New CPU needed, rebuilding system from scratch

[jhammer569]

I'll try & keep this short & sweet.

Built my system 5 yrs ago from scratch, every component. Athlon 2500 XP+ back in the day.

Want a new system, so first I need the CPU. I'll hunt down the other components one by one after I figure out the CPU.

My usage:
->I will be doing a good amount of home video editing and some Photoshop stuff; More importantly, I trade stocks for a living (3 DVI monitors, fast screen updates, etc); and everything else is basic web surfing, viewing DVD's when bored, etc. Barely any games, don't care about overclocking at all.
->Reliability is of prime importance to me given that I can't have my CPU going haywire in the middle of the trading day

Budget:
->I'm big on 'bang for buck'. An extra $50-100 here or there for a nice improvement is fine, this system will be for the next 5 years more than likely. But an extra $250 for a slightly better CPU is not in my budget or my peace of mind. For example, a quick look at mwave.com and I see some Intel quad CPU's for like $100-250, then it jumps to 500-1000$. I'd be more of a $250 man than jumping 100% up to $500, etc...

CPU:
-Don't care if it's AMD or Intel, but I'd like quad-core since I don't want to 'pop-in' a new CPU every year so I'd like to be more on the forefront than the rear mirror in the current environment
-From other threads, my impression is that for a user like me who cares not about OC or games, AMD/Intel is a toss-up, but AMD may still be best bang for buck for a non-OC'er since they seem to always be cheaper than Intel these days like they were 5 years ago when I first bought AMD...

So, can anyone just give me a few (3-5 maybe) quad-core CPU's from AMD and a few from Intel that I should look at and/or compare? Or point me in the right direction or just tell me what you think I should get? I can provide any other info or clarification if needed, I'll check this thread often since I really want to get moving on this.

THANKS!!!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Get a Q9550 with the newest stepping, and a nice P45 mobo with dual PCI-E slots, 8GB DDR2, some form of Vista64, and you will be oozing performance.

 

[z1ggy]

Really the only choice you have for AMD is the Phenom series.. whether its the 9850 or 9650 it is up to you...They run about $200.

For intel...You have a lot more choice. You have the Q9400 and the Q9300 which are in the $250 to 275 range. There is the less powerful Q6600 which is about $170.

If you do a lot of video editing..I may suggest the Q9300 and get atleast 4gb of RAM. Maybe even 6gb or 8 if you really want. You can get a mid range GPU like a 8800gt for about $149 now i think.

 

[AleleVanuatu]

8800GT takes too much power, too loud fans. Get a 3870. Cheap, good, low power, low heat. 4850 sucks same reason as 8800GT.

Chip? Not the Q6600. Too slow. Go higher if Intel. If AMD, use 9850.

Vista64 with 8GB ram? Sure, if you don't mind going 64bit. Otherwise go WinXP with 4GB ram. Stabler, and tested.

 

[supremelaw]

When I was in your situation, I ended up building a pair of systems:
each system was like a ladder being constructed right next to an adjacent ladder.

From one ladder, I could reach over and assemble the next higher rung
on the adjacent ladder: when that rung was installed and tested,
I would step over and up to that next higher rung, and then
I would work on doing the same thing to the ladder I just left.

This approach solved a lot of problems for me, all at once:

Most importantly, I always had a stable system for
performing essential work, such as client communications.

Of almost equal importance, I could do maintenance
on an otherwise idle system, and those maintenance tasks
never interfered with production work I was doing
on my primary system.

And, I include within "maintenance" a number of trials
I did with software I wanted to evaluate, to see if it
played nice with other software already installed and
running on my systems.

So, for your first rung on ladder number one,
I would suggest that you start with some penny-wise
choices that will serve you well for routine production
tasks to be done during the next 6-12 months:

Intel E8400, P45 chipset, and DDR2-800 4-4-4-12.

Good bargains can be had on all of these items currently.

Software is really a very personal choice, from where I stand,
so I won't venture any guesses about your preferences there.

Of course, when I first started working professionally
in IT, we had a saying, "Incest is best." This saying
referred to the widespread use of computers to
design computers.

Your "ladder number one" will permit you to do tons
of research (if that's your pleasure) in preparation
for ladder number two:

Intel's Nehalem architecture promises to be so exciting,
I think you should postpone your dream system until
that technology settles down a bit.

3-6 months into high-volume Nehalem production,
the entire IT industry will have made that much more
progress migrating to entirely 64-bit systems and
application software, e.g. with compatible device drivers
to go along with that trend.

For example, the latest ASUS motherboards just
increased MAX RAM to 16GB, twice the former
maximum of 8GB per motherboard. See the trend?
The next doubling will take workstations to 32GB.

These steps are truly enormous leaps (pun intended).

If you can think back to the significant leaps that occurred
when IT migrated from 16- to 32-bit logic, you should have
no trouble extrapolating the transition from 32- to 64-bit logic.

I guess what I'm saying, in summary, is that triple-channel
memory with memory controllers integrated in the newest
Intel CPUs will be something worth saving for.

But, since we cannot have these vast improvements today,
you would be wise to build a powerful system without spending
excess amounts of money on your interim solution.

"A penny saved is a penny earned." -- Benjamin Franklin


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

[AleleVanuatu]

supremelaw, that was a wonderful, heartening post. IN this frigid land of cold cold posts where rationale and rationality is so absent, you've lit a fire in my breast and succored me to yuor chest. Thank you.

Godspeed.

And you're right on almost all counts.

 

[solog]

Originally posted by: jhammer569For example, a quick look at mwave.com and I see some Intel quad CPU's for like $100-250, then it jumps to 500-1000$. I'd be more of a $250 man than jumping 100% up to $500, etc...

The cheapest quad core from Intel is the Q6600. It generally sells for $180 and up. The Intel quad cpus above that are quicker but you get a diminishing return for your money. Since you said you want the most bang for the buck and are sure you want a quad get that one. AMD has a cheaper ones but they are slower and less efficient. Those would be the 9150E, 9550, 9600, 9650, 9850 and 9950. They start at around $150.

 

[solog]

Originally posted by: jhammer569
-From other threads, my impression is that for a user like me who cares not about OC or games, AMD/Intel is a toss-up, but AMD may still be best bang for buck for a non-OC'er since they seem to always be cheaper than Intel these days like they were 5 years ago when I first bought AMD...

AMD is cheaper but they are not the best bang for the buck. Those days are over. Only in certain situations would they be "bb4tb". Currently newegg has the X2 BE-2400 for $30 w free shipping. That one is probably the bb4tb right now as long as you are OK with a slower dual core (at stock it is 2.3GHz).

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: AleleVanuatu
8800GT takes too much power, too loud fans. Get a 3870. Cheap, good, low power, low heat. 4850 sucks same reason as 8800GT.

Chip? Not the Q6600. Too slow. Go higher if Intel. If AMD, use 9850.

Vista64 with 8GB ram? Sure, if you don't mind going 64bit. Otherwise go WinXP with 4GB ram. Stabler, and tested.

Is this person even serious anymore?

 

[solog]

4850 is a good choice because you need over 60fps constantly in case you have to bunny hop over a squad of aliens trying to outbid you on some stocks.

 

[AleleVanuatu]

4850 is a good choice because you need over 60fps constantly in case you have to bunny hop over a squad of aliens trying to outbid you on some stocks.

LoL SOLOG that was awesome!

And seriously though, the 3850/3870 are the winners for low power usage at idle, by a solid 25W over the closest competitor.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: AleleVanuatu
8800GT takes too much power, too loud fans. Get a 3870. Cheap, good, low power, low heat. 4850 sucks same reason as 8800GT.

Chip? Not the Q6600. Too slow. Go higher if Intel. If AMD, use 9850.

Vista64 with 8GB ram? Sure, if you don't mind going 64bit. Otherwise go WinXP with 4GB ram. Stabler, and tested.

Uhh? The 8600GT is a card type, not a fan. Depending on what brand you get you can get a loud or noiseless fan.

Besides that, people that know what they are doing can set up fanspeeds. My 8800s fan is silent upto 60%, and 60% keeps it at 60c under heavy gameing. My last card was an ATi x1900xt. Same deal with it.

Dont be a fanboi. Learn how to control your hardware, dont blame it for ignorance.

Winxp 32/64 < Vista 64

 

[jhammer569]

Just woke up and shocked at how many great posts already, thanks a ton, after hanging on yahoo finance message boards some days, this has restored my faith in the human race again .

So it sounds like for the time-being, Intel is probably the way to go. Did a quick newegg check and I'm not splurging for a 9650, so it looks like it's between the 9400 & 9550.

Only diff. I can see is:
$275 = 9400 = 2.66ghz, 6mb cache, 65nm
$330 = 9550 = 2.83ghz, 12mb cache, 45nm

So given my desired usage (plz see op), is it worth the extra $55 for the extra clock & cache (and i assume the cache is a direct result of the 45nm), they both show 95w so they run equally as hot more or less?

Finally, will the above choice limit my GPU and/or mem choices (i.e. go with 9550 so i can get a better gpu, faster mem, etc.)? I'm probably going to get a 4-dvi card to support all my monitors btw (although i haven't started reseaching that area yet, so may get 2 2-dvi cards, etc...guess i'll figure that out soon enough).

Tnx again, almost got this one crossed off the list!

 

[katank]

Up to you entirely. Cache doesn't matter too much.

As for compatibility w/ GPU/RAM, they are the same. Both are LGA775 and should work on the same motherboard which really dictate your RAM choice. As for GPUs, both chips are sufficiently fast that they won't really bottleneck any GPUs out there. There will be a sub-3% difference at most. Besides, you aren't gaming anyhow, right?

 

[jhammer569]

Right, no gaming (or barely any). Ok, I'll move onto all the other components now and then based on my total tally, I'll decide in the end if I'll go with the 9400 or 9550 if I have a little extra $$ left over or if it results in a nice round number .

Would motherboard choice be the next logical step in my component hunt, then GPU? (then all the other goodies)

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: jhammer569
Would motherboard choice be the next logical step in my component hunt, then GPU? (then all the other goodies)

Yeah, you'll want to look at these P45 motherboards, since they have two PCIe video slots, allowing you to use two cheap video cards, instead of one really expensive Quadro or FireGL video. They're also very nice boards, with nice features, at a nice price.