New Build

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:56 am

I am going to uptade my rig to DDR3... was wondering what is thought of this build.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813131647

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103727

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820233146

I don't really need a new video card so I plan to reuse my old one. I would spend a little more for better performance... but as far as I can tell this seems like a good setup for the price.

I looked at Intell and for the money the single core speeds of the amd are way better. But all I hear people talk about are the I5 and I7s. But they seem way more expensive compared to the AMDs. Is it worth it to spend on the Intell or will this AMD setup work just as well. I am way behind the times on computers now, that is why I am posting this.

on a side note... what version of W7-64 should I buy. this is for home... but I have several other computers that are on the network that I map drives to.

Thanks for the input.

Err · Post by **Err** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:29 pm

There's nothing wrong with the AMD Quad cores. The only thing you'll want to do is select a different memory kit. The link goes to a tri-channel 12 GB kit and the board is only duel channel. Besides, 8G will be more than enough.

While the AMDs do have faster clock speeds/dollar value, the Intel 1155 socket processors tend to out perform them. The best intel processor for the money is the 2500K:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072

However, it's going to run you ~$90 more. It's also very difficult to find a motherboard for the 1155 processors that have and IDE port if you have older devices you want to run. I'm considering this ASUS for myself:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131634

Asrock also makes a board with IDE but it's more expensive and I don't need SLI or Crossfire.

I would choose the 64 bit pro version of windows 7 myself. I like having the XP mode option.

While intel's current processors are outperforming AMDs right now, the truth is that you may not notice the difference. If you're encoding video or audio, you looking at a defference of a minute or two in time savings. In gaming, it's going to depend more on your video card. The intel processor does consume ~70W less than the AMD though. I think you'll be happy with either brand. Whatevver you decide, be sure to put up a new HD to take advantage of the SATA III 6GB/s speeds these new boards offer.

I2500K to 965 comparison: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2423.html?prod%5B4788%5D=on&prod%5B4440%5D=on

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:52 pm

nah.. I dont need PATA any more in my main rig. And I thought you had to run 3 sticks of DDR3 to do the same thing you do with 2 of DDR2. So the cpu/board has to support tri-channel?

Right now i have a E8300 dual 3.0gig, but its a DDR2 system.

Also.. what about getting a SSD HDD? Is it worth it? I leave my computer on 24/7. Obviously I would still have a normal HDD to store stuff on that didn't need quick access. Would storing my steam files for tf2 on the SSD decrease load times? not that they are horrible now, but I remeber reading that SSDs can only be written too so many times before they die.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:57 pm

Other thoughts... does single core speed not matter any more when using win7? I know in XP it did cause most things only ever ran on core 0(1) and you could have a single 3.5 out perform a dual 3.0.

Err · Post by **Err** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:39 pm

Pugsley wrote:nah.. I dont need PATA any more in my main rig. And I thought you had to run 3 sticks of DDR3 to do the same thing you do with 2 of DDR2. So the cpu/board has to support tri-channel?

Right now i have a E8300 dual 3.0gig, but its a DDR2 system.

Also.. what about getting a SSD HDD? Is it worth it? I leave my computer on 24/7. Obviously I would still have a normal HDD to store stuff on that didn't need quick access. Would storing my steam files for tf2 on the SSD decrease load times? not that they are horrible now, but I remeber reading that SSDs can only be written too so many times before they die.

Pugsley wrote:Other thoughts... does single core speed not matter any more when using win7? I know in XP it did cause most things only ever ran on core 0(1) and you could have a single 3.5 out perform a dual 3.0.

The only tri-channel boards I know of are the Intel X58 series that ran the 1366 CPUs. AMD never went that route and Intel has dropped it with the H67, P67, and Z68 boards. With a dual channel board, you need to install the memory in pairs in order for it to work. I recommend 2 x 4 GB sticks for a total of 8 GB. You can always add another 2 later if you want 16 GB.

Since you don't need an IDE port AND are interested in running an SSD, you should look at the Z68 Chipsets from Intel. They have support for SSD caching.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131729

I've been debating SSDs myself and can't yet bite the bullet mainly because of cost. However, if you are going to get one just do a bit of research and read some reviews. See who is supporting their drives. I would get an Crucial or Corsair. Both offer 3 year warranty. Intel also makes very good SSD but they are very expensive.

Crucial: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441

Corsair: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233153

Even if I had one, I'd probably only use it for Windows and Office. I'd stick my games on a TB drive. I have may too many games to afford enough SSD space. If you did install steam and TF2 to an SSD it would decrease the load times.

Windows 7 makes better use of multicore processors than XP. Speed isn't as much a factor now as processors are becoming more efficient.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:57 am

I'd wait it out another year or so on the SSDs if I were you. The prices are dropping pretty regularly (and the manufacturers say they plan to keep it that way). Thus by then it'll be affordable to get a decent amount of storage.

It is definitely a tough decision on processors these days. What makes it easier for me is that the AMD platform has been sticking with their current socket for quite a while now & thus upgrades have been painless (just swap the CPU instead of the mobo & CPU). I believe the processor/motherboard you picked are a good choice. I also agree with Err that 8gb is plenty RAM. I have 8gb & have yet to use more than 6 (I'm sure I could if I tried though).

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:18 am

Yeah this rig now is dual channel. I just thought that with ddr3 you needed tri channel. Ok. I guess ill just go with the AMD and stick with a normal mechanical HDD. And knock the ram back down to a dual kit. That means ill be able to get some lower CAS ram if i go with 2x4g.

And I just found a 3.3GHZ 6 core.... I think ill get that. Its not much more money per GHZ and its overall more GHZ.