Gaming World Forums

General Category => Technology and Programming => Topic started by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 12:10:40 am

Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 12:10:40 am
GeForce 8600 GT 512MB PCI Express
GeForce 9400 GT 512MB PCI-Express

the second one is better, right?
are either of these good though? will i be able to run most games?

also cpu wise it looks like i'll be going for an intel core 2, what are things i should be looking for? i can't follow the numbers too well and the pentium dual cores make it even more confusing

also i'll change to amd if someone convinces me (or rather my pocket)

and then there's the motherboard.

i've been using this to figure prices: www.pricespy.co.nz
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 10, 2008, 01:05:42 am
As one of the biggest AMD fanboys here, I will tell you that:

You should stick with Intel. The numbers you are looking for first is manufacturing technology. The best processors at the moment are made with 45nm technology (as opposed to 65nm) and as the numbers get smaller, it means the processors are doing more and better things with less space, heat, and power. AMD is due to release their 45nm processors in two months while Intel has had theirs out for nearly a year. Manufacturing technology is not always a numbers game, for instance AMD has some better processors out there than Intel's 45nm ones in terms of certain things but overall Intel's processors are better at doing their jobs.

The second number you are looking at is Front Side Bus speed or FSB. AMD uses a different kind of rating, but since you are going with Intel, you will be looking for 1333 MHz. Think of this as a processor's ability to communicate with the other parts of your computer. Make sure that your motherboard is rated at least for 1333 MHz. Any place that sells motherboards will display this number. The common motherboards are either 1066/1333 or 1333/1600; either will work for you. If you are willing to spend the money, find a board that also functions with DDR3 RAM, as opposed to DDR2, which is the standard. This will allow you to run much better memory in your computer, but will also cost you a noticeable amount of money.

Here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001157%201050722265%201050937013%201051122421&bop=And&Order=PRICE) is a list of the currently available 45nm Core 2 Duos sorted by price for your reference. They are identical except for raw speed, which is what you will be selecting based on. The higher the GHz, the better, obviously. The middle of the road E8400 tends to be the most popular.

Anyway, the Core 2 Duo Wolfdale series (those displayed in the Newegg link) tend to outperform all the processors on the market except well-made applications that support multi-core technology, in which case they are outperformed by the AMD quad-cores (but not the tri-cores) and the Intel quad cores -- but only barely. Otherwise the only processors that consistently outperform them are the 1000+ USD Core 2 Extremes.

As far as the graphics cards go, the 8 series tends to be better than the 9 series as due to a market trend, nVidia failed to deliver and significant improvements in their new cards. If you are going to purchase a 9 series, the new ASUS 9800 is the way to go. This review (http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=771) here will tell you all you need to know about it and the conclusion page covers pricing points.

Lastly, your motherboard is a pretty big issue and you should make sure you pick a good one. You are looking for a socket 775, which is what the new desktop Intels use. Also, as mentioned before, you need a 1333 MHz FSB rated motherboard. If you want to shell out the extra dough, DDR3 capable boards will sport you a significant boost in high performance applications, but not so much in normal use and it will cost you a sizable amount more. Just remember that the DDR2 standard is starting to fade and that clearly things are all progressing towards DDR3.

