I am looking to upgrade my computer.
Current specs
- Intel Core 2 Duo...2.4ghz
- 2 GB ram
- 500gb hard drive
- ATI Radeon 2400 HD
- Windows Vista Home Premium
- Kinda fucked up....Many problems starting up
UPGRADES I WANT
- Stronger processer...mabye 8 cores
- 4 gb ram
- same hard drive or new will same properties
- ANY NVIDIA GRAPHICS CARD
- Same or windows 7
QUESTIONS
When changing my ram and processer+ motherboard....should i change my hard drive?
Can my computer support new processers...mabye i7?
My system has fucked up starting problems.....will new hard drive fix this?
Should i just buy a new computer......cheaper than upgraded this piece of shit?
ibuypower.com
/thread
Nope.aviNope.mp3
Read above.
Intel Core 2 Quad, 2.5 ghz, 4 cores, 4MB Cache, LGA-775 socket/92W. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115207&cm_re=intel_core_2_quad-_-19-115-207-_-Product)
You can always try to overclock it to a good 2.8ghz or even 3.0 if you have proper cooling.
3GB Triple Channel 1333MHz DDR3 3G1333D 1 [317-2662] 3Alright, that's pretty damn good for the first computer you ever built.
But I'd recommend reading up a bit on this hardware guide for the month. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/buyers-guide/2010/11/03/pc-hardware-buyer-s-guide-november-2010/1 (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/buyers-guide/2010/11/03/pc-hardware-buyer-s-guide-november-2010/1) It dosn't include the 580 in the guide since it came out a week after this guide was updated.
But I agree on the PSU issue. I'd personally recommend going with Corsair Power supplies they are extremely excellent power supplies and not too expensive.
If you would like, give me a budget,
And order these words from first to last in order of importance (First being most important, last being least.)
- Performance
- Gaming
- Sound Quality (How important is great sound quality to you?)
- Blue-Ray Player (Would you like a blue-ray player?)
- Quietness
- Bling ( How much do you want your computer to stand out, Or not stand out)
After that I'll give you the best set-up I can think of, although case choice will be more of a personal thing.
If there is anything else you would like me to consider let me know.
Then afterwards you are free to disregard or use as much of my supplied advice.
at $130, the 750W XFX Black Edition...is great value for money. If you're in the market for a 700-799W PSU then it should be at the top of your shopping list.'
Alrighty, So for my recommendation.
Quick Specs:
CPU: Intel i7-950
Mobo: ASUS P6X58D-E
GPU: Zotac AMP! GTX 470 1280Mb
PSU: XFX Black Edition 750W
RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600 6Gb (2gb x 3)
CPU Cooler: Thermaltake Frio
OS: Win 7 64-bit Home Premium
HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB
DVD Burner: ASUS 24X Sata dvd burner
Case: SilverStone Raven
Misc.: Rosewill 74-in-1 card reader
Cost: $1,553.78
Alright now for the details....
CPU:
You said you were interested in performance most of all, and while the Phenom II is a very good processor, It is by no means top dog. The i7-950 (I would have preferred the 930 but it's sold out atm) is about twice as powerful as the Phenom II, and is the most economical high performance processor out at the moment.
Newegg Link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115211 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115211)
Review: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/1 (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/1)
Motherboard:
With the I7 processor you will need to use a motherboard with a LGA 1366 cpu socket. This motherboard has lots of features, lots of capabilities, and plenty of room to expand. It also performs excellently and is very reasonably priced for a LGA 1366 motherboard.
Newegg Link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131641 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131641)
Review: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/motherboards/2010/08/20/asus-p6x58d-e-review/1 (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/motherboards/2010/08/20/asus-p6x58d-e-review/1)
GPU:
Choosing what gpu to use was a bit more difficult since there are quite a few more gpu's going to be coming out the door in the next month or so. Ultimately I picked the GTX 470, and the Zotac AMP! edition specifically. While AMD offers great gpu's in the form of the 5000 series, and now the 6000 series. They actually have been getting more expensive due to the high demand for them. While Nvidia's cards have actually been getting cheaper because of the bad press they initially received. The price difference is big enough that the 470 is one of the best deals around for a super high performance card. The Zotac AMP! edition has a pretty spiffy cooler on it, that is quite a bit better than the stock 470, The only downsides to this card is it takes up 3 slots and the cooler itself isn't the sturdyest thing in the world so just dont be throwing your card around and you will be fine.
