Printable View
Here's one I 'made' this morning, just wanted to see what you lot had to say about it.
It is mainly based on Chalex's recommendations, with a few additions/substitutions.
As for monitor, I'm not sure what to do. I like running duals, but I could also dual with a 24" for the main, and a 17" for secondary for media player/msn etc. but that may involve a little moving my room about... Not a problem...
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/e...lie/System.gif
What you guys think?
Gary.
You are definitely going to need more hard drive space than just one 74GB raptor, so I would add a 500GB Samsung to the mix, like this one.
Spending £70 on only 2GB of 6400 memory is a complete waste. If you want to spend around £70 on RAM, then this won't let you down. Or, if you don't mind going up to £80, this RAM will be even better and help you overclock. That is the RAM that I have :).
PSU looks fine, especially because it is modular. If you are buying the TR Ultra Extreme then you don't need to get the retail CPU which comes with the stock Intel HSF. Get the OEM version instead which is usually cheaper.
By pure coincidence, I have that headset. The version I have however isn't USB and 4 high quality jacks that go straight into my Creative X-Fi Extreme Gamer - Fatality soundcard. USB made little sense in my opinion.
In regards to monitors, I would recommend that you at least get a large monitor for main use such as gaming, since that doesn't work so well on dual monitors. Then, add in another monitor for other things, like MSN as you said. Within a month, I will be ordering a new 24" monitor and I will be using my old 19" 4:3 next to it for other things. Luckily, a 24" widescreen and 19" 4:3 are exactly the same height!
Other than the above, looks like a nice rig :).
EDIT: added details about monitors.
You could probably save money, and get the headset later...
Sorry, forgot to mention, I have 2x750GB hard drives already.
Changed to the second RAM you suggested and the OEM CPU.
I could do, but I need a headset.. Oh... and it has 4 jacks, as well as USB I think.
I'm tempted to do so with the monitors.... Most of you suggested a 24"...
I'll have a look, see what I can find/like.
You got the best air cooler so no worrys there,
but get the 8800gts G92 512mb its cheaper/newer and out performs it in 3dmark and games without silly 16x aa/af.
Have they got it on Overclockers? I had a look for the G92, but couldn't find it...
Probably me being useless, lol.
All of the 512mb models here are G92 the same core for the 9 series.
and the 8800gts is the 9800gtx only difference is the 9800 is exactly the same but OC'd from the factory a little higher.
plus 9 series = a few hundred extra quid plonked on the price..
If you are gaming at larger resolutions, you will be better off with the 8800GTX which is why I didn't say it was a bad choice. Also, if you like AA at those high resolutions, you will definitely need an 8800GTX rather than an 8800GTS G92. However, at lower resolutions in games like Crysis and benchmarks like 3DMark 06, the GTS G92 outperforms the GTX.
When I bought my 8800GTS G92, it was way cheaper than the cheapest GTX (£100 at least), so it was a wise choice. Whereas now, they are very similar prices. It's your decision which you choose, they are both fantastic cards.
Or, go ATI instead..... they have less driver issues than nVidia, plus you can get open source drivers for ATI... and they are cheaper.
The ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 is a great card, but remember with Crossfire that you will not be able to use dual monitors whilst gaming. You can use 2 monitors when not gaming, but as soon as you start up a game, the card switches off one of the monitors and uses both of the GPUs for gaming. The same is true of SLi, but is does not handle it as well.
Ahh... That kinda sucks, but I suppose it will maxamize the games performance..
Get a 8800GTX, but get this instead. It comes overclocked, is cheaper, and you get a free copy of company of heroes which you can play with me and Trigger! Who needs a 10 year warranty anyway? :P.
Also, get this RAM and buy a nie sound card with the money saved.
EDIT: Also Chalex, crossfire handles up to 4 monitors, it is SLI that can't even handle dual.
EDIT2: After reading all your post (I should really do that before replying), i'm not sure. MY SOURCE.
After a quick google, here is a quote that backs up what I said:
Quote:
The Radeon HD 3870 X2 is also more practical for those running dual monitors. If you do use a dual monitor setup with the Radeon HD 3870 X2, it will turn the second screen off when gaming as it enables Crossfire mode. The GeForce 9800 GX2 on the other hand will only use one GPU when gaming if you are using a dual monitor configuration. This scenario requires the user to manually disable the second monitor so that both GPU’s can be used for gaming. Although this is something that can be corrected in future driver updates, it is a problem for now at least. - LINK
So basically get an ATI card if you want more than 1 monitor as they fucking own... there is nothing wrong with ATI, and nVidia arent any better, they just have a bigger market share.
AMD FOREVER (even though my new PC is Intel/Nvidia, my old one is AMD/ATI)
Also, will have my old PC soonish as well as my new one as my dad is getting his own laptop...
Don't want to turn this thread into an ATI/nvidia war, but in the case of single card solutions, nvidia are currently the best for high end cards.
When it comes into the crossfire/SLi realm, ATI just have better drivers and are more advanced in their technologies. Nvidia's SLi just isn't as good. I am actually really excited about crossfireX since it allows you to use 2 different ATI cards together which is proving to be awesome in benchmarks (drivers are still in development).