Another important thing to consider is the name brand of your motherboard. This directly translates to not only what features it has, how well it functions, and the update cycle behind it, but also flat-out how well it will hold up. I have had the most experience with Foxconn, which makes most of the Dell motherboards and they hold up like champions. My newest computers have ASUS in them, which provides the most functionality and best updates as well as a swell tech support. Intel branded motherboards obviously go very well with Intel processors. Intel likes to say their own motherboards increase the performance of their processors -- whether you buy into that or not is up to you. I found MSI motherboards I have used tend to be very economical but not very good quality, though others claim to have good experience with them. Gigabyte and EVGA are also well-known manufacturers, but I stay away from anything that has nVidia chipsets (the controllers on the motherboard such as for the memory and PCI slots that communicates with the processor to run your computer) because I have had a number of very bad experiences with them and because several times nVidia has had to recall large shipments due to their own negligence, something I can't say about AMD and Intel, so I would advise choosing an Intel chipset (also called a north bridge). Here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&N=2010200280&OEMMark=1,0&Manufactory=2136,1315,1314,1157&PropertyCodeValue=705:9908,707:31640,707:25639,717:34677,717:38662,717:42786,717:9926,717:42785,717:16798,717:30329,717:27876,717:28997,717:21049,717:40719,717:16775,717:40132,717:23136,717:29251,717:23176,717:29253,717:22485,717:34674,717:23779,717:19337,717:30328,717:29140,718:30549,718:9954,718:31062,718:16858,718:28999,718:16463,718:40134,718:27050,718:40133,718:22486,718:22573,718:28998,3880:27176&bop=And&Order=REVIEWS) is a decent sized cross-section of motherboards with the above mentioned capabilities for your reference, sorted by most reviews and highest ratings.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 01:19:59 am
yeah you turned me to intel in my last topic but i'm still a fan of more cores the better. also i'm not sure the prices in america line up witht he prices in new zealand but wolfdale processors seem pricey!

i'm looking for the most 'bang for my buck' and i only want to spend around 200 of them tops on the cpu

edit: something i didn't realise is that like, amd tri and quad cores or whatever need really expensive motherboards or something?
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Mama Luigi on September 10, 2008, 01:25:08 am
Don't get DDR3... with an e8400 your processor will be a bottleneck and will never top out DDR3 speeds. You'd be throwing your money away.

I would say e7200, e8400's little brother. Compromise? Hardly. In fact, my e7200 overclocks better than my friend's e8400. I got a gem though, so it's really not typical. Price-wise you should notice quite a difference.

But yeah, DDR2-800 will be plenty for you. Unless you plan up upgrading CPU anytime within the next 2 years (you shouldn't have to) I would say get a cheaper mobo that supports DDR2. If you want the best of both worlds, get a mobo that supports DDR2 and DDR3... that way when you need the faster RAM, you can get it and use it. By that time it should be much cheaper too.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 10, 2008, 01:35:32 am
Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 01:19:59 am
yeah you turned me to intel in my last topic but i'm still a fan of more cores the better. also i'm not sure the prices in america line up witht he prices in new zealand but wolfdale processors seem pricey!
Yes, Intel processors are considerably more pricey than AMD processors. The best AMD processor on the market, the 9950, costs about 175$ compared to most mid-high range Intels are over 200 USD. As far as the more cores the better, you aren't wrong, however for most cases you will not notice a change in performance at all from going with a quad-core compared to a dual-core. At times, you may actually experience better results with a dual-core due to the lower heat, higher clock speeds (the best Intel quad-core is 3.0 GHz vs the 3.33 GHz dual-core) and more overclocking headroom. You can easily run at speeds in excess of 4 GHz with a Core 2 Duo, and while you can with a quad-core, you will need much better cooling solutions to do so, meaning more money for the same performance. Over at Legion Hardware, the place I linked you for the 9800 review, there are a number of other extensive tests showing a large amount of the top processors on the market in detailed tests and benchmarking, most notably the 4870x2 CPU Scaling (http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770) article.

Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 01:19:59 am
i'm looking for the most 'bang for my buck' and i only want to spend around 200 of them tops on the cpu
You could get by with the 2.66 Duo if you wanted. If you overclock it a bit, you will be able to play most games just as well as you would with the 3.0 GHz version. If you are not going to extremes and doing a lot of gaming, then you will not notice much of a difference. However, for a couple more bucks you can get the 3.0 GHz version anyway, so you might just be best doing that. Really depends on what prices you can find there in NZ.

Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 01:19:59 am
edit: something i didn't realise is that like, amd tri and quad cores or whatever need really expensive motherboards or something?
No, typically the opposite is true. When compared to Intel, most AMD motherboard/processor combinations are significantly cheaper, often by as much as 100-200 USD. AMD chipsets tend to offer more functionality and in many cases better functionality with basic Windows tasks (AMD was the first processor to be certified by Microsoft for Windows way back when) and AMD devotes its efforts to making their processors as good as they can under current conditions, but they do not have the technological level of development or the infrastructure that Intel does at the moment and are undergoing some corporate turmoil. Still, however, pricing of AMD processors is what keeps Intel's prices low.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 02:19:02 am
ok so i'm back to amd again
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 10, 2008, 03:00:30 am
Well if you decide you want to go with AMD, then wait until the end of September. This month they are releasing the new Radeon HD 4550, which will sport the same general ideas as the amazing 4800 series, only stripped down a bit to price it at about 50 USD, which is a great value, and I can almost guarantee it will be at least twice as good as the two cards you mentioned and for less money.

For the processors, I don't know. The new Phenom 8750 tri-core black edition with an unlocked overclocking multiplier is also due out this month and between October and December, AMD will be releasing its first quad-core 45nm chips. In addition, a new dual core Athlon is due out any time (I think it is already out) based on the Phenom design rather than the antiquated K8 architecture, which might also interest you. Any one of these will be extremely well priced and you can pick up a good AMD motherboard for extremely cheap.

As a matter of fact, if you went with either of these (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=Property&N=2010200022&StoreType=7&CompareItemList=N82E16813186141,N82E16813131324&maxPrice=100&OEMMark=1,0&Manufactory=2136,1315&PropertyCodeValue=709:30149,719:37261,719:39686,719:34372,719:33047,719:42103&bop=And) you wouldn't even need to get yourself a graphics card as these have HDMI out and integrated Radeon 3200s in them, both for 70-80 USD. If you grab yourself some OCZ sticks (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227139) and get a K10 dual-core or a tri-core in the next month or so for ~120, you would be looking at 240 USD for your memory, motherboard, and processor. Add on another hundred or so for a case and power supply and you'd have yourself a ~350$ computer that would be pretty powerful and if you really wanted to game, just get a Radeon 4850 and crossfire it with the integrated card (you'd need a motherboard with an integrated 3400 at the moment, but I am sure soon they will provide updates for any 780G chipset and any 3000 series integrated card) and blow an extra 50$ on a Phenom 9950 processor instead, which would increase the cost of the system another 200, putting you at about 550$ for a system that could handle most games on the market. If you wanted to splurge a bit more, you could invest some money in some better cooling for your processor, case, or graphics card.

Here you go. (http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=8414451)
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 04:33:14 am
Quote from: Jeff on September 10, 2008, 03:00:30 am
As a matter of fact, if you went with either of these (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=Property&N=2010200022&StoreType=7&CompareItemList=N82E16813186141,N82E16813131324&maxPrice=100&OEMMark=1,0&Manufactory=2136,1315&PropertyCodeValue=709:30149,719:37261,719:39686,719:34372,719:33047,719:42103&bop=And) you wouldn't even need to get yourself a graphics card as these have HDMI out and integrated Radeon 3200s in them, both for 70-80 USD. If you grab yourself some OCZ sticks (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227139) and get a K10 dual-core or a tri-core in the next month or so for ~120, you would be looking at 240 USD for your memory, motherboard, and processor. Add on another hundred or so for a case and power supply and you'd have yourself a ~350$ computer that would be pretty powerful and if you really wanted to game, just get a Radeon 4850 and crossfire it with the integrated card (you'd need a motherboard with an integrated 3400 at the moment, but I am sure soon they will provide updates for any 780G chipset and any 3000 series integrated card) and blow an extra 50$ on a Phenom 9950 processor instead, which would increase the cost of the system another 200, putting you at about 550$ for a system that could handle most games on the market. If you wanted to splurge a bit more, you could invest some money in some better cooling for your processor, case, or graphics card.