There are certantly card that perform better than the 470, but in trying to meet the $1500 budget this was the best way to go.
Newegg Link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500167 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500167)
Zotac Review: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/10/20/zotac-geforce-gtx-470-amp-edition/1 (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/10/20/zotac-geforce-gtx-470-amp-edition/1)
Highend Card review: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/11/09/nvidia-geforce-gtx-580-review/1 (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/11/09/nvidia-geforce-gtx-580-review/1)
PSU:
I had a few PSU's in mind, but I decided I like this XFX psu the best, since It A: Looks awesome, B: Has a big fan, and C: Performs very well at a decent price.
Newegg Link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817207003 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817207003)
Yea yea, good recommendations but if the OP goes with the AMD, then you might wanna change to a coolermaster V8 or something.
The quad-core version of the Phenom II may not be top-dog, but the Phenom II X6 is pretty much worth it for the price, for a 10/5% Power difference then an i7.
The L2 Cache is much larger while the L3 has 2MB's less than the i7 you linked to. Thats where the factor of the power difference comes in, And besides, You can overclock it by 200mhz to achieve 3.0. AMD's are Ideal for overclocking as they dont produce as much heat as Intel's do. I've owned about 1 core 2 quad and 1 dual core Pentium, the core 2 hit a high of 80* underload while the pentium hit 70* underload. While my AMD Sempron and Phenom have not passed 50*. And trust me, I cleaned out all of the dust from the heatsinks on the Intel's and applied new thermal paste. Not to menchion a tad lower Wattage of 125W than that intel.
This phenom would do the trick if you were to OC it by no more then 200mhz. You can shave off $120 or so from that price.
For $40 less, this nice MSI can do. It supports that hex core AMD and you dont need to change the CPU socket every 6 months like intel does. And since AMD are suitable at overclocking, the motherboard has many features to overclock your CPU/GPU/Parts. It has one less pci-e 2.0 x16 then that ASUS Intel mobo, but it has more PCI-e slots to expand with. But It does have less Memory slots though, Unless your running a NASA Space Station computer/Heavy Program running to the extreme, 16GB's of RAM will do.
That actually is a good GPU for the price. But I'd got with a Radeon 5870 instead. It has a much high core clock/more dedicated memory than the gtx 470. And thats what you do with the savings with the motherboard since its $30-40 more. But It does need a hefty PSU to support it.
Quote from: XrainXrain on Yesterday at 06:01:44 PM
Yea yea, good recommendations but if the OP goes with the AMD, then you might wanna change to a coolermaster V8 or something.
Not to be a Fan Boy or anything, but if you really have all of that money and want the very best of the best, then go with Xrain's recommendation. But if You want a slimmer budget to have more $ left over for more upgrades/addons, while maintaining in the same performance range, then you'd switch over to those I have linked.
If you can only get 200 MHz out of a Phenom something has gone wrong and you got a crappy CPU. Using a decent cooler you can expect to over clock an X4 to around 3.8-4.1 GHz. While almost any i7-930 or 950 can expected to get over 4 GHz, and sometimes as high as 4.3Ghz depending on how skillful you are at your overclocking.
The dual core Pentium can arguable be classified as one of the word processors in Intel's history, they were hot, slow and unstable. You might as well compare a K8 processor to the Pentium, since the Core/ix architecture is completely different to the Pentiums.
The lower TDP = more overclocking room sounds good on paper, but it doesn't really translate to reality. With a higher TDP it also means the cpu has been designed to dissipate more heat compared to a lower power TDP cpu. So in the end TDP doesn't really mean much when figuring your ultimate overclocking limits. It all comes down to how well you are able to cool your processors, and how good you are at finding that balance of stability.
