Considering a new rig

Where Paco has the dual core i have the quad core.. i use the same processor he has at work. and i can tell a definite difference in performance going home to my home machine. just in processing power.

So, like he said. You have to evaluate the value of multi threading VS GHZ rating. and even with basic air cooling going from a 2.8Ghz to an even 3ghz is EASILY doable. so dont let a couple hundred megahertz ruin your day.

technobear wrote:

Where Paco has the dual core i have the quad core.. i use the same processor he has at work. and i can tell a definite difference in performance going home to my home machine. just in processing power.

Got any quantifiable information which refutes my assertions?...

Dollar for dollar, a dual core will produce more FPS than a quad core.

For pure gaming reasons, I'd upgrade to (3) 5970's before I'd upgrade to an equal speed quad core. Developers just aren't going to be multi-threading most games in the foreseeable future.

Ok, yea I wondered if any games utilized 3 cores well. I have few games that utilize dual-core better. I don't do that much mulitasking, and this would be more of a game-rig, and I don't torrent or anything. Most I would probably multitask is gaming and a music player, or a document in the background for notes and such. I actually got a music player that uses minimal RAM so I can game and listen on my laptop with minimal impact.

So, I will probably stick to dual-core. As mentioned, then comes the question of DDR2 or DDR3. I know DDR3 is faster, but how much more overall? Like, a slight increase, or completely new level of speed? If prices are reasonable, and if I could pass the RAM over to a later stronger gaming rig, I would consider DDR3.

@ Paco

Im not going to argue with you.
And i could say the same to you.
Prove that a dual core gives better FPS than a quad.

But i was mostly agreeing with you.

And yes, dont worry about processor speed between a 2 core 3ghz and a 3/4 core 2.8ghz.. that 2.8 could clock up very easy. even for someone whos not keen on OC.

Leonresevil2 wrote:

As mentioned, then comes the question of DDR2 or DDR3. I know DDR3 is faster, but how much more overall? Like, a slight increase, or completely new level of speed? If prices are reasonable, and if I could pass the RAM over to a later stronger gaming rig, I would consider DDR3.

I don't have any numbers, but it's specs are faster & the costs are almost identical as far as I can tell. That's a no-brainer in my book.

Leonresevil2 wrote:

So, I will probably stick to dual-core. As mentioned, then comes the question of DDR2 or DDR3. I know DDR3 is faster, but how much more overall? Like, a slight increase, or completely new level of speed? If prices are reasonable, and if I could pass the RAM over to a later stronger gaming rig, I would consider DDR3.

I would need to look this up for sure, I think the overall bandwidth of DDR3 was more important solely based on the fact that for video games you are very often transferring large information between system RAM and GPU RAM (textures). Other things, small transfers, DDR2 I think was faster based on lower CAS latency/etc.... The thing is, put it all into context. When you measure stuff at the picoseconds level.... are you really going to notice the difference? So the point is go with whatever lets you bump up other items in your build such as CPU or GPU (actually GPU is more important than CPU for budget gamer builds). The only real reason to do much research on RAM is if you plan on overclocking because there are certain relationships between bus speeds, multipliers, etc.

Good info, thanks furthermore. I don't plan to get into OCing, at least not until I get some time and age into the PC, just in case I mess something up or it wears out faster. I want to get a decent life out of it before I go in tinkering and such.

Anyway, with hard drives, I've always wondered if you could notice a difference between 7600, 10k, and higher RPMs, outside of huge file transfers. I don't plan to be moving things around often, and I can deal with semi-long DLs and installs, if I save some money. I'd rather put that money into mouse/keyboard/headset/GPU. I really don't care about picoseconds and nanoseconds, I just don't want lag and ~5FPS which is where I am in some games now. I would like a build that can handle most of the games we LAN at good FPS, I don't mind boot times and DL times. Highest graphics games would probably BFBC2 or MW2. I can't think of anything else with higher graphics really. If it can handle Doom 3 and FarCry 2 at ~30 FPS, I'm happy.

