building music/gaming PC

[bball1523]

My wishlist:

1) Motherboard:ASUS P5WD2 Premium Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 955X ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail

2) Videocard: ASUS EN6800GT/2DT/256MB Geforce 6800GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail

3) CPU: intel Pentium 4 630 Prescott 800MHz FSB LGA 775 EM64T Processor Model BX80547PG3000F - Retail

4) RAM: OCZ 1GB (2 x 512MB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit System Memory Model OCZ25331024VDC-K - Retail

5) DVD Burner: BenQ Black IDE DVD Burner Model DW1620 PRO BLK BONUS - Retail

6) CD-ROM: SAMSUNG Black IDE DVD-ROM Drive Model TS-H352A/BEBP - OEM

- What case is best for all these parts? I want a quiet computer, with as easy access to putting in parts as possible, and with as low temperatures as I can get for a cheap cost.
- What power supply would fit perfectly with all these parts?
- What cooling methods can I use to keep my temps as low as possible, even while recording music and gaming?

Sorry, but please assume that I am getting an INTEL.

 

[Mrvile]

The first thing everyone's gonna tell you is to get AMD. It'll save you a lot of money on the motherboard and ram, and it destroys any P4 in gaming.

I recommend a 3500+ Venice processor, the Asus A8N-SLI motherboard, and 1GB of Corsair Valueram. You might wanna get an Audigy2 ZS sound card too. Everything else looks alright.

And I assume you already have everything else? Recording and playback hardware, peripherals, etc.

 

[UsandThem]

Why all the extra money for a 955x chipset motherboard?

Why not go with a 945P motherboard and save $100.00 to use elsewhere.

I would get a OCZ or Seasonic power supply 420w+.

With a Prescott based CPU, you will probably want to get an after market cooler (like Zalman) and a case with a 120mm fan in front and back.

 

[bball1523]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
The first thing everyone's gonna tell you is to get AMD. It'll save you a lot of money on the motherboard and ram, and it destroys any P4 in gaming.

I recommend a 3500+ Venice processor, the Asus A8N-SLI motherboard, and 1GB of Corsair Valueram. You might wanna get an Audigy2 ZS sound card too. Everything else looks alright.

And I assume you already have everything else? Recording and playback hardware, peripherals, etc.

yes I know AMD have the benchmarks and opinions of gamers that it's the best processor for gaming, but I've already decided through numerous opinions that Intel is the one I am getting. I am not the hardcore gamer so I personally don't care. Please assume that I am getting Intel.

 

[bball1523]

Originally posted by: UsandThem
Why all the extra money for a 955x chipset motherboard?

Why not go with a 945P motherboard and save $100.00 to use elsewhere.

I would get a OCZ or Seasonic power supply 420w+.

With a Prescott based CPU, you will probably want to get an after market cooler (like Zalman) and a case with a 120mm fan in front and back.

I wanted the 955x chipset because it has DDR2 800 memory slots, and firewire.

You know I'm just burned out from what type of mobo to really get. There's just too many specs, that I have no clue what the ideal specs to get are.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Athlon 64's beat Pentium 4's in EVERYTHING except heavy video encoding/multitasking. Don't just say they're only better in gaming. Even in normal everyday use, they'll be faster, you'll save money, they run cooler and more efficiently (therefore being able to be overclocked more), etc... 80% of the members on this forum would recommend AMD; not because they're fanboys, it's because AMD proccesors are just better.

 

[UsandThem]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Athlon 64's beat Pentium 4's in EVERYTHING except heavy video encoding/multitasking. Don't just say they're only better in gaming. Even in normal everyday use, they'll be faster, you'll save money, they run cooler and more efficiently (therefore being able to be overclocked more), etc... 80% of the members on this forum would recommend AMD; not because they're fanboys, it's because AMD proccesors are just better.

Come on guy's. I run a AMD system and I recommend them, but he has already said he wants a Intel system.

 

[UsandThem]

Originally posted by: bball1523

I wanted the 955x chipset because it has DDR2 800 memory slots, and firewire.

You know I'm just burned out from what type of mobo to really get. There's just too many specs, that I have no clue what the ideal specs to get are.

Check out this motherboard:

Gigabyte

It supports DDR2 667, has 3 firewire ports and you can add a cheap firewire card if you need more. Here is a review of the board.

Link

Gigabyte makes very good stable boards.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: UsandThem

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Athlon 64's beat Pentium 4's in EVERYTHING except heavy video encoding/multitasking. Don't just say they're only better in gaming. Even in normal everyday use, they'll be faster, you'll save money, they run cooler and more efficiently (therefore being able to be overclocked more), etc... 80% of the members on this forum would recommend AMD; not because they're fanboys, it's because AMD proccesors are just better.

Come on guy's. I run a AMD system and I recommend them, but he has already said he wants a Intel system.

but his reason for getting one doesnt make any sense

 

[StrX]

Everything looks good. Intel is pretty good to.

 

[bball1523]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: UsandThem

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Athlon 64's beat Pentium 4's in EVERYTHING except heavy video encoding/multitasking. Don't just say they're only better in gaming. Even in normal everyday use, they'll be faster, you'll save money, they run cooler and more efficiently (therefore being able to be overclocked more), etc... 80% of the members on this forum would recommend AMD; not because they're fanboys, it's because AMD proccesors are just better.

Come on guy's. I run a AMD system and I recommend them, but he has already said he wants a Intel system.

but his reason for getting one doesnt make any sense

can you prove that amd is better than intel for music recording by more than a billion miles rather than where an avg person won't even notice any difference? That's where I chose Intel over AMD, because nobody proved that AMD has differences that anyone can notice. One big thing was that most music software and studios used intel processors, and even apple (popular studio computer) has switched to intel, so that might mean something.

Now can we please get back on topic?

so will everything interact with each other perfectly and I'm still looking for the right case/psu/cooling system.

I'll have to look more into gigabyte mobos. I went with ASUS because friends told me it was a great choice for me.

 

[Steg55]

Come on guys. Give this guy a break.

SOMEONE has to buy intel stuff otherwise oh mighty chipzilla would go all bankrupt - and that wouldnt be a good thing would it. Would destroy all this wonderful competition

On topic - Yeh I would stick with Asus motherboards - they a probebly the best

As for PSUs i recommend this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817101516
A german built Tagen powersupply - not very well known in the US for no reason that ive been able to discern but they are the BEST powersupplies out there and HUGELY popular in europe

Steg

 

[fatty4ksu]

I'd get a 3.0 p4 before a pathetic 3000+

 

[dnuggett]

can you prove that amd is better than intel for music recording by more than a billion miles rather than where an avg person won't even notice any difference? That's where I chose Intel over AMD, because nobody proved that AMD has differences that anyone can notice. One big thing was that most music software and studios used intel processors, and even apple (popular studio computer) has switched to intel, so that might mean something.

Music is a very general topic/task. Do you mean just record/playback? It really doesn't matter if you get Intel or AMD then, unless you plan on multi-tasking then HT might be more beneficial. It has been proven that for gaming AMD is the current way to go. So in the end unless you plan on heavy multi-tasking with your "music", for your usage you gain nothing by going Intel except a smaller pocketbook, and less FPS during gaming.

You have contrdicted yourself in your statement. If we can't prove that AMD is better than Intel "music" wise for the average person (you) than why does what the professional studios (not you) use matter. That's like saying the professional studios use Macs for graphics and since graphics are in games I'm going Mac for gaming. It makes no sense.

In the end though you have a right to pick as you choose and toss your money wherever you want!

 

[Dman877]

I'm listening to internet radio, ripping cd's to mp3, and typing this on an A64 machine with no slowdown. While you are right, the difference isn't "a billion miles" (miles? whatever ) the difference in heat/power is very noticeable. If you are trying to build a quiet system, AMD is hands down the way to go for a desktop user. I'm sorry to keep harping on this but it's the simple truth at this point in time.

As far as your wishist, 224 is a lot to spend on a mobo. Intel has a lot of chipsets and the mobo manufacturers have a whole array of boards (many with firewire) that should work fine. Are you planning to upgrade to dual core in the near future?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
I'd get a 3.0 p4 before a pathetic 3000+

i dont understand why the mods dont ban you. :roll:



**EDIT**

is my 3000 "pathetic" ?

 

[bball1523]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

can you prove that amd is better than intel for music recording by more than a billion miles rather than where an avg person won't even notice any difference? That's where I chose Intel over AMD, because nobody proved that AMD has differences that anyone can notice. One big thing was that most music software and studios used intel processors, and even apple (popular studio computer) has switched to intel, so that might mean something.