Why you were trying to seriously overclock on a stock cooler is a mystery to me I have a Q9450 and my temperatures are generally around 33 degrees C, and the highest I have seen it go is around 48 degrees when I turned off all my fans to nearly off over night. If you are having serious temperature issues, add some better fans to your case, or go buy a new cpu cooler.
Going across manufactures and comparing the cache they have doesn't really work. If you stay in the same core architecture, then yes generally processors with higher cache amounts will mean a slightly more capable processor (ex. I7 with 4MB cache vs. 8MB cache). But comparing the cache amount between a Intel and AMD processor of the same generation doesn't mean anything. The way each processor handles its memory is completely different, so it doesn't lend itself to comparison very well.
The LGA 1366 socket has been around since 2008 when the i7 series was first released. AM3 was released in February of 2009, with no compatibility with the previous AM2/AM2+ sockets; unlike some of the previous iterations. The ASUS board supports Hex core i7's... :idk: And how many PCI-e slots do you need? That MSI board also has less PCI slots, which still a significant portion of the add-in markets still use.
And for the record, A computer for controlling the space station is likely to get it's ass handed to it by a graphing calculator. Most of the high performance computers up there would be a ruggedized workstation computer which tend to be not very hot on in the high performance department. Human space flight computer hardware tends to not advance very quickly, since the preference is if the computer performs all the functions needed, what is the point of adding extra risk in upgrading to a new computing system?
Why Cake Faic why... why would you do this to me?!?! By that reasoning, this (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/10/18/nvidia-launches-gt440-cards/1) graphics card should be the best one on the market (OMG IT HAS 3GB OF RAM IS MUST BE AWESOME)
Sorry for being snarky about this, but I feel like I die a little on the inside when people make comparisons of video cards on the clock speed and Ram amount, when the two cards function in completely different ways.
If you have over 1 GB of ram, it very rarely ever becomes a limiting factor, unless you run ridiculous resolutions, and have multiple monitors extra video ram above a certain point becomes redundant.
In most cases the 5870 performs measurably worse than the GTX 470, there are only a few cases where the 470 is beaten out by the 5870. So averaging things out overall the 470 slightly outperforms the 5870, while costing $30-$40 less.
Not to be a Fan Boy or anything, but if you really have all of that money and want the very best of the best, then go with Xrain's recommendation. But if You want a slimmer budget to have more $ left over for more upgrades/addons, while maintaining in the same performance range, then you'd switch over to those I have linked.
Honestly I love AMD to bits. But the problem is, their stuff is still based off of the same K8 architecture that came out when they were kicking intel's ass in the Pentium days. Don't get me wrong I love that architecture. But as things currently stand, AMD's processor lineup is strictly Low-Med performance at a reasonable price. If what you want is performance, Intel is making the better processor at the moment.
Take a look at the double posts from the op directly preceding my recommendations. I asked him to line up in order of importance, what he wanted most out of the computer. #1 on his list was performance. I also asked him for a budget, he gave me $1500 as his upper limit. So I set out to build the highest performing and most cost effective computer I could with the available budget. So if you want a cheaper computer let me know, but trying to pass off two computers and saying one is a better recommendation simply on the idea that it's cheaper is kinda irrelevant. If he really wants to go cheap go with an ARM, or a NANO or ATOM those are cheap too.
But thanks a lot for the response cake :thumbsup:, please know I'm not trying to tear down your computer building abilities, it's just companies work very hard on their marketing, and it tends to incite confusion, such as Nvidia marketing a crappy bottom range gpu with a pointless amount of slow ram and only pointing out the idea that it has OMG 3GB OF RAM :OOOOO
PS: It's generally a bad idea when quoting someone, to put your response to the quote inside the quotes, rather than the original post.
hrm.... I went with your suggestion Xrain and upgraded the parts to the ones you listed. Price went up from 1000$ to 1300$.
The Graphics Card.....I am going with this one. Alot smaller. Cheaper. And seems efficient since it is the 6xxxx series.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102908 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102908)
With the GPU, I dont see how they function in 2 completely different ways. They are still Graphics cards right? They still let you play games at max settings right? I now know that clock speed and memory wont make a difference (Even though memory still does past 1GB, trust me. It does.) But I wasint trying to imply that memory makes the whole difference of what has power and what does not. Unless they use different transistor types, different stream processor types and overall different methods of performance, they still preform the same function.
