| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| eamo wrote: |
| Kprrok, are you planning on getting a couple of heavy duty graphic cards in that system? If not, then you really don't need an 800w power supply. The latest CPU's and GPU's are actually using less energy than previous generations. I'm estimating that my new rig will probaby require no more that 400w (or whatever that translates to in amperage) even at full load. I think 550w-650w is the sweet spot for PSU's at the moment. You can get high quality PSU's for around 100,000 with that wattage. Save yourself ship-man won. |
Well, if I get the 8800GT, I'll probably go for the 800w for about $200. If I go with the lower cards, I'll probably drop down to the 600w that is right about $120. My current plans have been estimated in the 550w range, so I wanted the bigger one in case I upgrade. I am also leaning towards the 800w mainly because I know I will want to add another video card or upgrade to a monster once more games start using DX10 and Vista is improved upon, which leads to the next point...
| Quote: |
| As for using Vista or not............next years crop of games will likely utilize DX10 a lot more than now. That points towards going for Vista. Then you'll want a DX10 card to match. I would try Vista and if it doesn't work out for you then just go back to XP and try Vista again later. No harm done. |
I've looked at lots of reviews and I'm torn. A lot of people say that Vista is good if you're buying new stuff and playing new games, but if you want to play older games it might give you problems. I play Medal of Honor mainly, but I want to try COD4, COH, and maybe, just maybe a little Crysis.
| demophobe wrote: |
Any particular reason you want to go with AMD right now? The E6750 wipes the floor with the 6000+ at almost the same price.
To each their own, but Intel has stronger offerings right now, both in terms of price and performance. |
I'm torn on this, too. I know that Intel has the stronger line right now, but I'm thinking AMD will come back even stronger with the new Phenoms.
I'm not buying for another few months, so I'm not set on either brand right now.
KPRROK |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm torn on this, too. I know that Intel has the stronger line right now, but I'm thinking AMD will come back even stronger with the new Phenoms. |
Well, the Phenoms are out, and they're slower than the quad core Intels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The few reviews I've read about the Phenoms is that they're a little slower than the Intels, but they're a much better value. They're not gonna win any power contests, but they might win in the "bang for buck" category.
Also, if I get an AMD CPU and an ATI VGA, I'll feel better about helping out the "little guy"...maybe.
What reviews and news sites do you guys read for new techs. I mainly read Tom's Hardware and a few others that get links, but have not found a good one for everything. I saw one "Tech Report" site, but it just sucked.
Thanks.
KPRROK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DCJames
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: Built a couple of systems this weekend... |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
Graphics: Nvidia 8800GTS
|
Is this a 256mb card or 512mb? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Built a couple of systems this weekend... |
|
|
| DCJames wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
Graphics: Nvidia 8800GTS
|
Is this a 256mb card or 512mb? |
Neither. The GTSs are 320 or 640. Probably the 320 as the 640s are generally thought to be not worth the money.
KPRROK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: Re: Built a couple of systems this weekend... |
|
|
| kprrok wrote: |
| DCJames wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
Graphics: Nvidia 8800GTS
|
Is this a 256mb card or 512mb? |
Neither. The GTSs are 320 or 640. Probably the 320 as the 640s are generally thought to be not worth the money.
KPRROK |
What he said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Received and installed a Sapphire HD3870 today. 
Very nice. Fast and quiet. And no nVidia-style driver errors! (fingers crossed).
Never thought I'd say this but, ATI cards rock!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, here's a question...
How much do you think a person could get for a system consisting of...
AMD 64 3000+
2 gigs generic ram
120 gig hard drive
ASUS mobo (just mentioning because it's reliable and stable)
DVD-RW
GeForce 6600
(Note, this is not precisely my current system, rather, what would be left after I stripped it down a bit.)