Actually that was only true about 3 generations ago,
SLI scales the same as Crossfire after the high end 7 series.
Nvidia has won and ATI/AMD will be gone/boughtout soon, and all the major new games have been financed by nvidia to work much more effeciently with there drivers.
I'm getting confused by all the different 8800GTX's etc, there seem to be many coming from different makes, I though they were all nVidia GeForce?
nVidia dont actually make any of the chipsets, they essentially franchise themselves to other companies like BFG, XFX etc who make the cards, but there shouldnt be any huge difference between companies. Certainly shouldnt be what you choose it on, but if it sounds like a dodgy company its probably a dodgy card.
nVidia are better. End of.
But, going by what's been said, I'd want ATI because I'm running and want to continue running duals...
...Am I right in saying so?
All single card solutions from both Nvidia and ATI can do dual screens fine.
1 graphics card get an Nvidia.
2 graphics cards get an ATI (for doing dual screens).
Just get the 8800GTX like you originally had, it will be fine. I have an 8800GTS G92 and I will soon be adding a 2nd monitor.
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.
I'll post a revised item list soon...
But whatever you do, DO NOT get 2 8800GTX's, they overheat and cause the BSOD (Blue Screen of Death.)
Next question...
OS... I currently have XP x64 and HATE it.
XP x32 Pro or Vista x32?
I have XP 32bit Professional and it is great. My PC flies through games and I have had no driver or crashing issues.
I have heard that 64bit Windows Vista is much better than the XP version, so you could go with that. IMO I wouldn't get 32bit vista, especially because vista is a memory hog.
With 4GB of RAM, it doesn't really matter whether you have a 32 or 64bit OS because even though you can see and use the extra RAM on the 64bit OS, every application and the OS itself uses more RAM, so it will feel very similar to a 32bit OS unless you have more than 4GB of RAM.
If you are into futureproofing for when you may want 8GB RAM, then I would get Vista 64bit. I just got XP 32bit Pro because there were loads of issues with Vista at the time I was building my PC.
I'd get vista 64-bit, and 4GB of RAM, you don't need any more than 4GB for anything, and you can just buy more when needed.
You need more than 4gb if you are using 64bit.
Also 64bit anything has major issues with alot of programs...
You don't need more than 4GB to use 64-bit, you could run it with 1GB if you wanted to. And maybe it's better to check all your programs work with it before hand.
Even if you only have 4GB of RAM, you are still getting more RAM than you would with 32-bit, a whole 750mb in fact, if he gets a 8800GTX. Considering that 32-bit and 64-bit are the exact same price, and most of your programs work with it, why not just get it and future proof and make sure you can upgrade RAM in the future?
There is no extra memory usage in 64bit vista than there is in 32 bit vista, I dont know where your getting this info from.
There are the same amount of bugs in 64bit than in 32bit which all have nothing to do with 64bit.
I am afraid you are wrong there ez64. 64 bit numbers are twice as big as 32 bit numbers and therefore consume double the memory (ish).
Graphs (if they don't appear click here):
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/...usage_swap.pnghttp://images.tomshardware.com/2008/...age_kernel.png
This is what I have trying to say all along :).Quote:
We can also see that the 64 bit versions take up quite a bit more memory as well. Again, the explanation is very simple: all of the variables are no longer only 32 bits long, but 64 bits instead. Typically, this makes applications between 20% and 40% larger, which consequently results in a higher memory footprint as well. File formats such as music files or videos are not affected by this.
The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64 bit version of Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32 bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also immediately lose it to the system due to the 64 bit version's larger memory footprint. Thus, using a 64 bit version really only makes sense with larger memory sizes. Source
32 x 2 = 64Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalex4
I think I'm starting to see the difference between 32bit and 64bit. (No sarcasm intended by the way.)
Thats why I said dont use 64bit if you are getting 4Gigs.
I'm guessing you guys recommend Vista 32Bit then?
No, were recommending XP 32bit. I'd give Vista another year to sort out everything.
Just no one specifically mentioned XP or Vista in the last few comments, so I guessed Vista...
Besides, I'd personally have gone with XP anyway..
but you fail to understand that nothing runs in 64 bit mode there all 32bit applications but still the full 4gb+ is avalible.Quote:
Originally Posted by VoX
and its not double the memory anyway it just means your CPU uses its full bandwidth lane being able to take more bits per cycle on 64 bit apps, 32bit apps everything is the same.
bits dont just double themselves on the same application.............
Well... Here is the new list and I will be running XP Pro 32bit.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/e...208-083055.jpg
Comments?
Basically an identical system to mine apart from I have a differen't GFX card, HDD and PSU. I also have more stuff in my system like a Creative X-Fi Extreme Gamer Fatality sound card, and a TV card. But if you don't need them, it looks good.
The reason I didn't get that PSU is that my friend's exploded. My PSU is a very new model from Antec and has a nice blue LED in the fan :). Have heard mostly rave reviews from the Corsair PSU though.