But thank god you keep't your cool through my fail-ness and didn't rage at me throwing insults left and right on stating how I know nothing about computers. ;)
Here are the specs which I decided to use on my new computer since the one I am using now just fucking exploded on me.
....Specs:....
i cant reccommend buying software already on computerwat?
are you building or is it prebuilt
Well everything looks quite excellent... except for two things...
First, your ram, It would certainly work just fine, but I can guarantee you will never ever come close to using all of that ram, unless you enjoy playing 4 high end games at once, having 200 tabs open in firefox, and running Highend CAD software all at the same time, on a regular basis, you will never see a return on your investment in all that ram.
I have 4 Gb, I do tons of multitasking, and I also run Memory intensive CAD software, and I still have yet to max out my ram. I have gotten close, but I was doing things that I'm pretty sure you wont be in your video-game playing. So if this is a gaming machine, you wont need all that much ram.
Go with 6 gb instead, it will be way more than enough for anything you would be doing with the computer --> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145224 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145224)
Then take that money and either:
A: Reinvest it in a better video card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500167 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500167)
B: put that money back in your pocket
or
C: Even better than both, put it into a better CPU cooler http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106150&cm_re=35-106-_-35-106-150-_-Product (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106150&cm_re=35-106-_-35-106-150-_-Product) and the previously mentioned upgraded video card.
If you make the changes to your ram and video-card I mentioned, you will be able to play just about any game on max everything. If you keep things as they are that 6850 will struggle in a few of the newer games to have butter smooth playback, and the extra ram wont give you a single extra fps.
But this is shaping up to be one ACE computer :dukenukem:
wat?
He is building his own computer, and you kinda have to buy an operating system, otherwise your computer is just a box that uses electricity and blinks at you. I suppose you could go to linux, but WINE and the other emulators tend to be rather buggy at times, due to the complexity of the task they have to do.
:l i said software in general
tehre are otehr ways then buying from store
what do you mean about the software? will window 7 not work?
Wow awesome parts.
At this point only your Gpu is bottlenecking. Well compared to that 12gb ram and i6 950.
Not really I would say if anything the HDD is bottleknecking lol
I recommend against pirating your operating system, it's just too much of an integral part of your computer, risking it's stability with questionable operating systems isn't the best Idea. If you truly can't afford to pay for it, go learn to use Linux.
And as for software he has on his existing computer, why yes it would be rather foolish to buy it all again. But your operating system sadly doesn't readily migrate. So save yourself some headache and spend the 89.99 on the operating system to get a full warranty, and not have to worry about M$ blacklisting the serial your using.
I tend to choose the one with the most "numbers that are green" and has the most comments and actually read them. And right afterward immediately install virus-protection. Unless you choose a bad copy which only like 50 people are "sharing", then thats when the factor of your system getting fucked up comes in.It's fine by me aslong as my hardware will support it, its a trusted copy picked by the site, and if the 400+ comments state so otherwise.
Actually, you just gotta take a good chance. But if you get a bad "copy". Then you can do what I did multipal times before, get a system restore backup from another store bought computer and use that. I never had any problems installing an OS backup that's only meant for my old, shitty, gateway laptop to my hard-drive a good 3 years back. So I guess you can resort to that method if you dont wanna buy anything.
Not really I would say if anything the HDD is bottleknecking lol
If you are spending over 1000 dollars on a computer, just don't be a cheap piece of crap and spend the 80 dollars on a new operating system. Then you don't have to pick the one with the most "green" comments.
If you are that cheap, go get Linux instead.
Your HDD performance has nothing to do with how many FPS you would get in-game, as all of the data is loaded into your ram. The only effect a slow HDD has on you is your load times tend to be longer. So as in-game performance goes, his GPU is the bottleneck of his system.
...Green = Seeders, just to clarify.
Well everything looks quite excellent... except for two things...