Here you go. (http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=8414451)

this is such a good idea, i was looking at getting one of those boards and crossfiring it but i hadn't thought of making due with the integrated until i wanted to play a really great game or something
i'm gonna check up on my options when i come home from work (~5 hours)
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 10, 2008, 05:21:42 am
Ah, just found a new review (http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/reviews/71/10378-ati-radeon-hd-4679) for the Radeon HD 4670s, which are supposed to go on the market at below 100$ and that pack some considerable power. This may be a viable option for you instead of the high-end 4850, which will cost you between 150 and 200. More reviews can be found here (http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/news/video-cards/52-video-cards/10383-radeon-hd-4600-reviews).

If you decide on that, you might also consider a newer AMD 790 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=Property&N=2010200022&StoreType=7&CompareItemList=N82E16813138128,N82E16813138129,N82E16813186150,N82E16813131331,N82E16813131339&OEMMark=1,0&Manufactory=2136,1315,1442&PropertyCodeValue=719:34372,719:33047,719:42103&bop=And) (as opposed to the 780) chipset motherboard for a bit more money, all of which include integrated Radeons as well (3300 instead of 3200).
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 08:18:27 pm
is the 3300 much better than the 3200 ($50 better?)

EDIT: it's only the 790gx that has the integrated graphics, and that's near twice the price

looks like it's between the Asustek M3A78-EM 780G, the Asustek M3A78-EMH HDMI AMD 780G mATX and the Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AMD 780G. i think all 3 are micro atx which kinda sucks i guess, but i've only got one PCI cardi want anyway.

will a microatx still fit in an atx case?
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 10, 2008, 08:48:46 pm
Not sure, to be honest. I have only seen the 3100s in action (and they are very good), so I am only assuming that the 3200-3400s will be good.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 08:57:33 pm
oh i edited
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 10, 2008, 09:11:06 pm
Yes, a microATX board will fit very nicely into a regular ATX case. Quite frequently regular ATX boards run into issues with mid-tower ATX cases. For example, when I built a Crossfire computer and the bottom Radeon 4870 was in the lowest PCI-e slot (this is a double slot graphics card I am talking about) it was so close to the bottom of the case that the air intake into the top of the card (in the ATX form factor, things are flipped upside down) was constricted by the small amount of space and as a result the card ran noticeably hotter than the top card, which was in the middle of the case vertically.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATX#Variants) will show you the size differences, but all of the things are in the same basic place, meaning the PCI card slots and the rear I/O plugs, it is a just a more compact version of an ATX board. Any ATX case will have screw holes in the motherboard tray for microATX as well as several other form factors.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 10:00:38 pm
sweet, i'm fairly set on the Asustek M3A78-EM 780G, which is one you recommended. how much ram should i get? that mobo can take ddr2-1066 but that stuffs kinda expensive
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: something bizarre and impractical on September 10, 2008, 10:48:10 pm
You really won't need anything over 2GB DDR2-800 for what you're doing. You could probably even do fine with 1GB, but 2GB is pretty standard and there are a lot of 2 x 1GB stick bundles by OCZ and Corsair.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 10, 2008, 11:15:09 pm
ok, i was going to buy a 2 gig stick and 2 1 gigs but i guess i'll get a 2 gig and 1 1 gig for a total of 3

would i notice much difference between, say, a  AMD Phenom Quad Core 9550 2.2GHz AM2+ 4MB Cache and a  AMD Athlon64 X2 Processor 5400+ 2.8GHz HT2000FSB 512KBx2 Cache?

i'm looking at getting my cpu from here: http://www.techcom.co.nz/index.php?cPath=24&sort=2a&filter_id=24&osCsid=7bsv6tu6df797lgdqg7abc4vr4

because i get a 10% discount and i'm getting the mobo and ram from there too, so i'll save on shipping. what's the best for money that i'll get?

will this setup last me around 3 years?

