New Build Opinions please

[jeffconnors]

I'm building a computer for Internet, word processing, and a few games (MS FS 2004, and Combat FS 3). I have come up with some components and would like your opinions:

MB: Biostar TForce TF520-A2
RAM: OCZ 2 GB DDR2 PC2-6400 Platinum Revision 2 Dual Channel
Video: Nvidia 8600GT Edition XXX
Pro: AMD X2 5000 Black Edition

I have a Maxtor 160GB hard drive, a DVD burner, and a case. I don't want to have a lot of money in this and thought this combination would be a good compromise. If any or all are not suitable, please let me know. Thanks!

 

[aussiestilgar]

MB: Gigabyte DS3L
Pro: Intel E21x0
Overclock it to 3.0GHz with an Arctic Freezer 7 and you'll be running like the wind.

 

[jeffconnors]

Originally posted by: aussiestilgar
MB: Gigabyte DS3L
Pro: Intel E21x0
Overclock it to 3.0GHz with an Arctic Freezer 7 and you'll be running like the wind.

Intel faster than AMD for games? What is an E21x0? I can't find it anywhere?

 

[aussiestilgar]

Yeah Intel is faster than AMD at the moment, where you been?
Replace the x with 4, 6 or 8

 

[SorryImLate]

Originally posted by: jeffconnors

Originally posted by: aussiestilgar
MB: Gigabyte DS3L
Pro: Intel E21x0
Overclock it to 3.0GHz with an Arctic Freezer 7 and you'll be running like the wind.

What is an E21x0? I can't find it anywhere?

E2140, E2160, E2180, E2200

 

[KenAF]

Another alternative is the new E8400 @ $190. It is 3GHz at stock and will overclock to 3.6GHz on default voltage, or 4.0GHz with a voltage increase.

 

[KenAF]

Originally posted by: jeffconnors
Intel faster than AMD for games?

Much. Compared to that AMD 5000+, Intel CPUs are 50+% faster at stock speeds, and 100% faster if you overclock.

See the full AMD vs Intel comparison here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...alcore-shootout_3.html

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm trying to figure out what you're preferences are.

I have no doubt that other posters are pointing you to inexpensive motherboard and RAM.

I just built two systems with a Gigabyte GA-73VM-S2 mATX board ($65 bucks!!). It has built-in GeForce 7050 VGA, saving you a need to buy that nVidia 8600 GT right away. But it won't provide enough PCI-E x16 (or even x8) slots for two graphics cards in SLI. It has two PCI slots, and one PCI-E x16 (for that 8600 GT when you get around to it), and an PCI-E x1 slot (probably good for a network card, a vid-capture-tuner card, etc.) It has on-board sound -- six-channel, and an onboard network (NIC) 10/100 ethernet controller (it's not "gigabit" ethernet, though, so good to have the x1 slot available).

You can over-clock it, but you cannot manually set the RAM voltage. We have an E2140 processor in one, and an E2180 processor in the other -- both dual core, but only L2 cache equal in size to the old Pentium 4 Prescotts. There are about four SATA2 hard-disk ports, and a single IDE/ATAPI plug.

so for that:

GA-73VM-S2 mobo = $65
E2140 Intel C2D = $65
Crucial Ballistix
DDR2-667 (2GB) $60 (approximately)

That's $190. You need a power supply, say an Antec Earthwatts -- maybe $60, and a hard disk -- between $50 and $100 depending on size.

That leaves your case, and your other components like the DVD ROM or burner you want to continue using. You also said you have a Maxtor HD. IF it's SATA150 or SATA2, you're good to go. If IDE, not so good, because I'd never run an optical drive and a hard disk off the same controller-- for which you only have one.

Look at the pricing for the DDR2-667 Crucial Ballistix 2GB kit. There was a $30 rebate two weeks ago. I bought a pair of 'em for $55 (less $30 = $25 after-rebate price), and the next week they were more than $60 with the same rebate.

