Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

New computer build


  • Please log in to reply

#1
troppo

troppo

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
hi all,

I was just wondering what you all think of this system that i have put together. I have come into some work lately and have been saving my pennies :whistling:
so i am hoping to build this system for the future. Im building it mainly for uni and gaming aswell as 3D design and CAD

Please see the screenshot of the price list.

I no i have choosen a pretty low-end grahics card but it will do for now and when i have the money i will upgrade later aswell as getting some DDR3 1333 RAM sometime in the future.

Thank you for your suggestions and any recomendations, they are greatly appreciated.

Troppo

** Also i should add that the price is in Australian dollars which is $ 1,567.65 USD **

Attached Thumbnails

  • Screenshot___28_08_2007___10_35_25_PM.png

Edited by troppo, 28 August 2007 - 06:47 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#2
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
I'd get the best DX9 card you can get for the same price of that low end DX10 card.
I wouldn't worry about DDR3 memory. While that board supports both DDR2 and DDR3 I'm not sure if you can have both memory types in at the same time, also at this current time the latencies are too loose.
Could I ahve a link to that PSU?
Other then that it all looks pretty good to me.
James
  • 0

#3
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
As an Australian, I'm asking where are you buying from? Those prices look too expensive to me. Do they include delivery? An example is you can get a Pioneer +/- DL DVD Burner for $50...
  • 0

#4
troppo

troppo

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
First in reply to James

here is the link to that PSU:
http://www.techbuy.c...lTake/W0103.asp

and just to clarify i wasnt planning on running both DDR2 and DDR3 but when i get together some more money in the future i will upgrade to DDR3 when that becomes the new standard.

and why should i get a DX9 card??? wouldnt even a low end DX10 card be better performing than a mid range DX9 card??? i have an xFx 7600GT AGP card in my current system and it would have to be better than that wouldnt it??? Please explain a little im interested.

also

ruthandtroy:

its from a site called TechBuy found at:

www.techbuy.com.au

it is a little expensive i do have a local computer store that i no is cheaper by how much im not sure because i havent researched that as of yet.


The place local to me has a Core 2 Duo Q6600 for $349 its only about 65 dollars more expensive than the E6750 would that be a smarter option to go for??? cause thats a pretty good price for a quad core isnt it??? And also i can get that same motherboard for $190 maybe the tech buy prices are marked up a fair bit cause i dont htink that includes shipping.


Thnak you both for your replies i appreciate it,

Troppo

Edited by troppo, 29 August 2007 - 08:33 PM.

  • 0

#5
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
I would personally go for the E6750 or E6850 as they have a higher FSB which is better for gaming. I wouldn't touch a quad-core until the non-extreme ones come out with the same 1333FSB, but that's just me personally. Those prices for the quad do sound alright, though. My local store stocks it for $329...
  • 0

#6
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
It has been proven that the FSB difference between 1066MHz and 1333MHz isn't even noticeable, give or take 1 percentage point, no more.

The Q6600 is fine now with the new G0 stepping, it reduces the temperatures it operates at and can run a full 11*C hotter before the chip begins to deteriorate.

The reason why I suggested the high end DX9 card over the low end DX10 card is because there are little to no differences between each version at this current time and this will continue to be the case till more is known about the API and capable cards become more mainstream. The reason why I say capable is because the low end DX10 cards will never be able to play DX10 in it's glory and basically speaking it's just a marketing ploy to get people to buy a new card when their existing card will perform the same. The only advantages that the 8600 series has over the DX9 cards is HD decoding. DX10 only games are a long ways away, a year at best, so why jump onto the DX10 band wagon unless you want to pay more for a more capable card. In all fairness I doubt my current HD200XT or any 8 series card will perform DX10 in it's glory. So all in all, what it basically comes down to, the high end DX9 card will deliver more performance for your dollar which is why I suggest it before the 8600GT card.

James

Edited by james_8970, 29 August 2007 - 11:35 PM.

  • 0

#7
troppo

troppo

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
Thanks james i appreciate the insight :whistling:

But would the 1333Mhz FSB be an advantage when it comes to installing say 2 gigs of DDR3 1333Mhz RAM??? i only ask because ten the FSB and Ram are running 1:1 wouldnt that give greater speeds???

im gunna put together another price list from teh local place where i might be getting them from ill post back and then see what happens to the grand total :blink:
  • 0

#8
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts

i only ask because ten the FSB and Ram are running 1:1 wouldnt that give greater speeds???

Can you rephrase that because I'm not exactly sure what your asking here.

As for the FSB being a bottleneck with DDR3 memory, I really couldn't tell you nor could anyone, other then guessing. It would take extensive research and many hours of benchmarking to verify everything as it is extremely difficult to monitor a full saturated FSB, I personally haven't seen any reviews regarding this. I'd remain doubtful it would be a bottleneck on a dual core. Once a quad quad came into the equation I'm not quite sure, I personally think it would be a very close call. But no one can really verify this till someone posts some information on a reputable site. Also, remember if you plan on overclocking you'll likely exceed the 1333FSB, so in reality there is nothing new with these chips in the enthusiast world.