Music is a very general topic/task. Do you mean just record/playback? It really doesn't matter if you get Intel or AMD then, unless you plan on multi-tasking then HT might be more beneficial. It has been proven that for gaming AMD is the current way to go. So in the end unless you plan on heavy multi-tasking with your "music", for your usage you gain nothing by going Intel except a smaller pocketbook, and less FPS during gaming.

You have contrdicted yourself in your statement. If we can't prove that AMD is better than Intel "music" wise for the average person (you) than why does what the professional studios (not you) use matter. That's like saying the professional studios use Macs for graphics and since graphics are in games I'm going Mac for gaming. It makes no sense.

In the end though you have a right to pick as you choose and toss your money wherever you want!

I definitely plan on multi-tasking. It's almost a 50/50 on what people have recommended I get between AMD and Intel for music recording. It's not just simple recording. I might even get a pro tools system. I heard most music programs are made and tested on Intel's, and I don't want any small problems ever arising because of an AMD processor (not that I'm saying many people have experienced music recording on AMD).

I compare it to getting sony brand products than 3rd party products for ps2 hardware. I do not trust mad catz or whatever 3rd party brand for my ps2 controllers, or memory cards, etc. I've heard way too many problems with those brands. Now I'm not saying AMD is a cheap brand, because I bet it's good, but I feel so trusted to intel for music recording in the way I feel trusted to sony products for ps2 because it's worked before in the past and might as well work in perfectly fine in the future.

now with heat/power, I heard there are ways to cool down the intel's to reasonable levels. I don't care about small differences between amd/intel. I just feel that music applications were made for intel in that I have a trust for intel.

 

[Dman877]

"now with heat/power, I heard there are ways to cool down the intel's to reasonable levels"

Yes but they involve a lot more money and energy (phase change or water cooling) and aren't noob-friendly. IMO, look for a 3.0C (Northwood) chip, they run cooler and even faster in some cases then the prescot chips.

 

[biostud]

for cooling the CPU get the Thermalright XP-90

 

[bball1523]

Originally posted by: Dman877
"now with heat/power, I heard there are ways to cool down the intel's to reasonable levels"

Yes but they involve a lot more money and energy (phase change or water cooling) and aren't noob-friendly. IMO, look for a 3.0C (Northwood) chip, they run cooler and even faster in some cases then the prescot chips.

I am thinking about getting prescott's because they have the 64 bit capabilities. If you can tell me that I don't need 64-bit, now, or in the next year, then I'll probably switch over to northwoods.

 

[UsandThem]

Originally posted by: bball1523

Originally posted by: Dman877
"now with heat/power, I heard there are ways to cool down the intel's to reasonable levels"

Yes but they involve a lot more money and energy (phase change or water cooling) and aren't noob-friendly. IMO, look for a 3.0C (Northwood) chip, they run cooler and even faster in some cases then the prescot chips.

I am thinking about getting prescott's because they have the 64 bit capabilities. If you can tell me that I don't need 64-bit, now, or in the next year, then I'll probably switch over to northwoods.

Northwoods core CPU's aren't even being made anymore. For peformance CPU's you are going with the Prescott core CPU's.

It's either Prescott or Athlon64's.

 

[bball1523]

Originally posted by: UsandThem

Originally posted by: bball1523

Originally posted by: Dman877
"now with heat/power, I heard there are ways to cool down the intel's to reasonable levels"

Yes but they involve a lot more money and energy (phase change or water cooling) and aren't noob-friendly. IMO, look for a 3.0C (Northwood) chip, they run cooler and even faster in some cases then the prescot chips.

I am thinking about getting prescott's because they have the 64 bit capabilities. If you can tell me that I don't need 64-bit, now, or in the next year, then I'll probably switch over to northwoods.

Northwoods core CPU's aren't even being made anymore. For peformance CPU's you are going with the Prescott core CPU's.

It's either Prescott or Athlon64's.

that's another thing why I'm wondering I should choose Northwood. I think prescott's have more upgradeability options.

 

[canadageek]

*looks at "pathetic" 2500+ AXP*
sigh...i wish i had that kind of money....
to make things clear....
athlons are just as good or better as P4s, but AMD doesn't have the resources for marketing like Intel. that is the difference between the two.
I'm German, so i favour AMD anyway
but if you go P4, i respect that. if you are lucky, you might be able to get a cheap dual-core. then at least you'd be making use of the your chipset.

 

[smthmlk]

Really, given the goals you've set up for this computer you're building, going Intel makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[sniperruff]

i'd skip the dvd-rom