Buying a new PC this week, I hope!

[Duderor]

Hey there, I saw this site and got impressed by it's reviews about parts, so I registered and would like to ask some of you pro people about any PC parts you can advise me for! thanks in advace!

I'm planning on buying something like this:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Gigabyte GA-EX38-DS4
nVIDIA GeForce 8800GTS 512MB Gigabyte PCI-e
Corsair DDR2 2048MBx2 1066MHz CL5
Thermaltake Tough Power 600W W0103RI

The thing is, I don't know if this power supply suits all of this, and I don't know which case I should consider buying, I really want a case with no childish looking stuff, I want it to be something like Thermaltake Eureka... and some cooling stuff would be nice too if you can put in (btw I'm a music maker and also a gamer at some free time!)

Thanks a lot! "The Dude"

 

[Merlin]

Sup....Dude
That's a good CPU ( Q6600 )
But you might be better off getting an E8400 Core 2 Duo
Compare here

You can see the 8400 is cheaper, faster and the cache is bigger.
compare 2.4 ghz to 3.0 ghz

Thermatake 650 might also match up a bit better
Just check it out, shop around for a while.
If you buy before you get everything together and matched, you only find out later and say " crap I should of got that "

The FSB would match the ram that you already have picked out, otherwise the Q6600 might bottle neck.

But the motherboard looks good with the energy saver thing going, it only works at stock speeds, if you ever wanted to overclock it the power usage goes up.

Have fun building, it does get addictive after a while.

:techgage::techgage: Merlin :techgage::techgage:

 

[Kougar]

Not sure what you mean by the FSB needing to match the RAM, that's what dividers are for.

For the PSU I would suggest either http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703005
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005

Merlin has a point though... unless you can think of programs that you will use that can use Quadcore CPUs, you would be better off sticking to a cheaper, higher clocked dual core. Now if you actually do have programs that use Quads, then go for it.

 

[Rory Buszka]

I'd like to elaborate on Merlin's post. The recommendation to go with the C2D E8400 is based on per-core clock speed, which is important if you're running a lot of single-threaded games. You'll be able to get the E8400 cheaper than a quad-core because it's only a dual core CPU, despite its higher clock frequency. However, I know a number of new games are supposed to be multithreaded, and can benefit from having a quad-core processor.

It looks like some of the other parts you picked (8800GTS 512MB, Gigabyte X38-based motherboard) should serve you quite well -- and even if you decide later on that you'd rather have a quad-core CPU, you can get by with the dual core proc for the time being, and then upgrade to a much better quad-core when (if) they're more affordable later on.

 

[VictoryService]

If your needing to run many programs at once, Quad is the way to go. If your wanting a fast Gaming Computer, or your only running a couple of CPU intensive programs, you are better off sticking to Dual.

For anyone running Quad Core with Windows XP Pro SP3, try this.
Open several programs that you need to run at once that all use lots of CPU time... (I often run Firefox with my XM online Radio, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Frontpage, AVG Anti-virus, Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word at the same time as our dispatching software.)

Now, do Ctrl + Alt + Del to bring up Task Manager. Then under Applications, right click an application and select "Go to Process" Then on the process it takes you to, Right click & select "Set Affinity" Now you can limit that application to one or two CPU's.

Do this with each of the programs you are running (Not always an option with software running as a Service)

I set my Photoshop to CPU1 & 2, Microsoft Word to CPU3, Frontpage to CPU4, Firefox to CPU2 and Outlook to CPU3

Guess what? The result was faster response from all of the programs open without overclocking my system at all!
(downside is setting Affinity only lasts until you shut down)

So, if your going to benchmark the Quad Vs Duo Core... Set it up for Real life practical use like I did above before running your tests. The difference between Core DUO and Quad is VERY apparent when your running several programs at once!

I say Give me the 31 CPU's that I see (27 of them grayed out LOL) when I set my CPU Affinity and let me get my work done!

 

[Duderor]

Woha! thanks a lot dudes!

Merilin, I was considering of the E8500 instead of E8400, I really want a great PC, and since many people were telling me (including you) that the Q6600 is a good CPU then I don't see why picking up E8400...

I'm doing music, recording in Cubase SX while running a lot of other VST programs which really really slow down the PC.. and making like 40 audio/midi tracks... that takes loads of CPU... I also play some games such as F.E.A.R. and Crysis... and such graphic level games.
--I do not want to overclock ever in my life-- (yeah I'm not pro and afraid of killing my PC)

Kougar dude, I don't think I can get these PSU's in my country but.. I can go for the Thermaltake 650W, think it's good?

Rory Buszka, dude now I'm confused I really don't want this E8400, it's like, or E8500 or Q6600 or 6700 if it's any good...

VictoryService, nice idea dude thanks! but I want both, music hardware PC that runs all my programs and gaming PC, not a super gaming PC, but something that can satisfy my needs.

 

[Kougar]

In that case, stick to a Quadcore CPU. The Q6600 will suit you better.

Thermaltake is an okay brand, not my first choice. The Thermaltake 650W should do ya fine though regardless.

 

[Rory Buszka]

Hi, Rory here.

What I meant was, if you only run a few programs at once, and are looking for faster performance in non-multithreaded games, it would make more sense to buy a faster dual-core processor for the same price as the slower quad-core. Just a general rule of thumb. If your PC gets more productivity use than gaming use, however, go with the quad-core, since you'll often have more than one program open at a time.

For home theater PCs, which are usually only doing a couple things at once (playback or recording), I recommend this approach also. The new test platform Rob and I are putting together for micro-ATX motherboards, value-priced full-ATX boards, and HTPC-specific products follows this guideline as well.

 

[Greg King]

I just upgraded from an E6600 to an E8400 and haven't regretted skipping over a quad core CPU one bit. The bump in frequency alone is wonderful and as Rory pointed out, if you don't need four cores, your going to have a more enjoyable experience with two cores running at faster speeds (not that a Q6600 for example would be a bad choice either.)

 

[Duderor]

Yo dudes, well... as I mentioned before, I do both music and games, I said like... I would go for Q6600 or an E8500... thing is, in a recording studio I saw a dual core, not quad! and it ran pretty fine. though not perfect, but then I dunno... is there any better quad core than Q6600 which offers nice price as well?

Thanks for all the advices, I appreciate it a lot!

 

[Kougar]

Cubase SX claims to support 4 processors just fine. I don't know how much of load it generates, but it does support quadcore CPUs.

Games don't really take advantage of more than 2 cores yet however.

Does your encoding take a long time to process? If so then a Quad should outperform a Dualcore for your encoding.

 

[Duderor]

Yo again dudes!
as I got some more money from work... I picked a different CPU, it is the Intel Q9450 12mb!

I really would like a long lasting CPU which really runs almost everything...
The Q6600 is a bit old =P

also, I don't know about a good cheaper motherboard, since, I don't really care, just less money.

as for the graphics card, should I stay with this? or should I get more "bits"? like instead of 256 bit and 512mb, go for 320bit and 320mb..?

Thanks again and sorry for all these questions ^^