EDIT: also, how much power would i need?
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 11, 2008, 12:59:09 am
Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 11:15:09 pm
ok, i was going to buy a 2 gig stick and 2 1 gigs but i guess i'll get a 2 gig and 1 1 gig for a total of 3
Windows XP requires 512MB of RAM to access all of its general functions well. You will not likely ever exceed 2GB of memory in usage. That said, a 32-bit operating system can only make use of 3GB of RAM

Companies who make good RAM in order of how much I recommend them or how much I have used them:
1. Kingston, 7 computers
2. Corsair, 1 computer
3. OCZ, 2 computers
4. Crucial, 2 computers
5. GSKILL, 1 computer

Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 11:15:09 pm
would i notice much difference between, say, a  AMD Phenom Quad Core 9550 2.2GHz AM2+ 4MB Cache and a  AMD Athlon64 X2 Processor 5400+ 2.8GHz HT2000FSB 512KBx2 Cache?
You would notice a considerable difference between an Athlon X2 and a Phenom. This has nothing to do with the cores, rather it is a difference in the CPU architecture. The Athlon series is powered by AMD K8 architecture, which is antiquated and has been around for a long time. The Phenoms are powered by K10 architecture. The fundamental way the processor handles information is different between different types of architecture. A good example of this is why a Core 2 Duo at 2.6 GHz far outperforms a Pentium D at 3.4 GHz even though they both have two cores. AMD is soon to release (or has already released) a K10-based Athlon (http://www.computing.net/answers/cpus/amd-makes-k10-athlon-x2-6500-/14855.html). If you would like to wait, you may find that a more valuable alternative. Otherwise, the tri-core Phenoms are the cheapest "modern" processor available from AMD.

Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 11:15:09 pm
i'm looking at getting my cpu from here: http://www.techcom.co.nz/index.php?cPath=24&sort=2a&filter_id=24&osCsid=7bsv6tu6df797lgdqg7abc4vr4

because i get a 10% discount and i'm getting the mobo and ram from there too, so i'll save on shipping. what's the best for money that i'll get?
Well I can't really help you here as I do not know who ships to New Zealand or what the economic system is like there. A 9950 costs roughly 312 USD in direct conversion, but the prices on that site appear to have taxes or something else factored in. For reference, a 9950 would probably cost me about 160-180 USD to get ahold of. Your best bet will be to buy on eBay (http://computers.shop.ebay.com/items/Other-AMD__9950_W0QQLHQ5fSiteWideConditionZNew13180QQ_nkwZ9950QQQ5ftrksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em283QQLHQ5fPrefLocZ2QQ_flnZ1QQ_sacatZ3672QQ_scZ1QQ_sopZ1). I filtered that search for things that ship worldwide, so paying the direct conversion of currency will benefit you more, likely.

Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 11:15:09 pm
will this setup last me around 3 years?
Yes and no. Yes, it will last you but with some caveats: unless you buy the Radeon 4850, 4870, or 4870x2, you will probably be outdated in the graphics department for new high-end games in a relatively short time, probably 2 years or less, leaning towards the less. The high end Radeons will probably hold you off for 3-4 years. Your processor will be outdated in a matter of months as well as your motherboard as AMD will be releasing 45nm socket AM3 (compatible with AM2 and AM2+, the socket of your board, but without full functionality) chips before Summer 2009 which will be vast improvements over the current generation Phenoms. That said, however, the 9950 is a very good processor and if you upgrade your heatsink and overclock it sometime down the line, you should be more than good for 3-4 years with it. If the need is not pressing, however, you might consider, as I said earlier, waiting between 1-6 months. In November or December, 45nm AM2+ chips will be out, which will be significant improvements on their own. Your other option is simply to buy a Tri-Core or an Athlon for around 100 USD and then upgrade to the AM3 chips next summer, which will afford you about 6 years of life, provided technology increases at its current rate, which is unlikely.