All I can say is Quad Core's FTMFW!!!!!

Dual cores are for pussy's, real men roll with quads!!! lol

I love my raptor, although I got it for $120 so that was a steal.

Still can't beat SSD's though. Here is a great vid of just how bad ass they are.



This is why I have one.

I still think that they 5770 would be the best GPU for you right now.

On a side note, look at the optimum spec's for BFBC2. They are pretty nasty. When a game wants a GTX 260 that is bad azz.

If you want to see the new Crysis look at Metro 2033. They want an i7 and the new Nvidia cards, lol.

As for games not being multi threaded look at the spec's. I know most if not all of my games will each all the cores on my i7. True, WoW doesn't but that's cause it's pretty low end game. Metro 2033 on the other hand is a beast and is multi threaded, I guess it just depends on the game. Thank god that they put that stuff on Steam for us to see.

technobear wrote:

@ Paco

Im not going to argue with you.
And i could say the same to you.
Prove that a dual core gives better FPS than a quad.

I didn't say it will give better FPS...I said it will give better FPS for the money...

Will an 11 page article meet your needs? www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-ga...ad-core-processors/1

From the article:

"So then, the hardcore truth today is a very simple fact: you'll gain a better bang for buck in your games from a faster clocked dual-core processor opposed to having a somewhat slower clocked quad-core processor. That doesn't mean though that quad-core processors offers less value. Contrary, and I know I've been evangelizing it for over a year now, but the future is multi-core gaming, the fact is just that dual-core is the sweet spot value wise anno 2008 as 95% of the games still only use one and maybe two CPU cores.

As I've been saying...unless there's a major shift in game development, quad core isn't worth considering in a low-budget gaming rig.

garfi3ld wrote:

Short of the 15k drives they are faster in Transfer speed. And random access is much more important than transfer speed when it comes to loading programs, maps, games, ect.

BUT for a budget build I would suggest going with a 640Gb or something similar.

*sarcasm* I know you can't trust anything on Tom's Hardware...f'n fly-by-night new websites...*/sarcasm* but, here's a nifty little benchmark result
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd6000hlhx-...or-600gb,2600-5.html
which precisely confirms what I've been saying about HDDs (with exception of the new 600GB Raptor which blows 56% the OP's budget by itself & relies upon SATA 6gbps...which costs even more). Fun fact: the #2 drive most of those lists (#1 on one) is what I just installed in my budget-rig for $90 as opposed to $280 for that raptor.

GD are you guys just eating out of advertisers' hands or what? This is a very low budget PC...not a dream machine. I know I'm a new guy around here (hi ), but I'm well-informed & passionate about this subject because my yearly gaming budget used to be around $300-$400. I don't wanna see the OP steered wrongly by you guys & your dreams of quad cores, SSDs, $280 10,000 RPM HDDs, etc.

Welcome pacobedejo, and thanks for the input. You've been pretty informative here, and I'm glad you understand my situation to a good degree. Sarcastic, but I like your style, so you've got a friend in me.

So, sounds like...
GPU: ATI 5770
CPU: dual-core AMD
HDD: 7200RPM 640GB
RAM: 4GB (split decision between DDR2 and 3)

I know I'm forgetting some things, but I'm trying to piece it together in mental plans. Any specific numbers, brands, parts for these? Other parts I'm missing?

garfi3ld wrote:

In fact I'm not even sure why you are even arguing with me, even your proof shows that the Velociraptor is faster than all of the other drives tested.

I wasn't really arguing with you, sorry if you felt that way. It looks like we're both in agreement on the model numbers for about 1/2 of the components for a solid budget build anyhow. Your post was the most recent discussing hard drives & got used as the example by which to show that all but the most recent $280 Raptor is beaten by a $90 1TB and on par with a $55 500GB.

I'll gladly step to the side when the discussion turns to raped-ape rigs, but I'm on these budget-rig discussions like a fat kid on cake.