 

[myocardia]

First, welcome to anandtech. Whatever you do, don't waste your money on an 8600GT, unless you're building an HTPC. The 7900GS is faster, and costs less. Here's how the 7900GS performs against the 8600GT's faster brother, the 8600GTS: http://xbitlabs.com/articles/v...c-x1950pro-scs3_8.html

 

[bryanW1995]

bonzaiduck has a good suggestion with the matx mobo and e2140 combo. I'd probably spend the few extra bucks for an e2180 (about $8 differece at newegg right now), but overall it's a good plan. how much is an 8600gt xxx these days? I think that you'll probably be much better served with a 3850. They're about $160, but their price/performance is fantastic. If that's just too much for your budget, you might wait to see how the 9600gt turns out. Rumor has it that it will be nice. Of course, I saw that rumor at thg, so take it with a grain of salt...

 

[jeffconnors]

Newegg has the 8600GT on sale for $80 post rebate. The matx motherboard cannot change the RAM voltage? Several RAM I have read up on have reviews calling for manually changing the RAM. Is this true?

Another question, the AMD 5000 is 2.6 Ghz and the E2180 is 2.0 Ghz and they are only about $6 apart in price. How is the 2180 faster? Not questioning anyone here, I just want to learn. I did read the processor online article but I still don't get it. Thanks!

 

[aussiestilgar]

The intel chips overclock far higher than the AMD chips. The architecture of the intel chips is superior and can beat the AMD chips clock for clock.

And yeah, you need to be able to adjust the ram voltage if you're gonna get enthusiast RAM, or if you're gonna overclock it.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: jeffconnors
Another question, the AMD 5000 is 2.6 Ghz and the E2180 is 2.0 Ghz and they are only about $6 apart in price. How is the 2180 faster? Not questioning anyone here, I just want to learn. I did read the processor online article but I still don't get it. Thanks!

You can't compare the core speeds of two different brands of chips like that. You'll have to just trust us that the intel is faster, and the OC headroom on the intel CPUs is simply astounding. The E2180 in my sig is running @ 3.25ghz 24/7 -- that's an average OC btw.

 

[jeffconnors]

I trust you. Eeek! I'm in for Intel and will look at your suggestions and pick one. My last build was about 4 years ago, things sure do change! Thanks!

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: jeffconnors
I trust you. Eeek! I'm in for Intel and will look at your suggestions and pick one. My last build was about 4 years ago, things sure do change! Thanks!

Yes, they sure do. Don't feel bad about abandoning AMD. My last rig was an XP-M 2400+ 1.8ghz (OCed to 2.23ghz) on an Asus A7N8X Deluxe which served me faithfully for 2 years and is still in service. I also ran a desktop XP 2200 stock in that same mobo for over 2 years prior to that.

Time to move on though. It certainly couldn't play COD4 @ 72+ FPS, 1284 x 1024, max everything like I can now.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Intel is only stronger in the upper echelons of the CPU market, what you need is midrange and both AMD and Intel are fine, just go with whichever you want, budget or upgrade wise.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
Intel is only stronger in the upper echelons of the CPU market, what you need is midrange and both AMD and Intel are fine, just go with whichever you want, budget or upgrade wise.

I hardly call a E2180 on a $80 motherboard upper echelon. Yes, compared to a $50 cpu and $50 motherboard it's a veritable King Midas setup, but let's have a reality check here. The price of a tank of gas for a 100%+ performance boost is HUGE. AMD is fine for an extreme budget, stock clock sub-$100 build only.

My data point: DS3L + E2180, currently crunching prime95 at a bit over 3.3 ghz. 58C temperature, 1.31 volts. Oh baby. Not so lucky with the X3210, couldn't get into windows at 3.2 ghz. Will debug that later.

If you look at ClubIT right now you can get a Gigabyte DS3L coupled with a retail E2180 for $161 shipped. The $3/gig AR ram deals are still very much in swing, so stock up.

As far as video, I would recommend staying far away from an 8600GT if you've got enough dough for a real video card. You won't be happy with one unless you're still on a 19" 12x10 CRT.

There was a $54 AR HD2600XT deal recently, which is passable bang for the buck. Otherwise just use whatever is lying around until you can either afford an HD3750 or the 9600GTs come out.

 

[hennethannun]

Jeffconnors: you can't just look at CPU speeds because different types of CPUs process data differently. You have to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

Thus:
If you have to two Intel Core 2 Duos, then you CAN look at clock speed and make inferences about how they will perform: the faster one is better
BUT, if you have an Intel C2D and an AMD Athlon 64, you can't compare the clock speeds. The Intel processor might operate at a lower speed, but it also DOES MORE operations every clock cycle. It's slower but significantly more efficient.