Of course, all this is relative to how much you use the computer, what you want to use it for, and how much you care about speed and power.

Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 11:15:09 pm
EDIT: also, how much power would i need?
Probably 500-600W. You might be able to get by with 450W, but you should probably stay on the 500+ side.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 11, 2008, 01:14:15 am
sweet, looked it up and the am3 processors can still go in an am2 board, so my best bet would be to get a mid range processor until they come out?

i meant what's the best deal for money out of the cpu's here: http://www.techcom.co.nz/index.php?cPath=24&sort=2a&filter_id=24&osCsid=7bsv6tu6df797lgdqg7abc4vr4

in new zealand the slope tends to be more exaggerated because of the size of the distributers and shipping costs etc, cheapest i can get a 9950 looks to be around $400
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 11, 2008, 01:33:16 am
Probably the Phenom X3 8450 or the 8650 would be best. I have easily overclocked the Phenom X4 9600 to 2.7 GHz from 2.3, and it uses a worse stepping revision than the 8450/8650, so you shouldn't have any problem overclocking towards 3.0 GHz with either of them provided you can deal with the heat.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 11, 2008, 02:16:20 am
8450 it is then

now i just need speakers and a case. i'm going to call this computer The Jeff btw
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 11, 2008, 02:45:46 am
ok here's my shopping list:

1 x  AMD Phenom 8450 X3 Core Processor Socket AM2 2.1GHZ 3.5MB Cache 95W Retail Box 
1 x  Asustek M3A78-EM MicroATX AM2/AM2+ Phenom FX/Phenom/Athlon/Sempron; Support CPU up to 140W AMD 780G/SB700 FSB HT3 5200/4800 4*DDR2(Dual Channel) 1066/800/667 Max 8.0GECC Unregistered Yes Onboard VGA Shared MEM of 256MB PCIe2.0X16*1 Hybrid Crossfire support ATA133*1 Serial ATA 3Gb/s *6 (RAID 0110) 1394a*2 ESerial ATA HDMI 8-CH(HD) ALC1200 S/PDIF BACK I/O
1 x  PQI DDR2 800 2GB (PQI chip) Retail Package
1 x  PQI DDR2 800 1GB (PQI chip) Retail Package
1 x  Creative Inspire M2600 2.1 Speakers 6 watts RMS per channel 17 watts RMS Sub-woofer. (51MF0340AA003)
1 x  TAC 318 Mid TowerATX BLACK/SILVER 400W PSU

and i got a dvd rw and a 500gig sata drive from another company
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 11, 2008, 04:10:26 am
Oh good, I see that motherboard does indeed have Hybrid Crossfire support (meaning you can crossfire your integrated card with a regular card). Once you get the motherboard, give AMD a call and ask them which regular cards are supported for Hybrid Crossfire and when the 4000 series will be available for this, so that you can make adequate purchasing decisions in the future for that.

You could have done without the extra gig of RAM, but oh well, also those Creative speakers are kind of dinky, but remember I am an extreme audiophile who spends huge amounts on speakers and equipment, so I am not a good person to take opinions from on that.

How much did it run altogether in NZ$?
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 11, 2008, 05:43:03 am

i probably could have saved another $50 by buying parts from different vendors but this way was easy

also i thought those speakers seemed fairly beefy. i'll be using my headphones for most things anyway, it just sucks trying to show someone something that way
shipping really killed me
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: something bizarre and impractical on September 11, 2008, 05:47:45 am
I'm still not sure why you feel a need for 3GB of RAM. You could always run it with 2GB (which will be more than ample, I doubt you'll even hit 2GB under 99% of conditions if at all) and just save the $32. Then if you do need more later pop one in.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 11, 2008, 05:52:53 am
yeah i was going to go for 4 gigs originally, but you said 2 was enough so i went with a compromise.
since i've got all that excess ram i might give firefox a go heh heh heh. oh also, can you boot off sata hard-drives yet?
i've got 3 drives, a 40, a 320 and a 500. right now i boot with the 40 and keep all my files, games, movies etc on the other ones (partitioned).