Is this even worth selling? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, and my proposed future upgrade would be a Q6600 system. I figure this would be the best choice because the primary reason I want to upgrade is to encode movies. Do you figure the Q6600 is fast enough to warrant the price difference between it and the E6750? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chevro1et
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Location: Busan, ROK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Oh, and my proposed future upgrade would be a Q6600 system. I figure this would be the best choice because the primary reason I want to upgrade is to encode movies. Do you figure the Q6600 is fast enough to warrant the price difference between it and the E6750? |
Most quads don't overclock as well as an E6750 would. However, if you are going to be running software that is multi-threaded, the more cores the better. Its not always about the raw high-end speed. Personally, I would go with a quad if the budget would support it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Oh, and my proposed future upgrade would be a Q6600 system. I figure this would be the best choice because the primary reason I want to upgrade is to encode movies. Do you figure the Q6600 is fast enough to warrant the price difference between it and the E6750? |
I use my quad (Q6600) for editing / encoding video and I find it is an improvement over my dual core CPU machine.
Unless you are multi-tasking at the same time however, most software does NOT take advantage of the quad cores. If you are doing serious multi tasking you will notice it because the video app uses 1 or 2 cores and the other apps can/will run on the other cores.
I like the ability to do video capture from my camcorder, encode the video and write a different video to a DVD at the SAME time without getting errors or writing coasters.
All the while running apps like BOINC at full throttle in the background.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't go quad core at all right now for the same reasons that one shouldn't have bought into the early P4s or initial dual cores. They have a pattern: think Penryn.
P4 Willamette: a flop until Northwood.
Dual core: a flop until Core2duo.
CoreQuad: A flop until Penryn.
They always look good at first, because they are fast(er) than what's around, but Intel never get it together with their first releases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have to agree with Demo. The first crop of Quads are fast but they are just the beginning of what quads can do.
I thought that anecdote was funny about the AMD chip engineer being asked what he thought when Intel released their first quadcore. He said, "I didn't know Intel had released a quadcore!".
Meaning that so far the quadcores by intel haven't been true quadcores in the same way that the Dual Cores of 3 years ago were not true Dual core chips.
TTompatz,
You capture, encode and burn DVD's while running BOINC full blast!!!???  Your PC must just love you!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
Have to agree with Demo. The first crop of Quads are fast but they are just the beginning of what quads can do.
I thought that anecdote was funny about the AMD chip engineer being asked what he thought when Intel released their first quadcore. He said, "I didn't know Intel had released a quadcore!".
Meaning that so far the quadcores by intel haven't been true quadcores in the same way that the Dual Cores of 3 years ago were not true Dual core chips.
TTompatz,
You capture, encode and burn DVD's while running BOINC full blast!!!??? Your PC must just love you!!! |
It warms up a bit .... but hey, if you're not going to exercise it, why have it? The extra RAM makes a big difference too. 4 gigs of RAM as compared to lots of P4s with 512 megs or even dual cores with 1 or 2gb of RAM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
as a side note - not meant to be a thread hijack:
SETI@home member since 6 May 2000
Total credit 631,658
Recent average credit 2,128.09
SETI@home classic workunits 8,529
SETI@home classic CPU time 106,145 hours
Boinc Stats:
Current Credit (based on incremental update)............686,377.21
Contribution to BOINC total credit.............................0.00173%
Accumulated more credit than % of all BOINC users...99.391%
Highest World position ever......................................7101 at 2007-11-26
Project .............current credit.......% of total
Einstein@Home ....1,016.94.............0.15
Rosetta@Home ...55,900.81 ............8.16
SETI@Home ......629,459.46...........91.93
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They are fantastic BOINC stats, ttompatz.
Mine pale in comparison. But I only run BOINC at 60-70% and didn't do it for all the 5 years since 2002.
SETI@home member since 24 Aug 2002
Country Ireland
Total credit 89,694
Recent average credit 202.45
SETI@home classic workunits 764
SETI@home classic CPU time 8,257 hours
I just started crunching Einstein (searching for pulsars) in September.
8 Sep 2007
Country Ireland
Total credit 9,529
Recent average credit 78.95
I agree that if you have a computer up to the task then you should task it.
One worry running BOINC, or any distributed computing network, is that it will wear out your CPU faster than normal. Not true according to some of the long-term users on the BOINC forum who have been running Pentium 3's at 100% since 1999 without a burnout yet.
I really should attach to one of the medical projects rather than put all my juice into space................weird sentence! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
