Need a new computer...Some Confirmation of Quality please...
 

First of all, I'm sorry for making another one of these threads.

Computer Case - Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000SWA Silver Aluminum Modern Dream Tower Chassis Computer Case - Retail
Motherboard - MSI
MSI P6N SLI Platinum LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 650i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
Processor - Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail
Memory - Kingston 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail
Power Supply - Thermaltake Purepower RX W0144RU ATX12V 600W Cable Management / Active PFC / 14CM Fan / Quad +12V Power Supply - Retail
Video Card - Leadtek PX8600GTS 256MB Standard GeForce 8600GTS 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Video Card - Retail
Hard Drive - SAMSUNG SpinPoint T Series HD501LJ 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM (x2)

Parts Salvaged from my Old Computer:

DVD +/- RW
Keyboard
Mouse
Speakers
Sound Card (Sound Blaster Live! 24-bit)
17" Monitor

Total Cost - $1067

Confirmation?

It looks fine, although I'm not to keen on the brands for your videocard and hard drives.

Well, That's what I was afraid of. Mainly the Hard Drive. I like Leadtek, because they made my current 6600GT card and that works like a charm. I wasn't sure about Samsung Hard Drives, but they were the cheapest 500GB ones I found that didn't fail within a year of purchase.

I want a decent computer that'll last me for at least 5 years that's able to do some occasional heavy gaming, under or as little over $1000 as possible, and has a lots of Hard Drive Space.

I also need to make sure all the components actually fit with each other.

I used to be pretty keen on Samsung because they ran cool and silent. Unfortunately, their selection is shit now, and they're tough to find (in Canada, at least.)

I would have sooner recommended the Western Digital 500GB. I own two and they are damn nice. Even cooler and more silent than my 250GB Samsungs. Same price, too. :)

You should also look into eVGA video cards. They're really good quality. But good choice on the model. The 8600 isn't really high-powered, though the entire 8xxx series of cards will be replaced in the next 4 months by the 9xxx series.

Yeah, I think I trust Western Digital a bit more than Samsung for Hard Drives. Thanks for the find. I also took your suggestion for eVGA as it's a bit cheaper too. Leadtek served me well last time, so hopefully, eVGA will do the same this time around.

Alright, I'm looking at this:

Computer Case - Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000SWA Silver Aluminum Modern Dream Tower Chassis Computer Case - Retail ($105.99)
Motherboard - MSI
MSI P6N SLI Platinum LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 650i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail ($144.99)
Processor - Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail ($222.90)
Memory - Kingston 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail ($88.99)
Power Supply - Thermaltake Purepower RX W0144RU ATX12V 600W Cable Management / Active PFC / 14CM Fan / Quad +12V Power Supply - Retail ($124.99)
Video Card - EVGA 256-P2-N761-AR GeForce 8600GTS 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Video Card - Retail ($164.99)
Hard Drive - Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM (x2) ($109.99 each)

Total - $1,072.83 - $35.00 (Mail-in) = $1,037.83

I have no love lost on Samsung. Bought a 2.5" drive which failed 11 months after purchase. Replaced it by waving my 3 year warranty card. 2 years later, the replacement failed :p

Are you using this for "XTREME" gaming? If not, you could always switch to an AMD mobo/processor. Sure, it's not as powerful as the Core 2, but are you going to notice unless you're doing video encoding? (If you are, stick with the Core 2). I know if you buy an X2 3800, it won't bottleneck the video card.

It's not going to be for "extreme" gaming, but I will be doing some video encoding, so I figured the Core 2 would be a better choice.

EDIT: I need some confirmation on this, but your FSB doesn't have to be the same as your memory speed does it? In my case, motherboard has DDR2 800 standard for memory and supports FSBs of 1066 or 1333. It looks like it'd make sense, but I wanted to make sure, since I'm paranoid ever since my previous computer blew up when I put in memory that was too fast. Core2 has an FSB of 1066 and my memory is PC2-6400.

XTREME gaming with an 8600GTS. :rolleyes:

AMD is such a rotten choice in every respect. Only the priciest 5000+ and 6000+ chips come close to Intel's low-end Core2 stuff. Also worth mentioning is AM2 is a dead socket come later this year. Absolutely no room to upgrade to anything decent.

Stick with the Core2. It'll serve you well.

In regards to the FSB question, an easy way to tell if your memory is fast for the chip is to divide the CPU's FSB in half.

1066 / 2 = 533MHz.

You have DDR2-800 (which is has a max speed of 800MHz, so you're in the clear. :)

Alright, Thanks a lot, Render. Finally gone and ordered the parts, hopefully everything'll come together right.

I would've gone with Seagate for the hard drive myself, their drives are cool, quiet, and they're one of the last two manufactureres (them and Hitachi) that actually manufacture every part in their hard drives themselves. Other than that, looks good (though the only case I consider worthy of buying is the Antec P180).

Is your 17" monitor a CRT?

This is kind of a big deal because if you have an LCD, it's best to buy a video card that matches well with your LCD's native resolution for gaming. If you have a CRT, the 8600 is a good choice. If it's a 17" LCD, then list the resolution here and what games you intend on playing, and I'll double check your vid card purchase.

I'm looking at 1280x1024 (yes it is a 17" LCD). As far as games go, more or less it'll be some current games like Age of Empires III, FEAR, maybe some Oblivion, as well as whatever upcoming games that interest me (namely, the occasional Shooter and Strategy). What difference does it make? I thought all cards could do 1280x1024?

I personally would have made a few changes, but that is mostly due to taste. I would have gone with the Intel 6420 , then used the extra bit of saved cash on an extra 2gb of RAM, which is dirt cheap atm. But that is something you can add later down the road. I also think that the 8600GT is a terrible midrange card, compared to how the 7600GT stacked against the 7800 anyways. I would have mabye put out the bit extra for a 8800 GT 320mb, but once again that is all up to taste *just glad you at least got a different brand harddrive*. A few P35 motherboards are also on the market now, which have much improved memory bandwidth etc, but nothing wrong with the 650i.

Also Render, I wouldn't say that AMD is a waste anymore. For the cost now, they are pretty competitive price/performance ratio. If you want a high end machine, then Core 2 Duo all the way. However, for MOST people who barely game if at all, AMD is currently very tempting. I just put together a AMD system for my mother. The Athlon 64 x2 3600 was only $66.00cdn, and that combined with 2gb of RAM which cost $80, *along with a 320gb Seagate hdd, Asus Mobo w/ AMD 690 IGP*, it's running VISTA with complete ease, and allows her to surf the web, to her picture stuff, emails, chess games etc.. , all built for under $350 cdn w/ taxes and shipping, although that excludes the case, dvd drive and psu as she had those already.

Anycase Omni, enjoy the new system, should be quiet and perform well.

I'm don't think the 8600GTS dropped in quality, but that the 8800GTS card is just so much more amazing in comparison. I also wanted some leeway, just in case DirectX 10 games came out that I was interested in, so I needed a GeForce 8xxx series or Radeon HD2xxx series card. (But, from what I read, Radeon/ATI isn't doing too smoothly right now.) I did look at the 8800GTS, but it was quite expensive. (I think it was almost double the price of the 8600GTS.)

You were right to go with Nvidia. And for your needs, it sounds like the 8600GTS isn't a bad choice. It really depends how picky you are about eye candy. Oblivion, for instance, is ok with an 8600, but phenomenal with the lowest 8800GTS 320MB. If you want to game at 1280x1024 on all your games, including ones that are coming out in the near future (Crysis, etc.), then you may want to reconsider upgrading to the 8800GTS 320MB. Also, I think you can use EVGAs upgrade policy I believe... < EVGA Step-up program > and maybe upgrade the card later for a bit more cash.

Well, I was actually assuming that should I end up needing more graphical horsepower in the future, a Dual 8600GTS setup running in SLI should be able to satiate my needs. Not to mention, the 8800GTS looks quite a bit larger having a slot dedicated for the fan.

As for eye candy, nah, I'm not that picky. A smooth gameplay takes precedence over the amount of eye candy I can get. If 1280x1024 can't cut it, I could always cut down other settings or just drop back down to 1024x768. 1024x768 doesn't bother me that much, I'd just prefer 1280x1024. ;)

Supposedly, all of nvidia 8xxx card line has problems with DX10, but rocks DX9. That's what I've heard. So far, it seems most games are doing DX9 with some added benefits when you ask for DX10, so the less than stellar DX10 performance can be overlooked for now.

The big change these days is that the high end video cards are now more than 256bit interface. Where as in the past few generations, the high-end video car would be 256 and the midrange *ie 7600* were 128, which wasn't too bad. Now though the high-end are 384 to 512 , and the midrange are still only 128, meaning they just pale in comparison more to their predecessors. A lot of people would have liked have seen ATI and Nvidia step up and come out with a midrange card that had something like a 192-bit interface.

The problem with current dx10 cards too is that I would not buy them with the idea of playing future dx10 games. Even the 8800GTX and 2900XT currently run dx10 relatively... poorly =/. As for Ati's *poor* performance atm, that is due to a situation that is not unlike the whole N30 fiasco. Nvidia is a safer bet atm though, and I would have bought one myself over ATI this time around.

Can't DX10 performance be somewhat improved by new drivers? And I noticed that too when I was researching a bit on the new graphics cards. The Radeon HD2900XT line and the GeForce 8800 line all have ridiculous memory bandwidths that allow it to transfer memory at ridiculous speeds. The midrange cards have high clock speeds, but are bottlenecked by the 128-bit interface.

EDIT: Damn, I'm a dumbass...I forgot to get Thermal Grease....Speaking of which, I don't know much about thermal greases, but I've heard that Arctic Silver 5 works quite well....If so, I could just drop by my neighborhood CompUSA for it. Pretty cheap too.

We'd hope so. For 2007, nVIDIA won't be releasing the 9000 series, so they better get those drivers right. The only new cards they'll be releasing are mobile versions and 8900.

If you're considering two 8600's, don't. Some benchmarks are showing that two 8000 series cards aren't giving decent performance increases for the money involved.

I wanted to thank you all for all of your help. I got my computer put together recently, and it runs amazingly (well, just about everything runs good next to my old piece of shit.)

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4871/1000039fr0.jpg http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6131/1000040yx3.jpg

Thanks again!

Actually they release the 9800GTX with 1GB DDR-4 this November/December. A definite recommendation for everyone who doesn't have a DX10 card but is looking for a HighEnd solution. It's gona be more than 2 times as fast as a 8800GTX Ultra and perfect for all the upcoming DX10 games like BioShock, Crysis, World of Conflict etc.
The reason why current DX10 cards don't perform too well is NOT because of the hardware (which has sufficient power) but the horrendous drivers provided by Nvidia and ATI. This will change after time since XP struggled with the same problem.