oh, i only mentioned that because i thought it'd be a problem accessing files on the harddrive that windows is using but i guess with 3 gigs of ram i won't even need a pagefile!
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Barack Obama on September 11, 2008, 08:25:48 am
Quote
can you boot off sata hard-drives yet?
Yes
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 11, 2008, 08:51:35 am
yeah ok, but should i or should i stick with the 40 gig IDE
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Barack Obama on September 11, 2008, 09:40:52 am
Quote from: climbtree on September 11, 2008, 08:51:35 am
yeah ok, but should i or should i stick with the 40 gig IDE
Things would go faster if you did a RAID 0 across two SATA drives, but it looks like that's not an option for you unless you feel like purchasing another HD.
Unless there's something wrong with your IDE drive or you suspect its about to go sometime soon, just keep it.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 11, 2008, 09:54:39 am
so there wouldn't be any benifit from booting from a sata, or any disadvantage from sticking with the IDE?
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Jeff on September 11, 2008, 01:13:30 pm
Quote from: climbtree on September 11, 2008, 09:54:39 am
so there wouldn't be any benifit from booting from a sata, or any disadvantage from sticking with the IDE?
SATA is obviously going to give you faster data transfer rates and read speeds but no, there is no major difference other than speed.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Mama Luigi on September 11, 2008, 06:25:07 pm
SATA allows faster transefer rates and is plug and play. It's newer... PATA (IDE) is being phased out and motherboards typically no longer carry 2 PATA ports on them. You will be doing yourself a favor to ignore any PATA devices and only buy SATA.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: something bizarre and impractical on September 11, 2008, 09:56:21 pm
Quote from: Jeff on September 11, 2008, 01:13:30 pm
SATA is obviously going to give you faster data transfer rates and read speeds but no, there is no major difference other than speed.
And the fact that PATA cables are a pain in the ass.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Barack Obama on September 12, 2008, 07:49:15 am
Even though there is technically a difference in speeds, I really haven't a difference in everyday use between an SATA drive or one running off of IDE. You should look at how many RPMs your drive runs at and the cache size then boot with the one that has the biggest numbers.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Frisky SKeleton on September 12, 2008, 11:20:14 pm
well that'd be the 500 gig, would it be better to boot off that and have partitions or boot off the 40 gig and run all my games/programs off of the 500 gig?
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: Barack Obama on September 15, 2008, 11:03:00 am
Quote from: climbtree on September 12, 2008, 11:20:14 pm
well that'd be the 500 gig, would it be better to boot off that and have partitions or boot off the 40 gig and run all my games/programs off of the 500 gig?
It would be fastest to boot and run everything from the 500GB drive but I don't really understand why you would need to partition anything though.
Title: More computer building garbage
Post by: zithe on September 19, 2008, 01:49:48 am
Quote from: climbtree on September 10, 2008, 08:18:27 pm
is the 3300 much better than the 3200 ($50 better?)

EDIT: it's only the 790gx that has the integrated graphics, and that's near twice the price

looks like it's between the Asustek M3A78-EM 780G, the Asustek M3A78-EMH HDMI AMD 780G mATX and the Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AMD 780G. i think all 3 are micro atx which kinda sucks i guess, but i've only got one PCI cardi want anyway.

will a microatx still fit in an atx case?

Hybrid crossfire. Yes 3300 is better. :D

Go for 790GX with SB750 South Bridge if you ever plan to overclock your CPU.

Biostar: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138128
Foxconn: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813186150 (I've had good experiences with Foxconn so far.)

If you don't want to overclock, your board is great.