BTW, awesome that you're donating a case to the cause

Leonresevil2, as everyone has suggested, skip lunch for a week to fit a 5770 into your budget if it's at all possible, as that's going to be most important component. I would strongly look at the Samsung HD502HJ 500GB drive because it's the fastest possible drive with adequate size for the money. The WD 640GB drives are also strong performers with a more-proven track record & should be considered. I wouldn't bother thinking about DDR2 unless you're seeing a sizable cost-savings. As far as I know, they're basically the same price as DDR3.

Keep those things in mind & look at either Garfi3ld's list or mine on the first page.

Good luck

imo in budget builds get a mobo that will last for an upgrade...RAM is more important than the CPU imo

And the graphics card is important too so go big with that (if possible)

Other than that idk about HDD's and all that other crap...I never see it as an importance (only in budget builds again )

I should be able to get the 5770, and I didn't even notice the mention of the case I could use, so thanks for that! Lol Are they those Thermaltake fuzzy things we got a big bag of a few lans back? I'm not sure if that was the sponsor, I just remember the red fuzzy things that had sticky tape on their feet.

As for a long-lasting mobo, would one that supports DDR3 be good enough? It sounds like DDR3 will be affordable, and I don't know what else to look for to make my mobo last for an upgrade. I've heard about PCI Express 3.0, but I don't know that anything has come out to support that.

For MB, just be sure to get DDR3 (IMO) and PCIe 16x v2.1. Anything of the new techs (like USB3) are going to increase the MB cost by at least 100% as I've seen. If you go with the AMD 3.0Ghz dual core CPU, it's only a 65 watt, so any case with a few 120mm fans will be more than enough. My HTPC runs cool with that CPU, stock heat sink & fan, and a single 80mm case fan.

I'd like to contribute, but it looks like you're getting taken care of.

Anything you still haven't decided on yet or are confused about?

Trendnet! I knew it was the company that provided our old forums, couldn't remember the name.

Well, I think pacobedejo said that USB3 would be more expensive, but I can't quite tell for sure. That seems like the only variable, since I will be looking over the lists given for the parts. I trust that everything in a list is compatible.

The only other things are a mouse, keyboard, headset, and LCD screen. I'd be willing to buy these things used, if anyone has older stuff they'd be willing to sell. Mouse needs to have a laser, keyboard needs all the normal keys, headset should have mic and NO volume controls on the wire, and LCD screen should be above 1024x768 res. (Yes, I have low standards for this.)

The screen looks decent, I may aim a bit lower, maybe smaller. And I meant "not a ball", so optical is probably what I already have. My existing mouse is ok, but can't scroll up anymore. Makes it just about a 3-button mouse, quite out of date compared to what everyone else has.
Lol I've even played TF2 on my laptop mousepad, so I can deal with about anything.

id leave the expensive interface devices for after you get your machine built. Im sure we can get you a mouse and keyboard thatll work for you..

actualy at the lan i tried to give away a gaming class keyboard and i always have a spare mouse in my " Med Bag" that i bring to lans..

I suppose the screen would be good, and it would double to support my PS3 with HDMI. I'll keep it in mind. Now I just need to get the funds and pick what to buy. Thanks for all the advice!

Why would you get a dual core when you can get a quad core for $99 on newegg?

And for the discussion, DDR3 on AMD's/1156's is different then DDR3 on i7's.

I have heard great things on the $99 quad from AMD. Seems like a great deal.

Wingless92 wrote:

Why would you get a dual core when you can get a quad core for $99 on newegg?

$65 for dual core 3.0Ghz 65W
$99 for quad core 2.8Ghz 95W

The quad core is slower, won't overclock as well, has less L2 cache/core, won't be utilized by most games, will run hotter, and costs 52% more without factoring in the likely need for an aftermarket cooler due to more cores in close proximity.

Wingless92 wrote:

And for the discussion, DDR3 on AMD's/1156's is different then DDR3 on i7's.

How so? Are you saying it performs worse than DDR2 on an AMD or that if Newegg finds out you're plugging it into an AMD chipset, they raise the price?