By the way there is an interesting article on toms hardware involving 1066 vs. 1333 FSB, I want to give you guys the link as it is interesting, but I can seem to find it......
James
  • 0

#9
troppo

troppo

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
I do believe that i ahve read that link you are talking about. Thats the one on toms hardware that explains that there is a 1% performace gain between the two FSB speeds yeah??

interesting... i tend to agree but the only reason why i was looking at the E6750 was due to the cheaper price compared to the quad core but now that the quad core is just a little more expensive i think i will go with that even thou it does have the 1066Mhz FSB i can overclock it to the 1333 speed and have teh best of both worlds :whistling: would you agree??? provided that i have proper cooling and all of that.


thanks guys also what graphics card would you guys suggest for about the price range im looking at thats DX9???

cheers,
Troppo
  • 0

#10
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
As for your 1:1 FSB:RAM question, while there is a slight gain in performance, it is usually not worth it to keep the RAM clock the same as the FSB clock, because you are only holding the FSB back. For instance, I can run my e6750 at a 800mhz FSB and my DDR2 RAM at 800mhz, but it doesn't nearly equal the performance of my FSB at 1600mhz and my DDR2 RAM at 800mhz.

Edited by stettybet0, 30 August 2007 - 10:17 PM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#11
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Double post.

Edited by james_8970, 30 August 2007 - 10:11 PM.

  • 0

#12
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts

As for your 1:1 FSB:RAM question, while there is a slight gain in performance, it is usually not worth it to keep the RAM clock the same as the FSB clock, because you are only holding the FSB back. For instance, I can run my e6750 at a 1066mhz FSB and my DDR2 RAM at 1066mhz, but it doesn't nearly equal the performance of my FSB at 1600mhz and my DDR2 RAM at 1066mhz.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say it holds the FSB back. The DRAM:FSB ratio is effectively the RAMs multiplier, the main and pretty well only reason why people like the 1:1 ratio is because when you push your processor to extreme levels you don't want to hold your RAM holding you back when you want high clock rates on your processor with tight timings on your RAM.
For example, say your FSB is 400x9 you get a total of 3600MHz or 3.6GHz processor.
In this example your DDR2 RAM would be running at 800MHz at a 1:1 ratio now this leaves alot of room to push the processor higher and/or give your RAM even tighter timings.
However if you had your RAM at a 5:4 ratio your RAM would be running at 1000MHz or 1GHz, which could be two much for many stick of PC-6400 RAM.
On the flip side if you had PC2-8500 RAM then you could push it harder, but most people don't have RAM this high.
So in the case of the PC2-6400 RAM you would be forced to take the 1:1 ratio if you wanted to go to a higher clock rate on your processor while having tight timings and generally speaking tighter timings will translate into better performance then a higher clocked stick of RAM.

On a last note, it has been proven that there are very minute difference where a chipset does favor one multiplier or DRAM:FSB ratio over the other however alot of work needs to be done and the final result isn't worth the time required to find it.

James

Edited by james_8970, 30 August 2007 - 10:30 PM.

  • 0

#13
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
First off, I made an error in my original post, I meant 800mhz every time I said 1066mhz. It's been edited.

Anyways, if my FSB is 1600mhz, there is no way you are getting any PC2-6400 ram to run at 1600mhz. However, bringing my e6750's FSB down to 800mhz to run at a 1:1 ratio isn't going to help my system performance.

In this case, there would be a 2:1 ratio (1600mhz FSB, 3.2ghz CPU, 800mhz DDR2), but it would deliver much more performance than the 1:1 ratio (800mhz FSB, 1.6ghz CPU, 800mhz DDR2).

Edit: And by the way, no one runs a 4:5 ratio (with the RAM being faster). It would be pointless, as the RAM would be delivering data to the CPU faster than the CPU could handle it. The common ones are 1:1, 5:4, 3:2, and 2:1.

Edited by stettybet0, 30 August 2007 - 10:24 PM.

  • 0

#14
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Yes I put the ratio's in reverse by accident, changed it from 4:5 to 5:4.
Thanx for pointing that out.

I don't understand why you would need to turn your FSB down to 800MHz to achieve a 1:1 ratio :whistling:
By doing so you would have your RAM running at a speed of 400MHz, which would be underclocking your RAM.
If you did turn your FSB down to 800MHz yes agreed, there wouldn't be any benefit, however there is no need to drop the FSB to lower levels to achieve a ratio of 1:1.

If your FSB is running at 1600MHz or the theoretical value of 400MHz, your RAM would be running at 800MHz at a 1:1 ratio. :blink:

James

Edited by james_8970, 30 August 2007 - 10:38 PM.

  • 0

#15
SOORENA

SOORENA

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 974 posts
You don't have to have a ratio they can work independent. Well at least my mother allows that. Also I don't understand why the total comes to $2000, you could build a super computer with that. You're wasting money on unnessesary things when you can be spending more on the important stuff.

Soorena
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP