completely redoing your hard drive setup, transferring files, etc.)

If you're going to do Crossfire or RAID do them from the outset, but I wouldn't recommend either for a "bang for the buck" PC.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Salvador
There's honestly going to be no difference between a E7300, E8400 and the E8500? I thought that the E8500 was priced right because it was $70 less than the E8600. There's only $25 between the E8400 and the E8500, so that's no biggie. There is a big difference between the E7300 though.

Even though I'm starting with one hdd and one graphics card, I think that I'd like the option to add a second card for Crossfire and the possibility to add RAID. So.. I'll probably want a bit more board. I wish I could make up my mind..

I'm definitely going with the HD4870, so at least that decision is made.

Thanks again. If anyone else has any suggestions, please feel free.

Sal

IMHO there is a point of diminishing return with increasingly higher levels of cache. The biggest gains in performance are seen going from 2Mb ---> 3Mb, on a percentage basis not as much return from 3Mb ---> 6Mb.

Taking the e7300 to 333x10 and you have a solid performer for that HD4870 1Gb. The same applies to the AMD X2 7750 at 3.2-3.3GHz.

The e8400 with 6Mb would give you a bit more FPS (and a higher OC) .... but I think you will find that the differences in the cache will be roughly equaled by your gains in FPS by simply dropping to 4AA from 8AA, bumping the vid card memory speed, etc.

I hate to generalize but with the HD 4870 1Gb the higher your resolution and the higher the level of AA, the better your minimum framerates will be compared to the GTX 260. And we can spend hours debating that one ...

With all the variables in this equation it essentially comes down to a handful of frames for the most part that can be worked out one way or the other.

 

[dguy6789]

I'm going to recommend a quad core because there are games out now that run very poorly on high end dual cores and all games to date still run completely fine on a stock Q6600.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I'm going to recommend a quad core because there are games out now that run very poorly on high end dual cores and all games to date still run completely fine on a stock Q6600.

"run very poorly" on "high end dual cores"?
Show us the links.

 

[Denithor]

I'm with Blain on this one...

Dual versus Quad core gaming benchmarks

In three of these four games tested the faster dual core wins (which is going to hold true for about 90% of games out today). In the fourth game the quads manage to pull ahead because the game is multithreaded enough to gain a real advantage from the extra cores. But you will notice that even in that case the E8600 beats both the Q8200 (neutered by low cache) and the Phenom X4 9950 (hamstrung by the poor architecture of AMD's current generation of processors -- which is why most people here won't recommend AMD chips for gaming systems these days).

For the GPU, probably the best value today is the 1GB 4870. In most games it beats out the similarly-priced GTX 260 and even challenges the more expensive GTX 280 in some instances. Of course, you need a 24" or larger monitor to really see the advantage of a card like this (anything below 1920x1200 is better suited to a lesser GPU).

 

[Blain]

dguy6789... Links?

 

[Salvador]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I'm going to recommend a quad core because there are games out now that run very poorly on high end dual cores and all games to date still run completely fine on a stock Q6600.

I see that you have the Q9550. Is there a lot of difference between a Q9550 and the Q6600?

Heh.. I'm blowing the "bang for the buck" equation out of the water.

DSF mentioned that if I want to do Crossfire, I should do it right away. Is a Crossfire setup going to give me a lot more than a single HD4870 1gb? What if I went with 2 HD4870 512 mb cards instead in Crossfire? I'm also curious about those dual GPU cards. How well do they work?

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Salvador
Is a Crossfire setup going to give me a lot more than a single HD4870 1gb? What if I went with 2 HD4870 512 mb cards instead in Crossfire? I'm also curious about those dual GPU cards. How well do they work?

:roll: Last Chance...

Originally posted by: Blain
* Tell me what monitor you're going to be gaming with and I'll tell you if you might need Crossfired HD4870/1GB's, or even a single HD4870/1GB.

 

[Salvador]

24" LCD

 

[Blain]

Now we're getting somewhere.


* 24" LCD (1900x1200)
* "Bang for the buck"

= Radeon 4870/1GB or nVidia GTX 260/896MB

Crossfire, 4870x2 or SLI are NOT anywhere close to "bang for the buck" on a 24" LCD.

 

[Salvador]

Originally posted by: Blain
Now we're getting somewhere.


* 24" LCD (1900x1200)
* "Bang for the buck"

= Radeon 4870/1GB or nVidia GTX 260/896MB

Crossfire, 4870x2 or SLI are NOT anywhere close to "bang for the buck" on a 24" LCD.

Ok.. Forget bang for the buck. Will Crossfire or 4870x2 give me that much of a performance boost over the single 4870/1gb card?

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Salvador
Ok.. Forget bang for the buck. Will Crossfire or 4870x2 give me that much of a performance boost over the single 4870/1gb card?

No.
If you were running a 30" monitor it might be worth the extra, but not your 24".