Now as to what processor you should buy: If you want to spend $125 or more on a processor, then you should go for an intel. If you want to overclock your computer at all, you should also probably go intel, as the Core 2 Duos overclock very well on average. If you just want to buy a solid inexpensive processor and plan to use it at stock speeds, then you can go either way. At stock speeds, AMD is competitive up to about $125-150 dollars. But they can't match the Intels for overclocked performance.

That X2 5000+ that you mention is perfectly fine processor and will be reasonably competitive at stock speeds, but this: E2200 will be almost as fast at stock speeds, costs a slight bit less and blow most AMD cpus out of the water when overclocked: (see This article as reference).

It seems to me that IF you are interested in overclocking your PC then you could spend a bit less money on your processor, get a decent OC'ing motherboard like something from the Gigabyte DS3 series), grab some DDR2-800 RAM and significantly out perform that 5000+.

BUT, if you are not interested in overclocking (and there's nothing wrong with that: overclocking is good for the nerdy-ego, but it really isn't necessary at all), then you will get slightly better stock performance in that price range from your AMD 5000+

 

[krnmastersgt]

With the sizes of the caches on the E21x0 series, what can you really do with 3.3 ghz of processing power? Practically speaking the guy wants to run Flight Simulators, at high res those can be a little tolling, I'd want a nice big cache but that might just be me, in any case it really depends on the res he plans on playing at that should determine his gpu and cpu decisions.

 

[v8envy]

Short answer: yes. It can. The 'small' 1MB cache is equivalent to what you see on the budget Brisbane 65w chips which also come with a celeron-like 512K. So while it's no E8400, it'll definitely cook and run circles around even the best AMD has to offer by as much as 50% in some instances at 3.3ghz. E4xxx chips if you want cache sizes equivalent to the 125 watt performance AMD models.

MS flight sim will take all the cpu you have to offer and ask for more. Even with an entry-level 8600GT card. It's definitely worth skipping a lunch or two to get the E8400 with a quality overclocking board and ram if that's the target application -- you'll want a 4+ ghz E8400 or 3.2+ ghz quad for that bad boy. Having a good video card won't suck either.

You can find reviews of overclocked E21x0 chips vs the E6xxx series, and the performance deficit varies from 5 to 10% at the same clock rate -- same as seen previously with other cpus: half the cache is worth up to 10% of total performance. An E8400 will be roughly 20% faster clock for clock, and with a 50% faster clock rate or lower heat/power usage... Let's just say it'll be 'wow' time.

Applications which are most impacted are compression (rar, zip) and games. Applications least impacted are encoding, office, compiling, java.

 

[krnmastersgt]

I'm not arguing that the E21x0 series isn't grand, I plan on building a few budget systems using them, but the OP plans on running flight simulators, and like you said they're cpu heavy, I just don't think it fits his needs, unless he likes low res or choppy performance at high res :/

 

[hennethannun]

I think krnmastersgt overstates things a little bit. cache is great, but it's hardly the end of the world. v8envy presented the relevent numbers.

Also, I think we have to keep the OPs usage in mind. Yes, MS FS 2004 will benefit significantly from spend 2x as much on the processor, but that isn't really a good investment if the OP only games once or twice a month. That's really the key issue here: How much gaming (and other computer intensive activities) will he really be doing?

 

[krnmastersgt]

I'm not saying the cache is entirely required but you want as much cache as you can get. Also even if he only games occasionally you don't want a choppy performance when you do game, you do raise a point that gaming isn't the sole purpose of the machine but you want a chip that you won't have to upgrade the next time you want to play a more cpu intensive game, an E21x0 would be enough for flight sims hopefully to run smoothly, I don't know about the rest of you but I run several apps at once, and an E21x0 wouldn't cut it for me but I guess that's just me.

 

[hennethannun]

I agree that the E21x0s wouldn't fit my needs, but I tend to do a fair amount of cpu intensive stuff (from gaming to video encoding to compressing/uncompressing very large files to photoshopping large images). I suspect that most of the people on this board fall into that category, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE does. I think you are correct that a better processor is the way to go if the OP really cares about a smooth, high-res flight sim experience. I just don't want us to go overboard and recommend more PC than he really needs. It sucks to spend a few hundred dollars on powerful components that you never really take advantage of...

 

[krnmastersgt]

Indeed too true, I guess the OP could help us recommend a board/cpu depending on how much he games?