C: Even better than both, put it into a better CPU cooler http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106150&cm_re=35-106-_-35-106-150-_-Product (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835106150&cm_re=35-106-_-35-106-150-_-Product) and the previously mentioned upgraded video card.
Your HDD performance has nothing to do with how many FPS you would get in-game, as all of the data is loaded into your ram. The only effect a slow HDD has on you is your load times tend to be longer. So as in-game performance goes, his GPU is the bottleneck of his system.
It matters if you do alot of compiling
he could always just get a second one when his fps drops below 60 while maxed out on games exc crytek games and m2033
OR....Spoiler (click to show/hide)
uhhh NOPE
the gcf's have no affect on game load time lol...
the gcf's are just there if something gets corrupted etc it will replace it from the GCF
you want steam installed to an SSD or ramdisk, wouldnt be enough space on the RDisk though lol
Your HDD performance has nothing to do with how many FPS you would get in-game, as all of the data is loaded into your ram. The only effect a slow HDD has on you is your load times tend to be longer. So as in-game performance goes, his GPU is the bottleneck of his system.
Your HDD performance has nothing to do with how many FPS you would get in-game.
It matters if you do alot of compiling
Your HDD performance has nothing to do with how many FPS you would get in-game, as all of the data is loaded into your ram. The only effect a slow HDD has on you is your load times tend to be longer. So as in-game performance goes, his GPU is the bottleneck of his system.
It matters if you do alot of compiling
Your HDD performance has nothing to do with how many FPS you would get in-game, as all of the data is loaded into your ram. The only effect a slow HDD has on you is your load times tend to be longer. So as in-game performance goes, his GPU is the bottleneck of his system.
While yes, while your hdd does not have a significant effect on your in-game fps. If he ever wanted to get into map design, his compile times could be helped with a faster HDD
One word... RamSan http://www.ramsan.com/products/31 (http://www.ramsan.com/products/31)
But going back a bit.
I dont get why you guys always do this.
Do I mention anything about compiling? I say your HDD performance has nothing to do with your ingame FPS.
Let me restate this, just incase you dont realize how obsurd this is.
You know, a slow HDD also makes your things transfer slower :o :o :o :o :o :o
All of you do this, lol coolz rants about it all the time. Someone makes a legitamate satement. Then someone makes some comment in reply that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and then they go off feeling like they win the argument.
Why yes, a faster hdd does have some effect on your compile times. Thats great! I'm glad. There is just a few problems that I have.
A. You quoted me, then stated your reply as if it invalidates my statement.
B. He never mentioned anything about wanting his computer to compile things fast.
So in the future, if you wish to add something, be clear in your reply.
It matters if you do alot of compiling
This, is what you did.
While yes, while your hdd does not have a significant effect on your in-game fps. If he ever wanted to get into map design, his compile times could be helped with a faster HDD
See the difference? You need to be clear about what you are arguing when you reply to someone's statement.
Then of course I would argue back, that there are more effective ways to spend $200-$500 dollars to increase performance, than on a SSD. As they are currently too expensive to justify the increase in performance they offer. Even then, the bottleneck while you are compiling for the most part, isn't your transfer speed (unless your hdd is REAALLY slow) but your processor's computation speed.
But if he did want a SSD, go with a Crucial C300, as they are currently one of the fastest SSD's around yet still remaining at a relatively reasonable price.
Maximum Bandwidth: 3,072 MB/s
ramsan
>maximum
but ssd's are as of now useless imo. for certain things useful but general stuff no
too expensive
I've seen a lot of virus torrents with over 100 seeders. So that isn't exactly the most surefire way to select them.
At any-rate, this is not the topic to be discussing things like this, on-top of that this is against the rules of the forum. So if you guys have any legitimate suggestions for malaki's computer, let them be known. But if your only suggestion is OMG GO PIRATE THAT INSTEAD ITS MORE WIN. Then please don't bother, as discussions of that nature are against the rules of the forum.
One word... RamSan http://www.ramsan.com/products/31 (http://www.ramsan.com/products/31)
But going back a bit.
I dont get why you guys always do this.
Do I mention anything about compiling? I say your HDD performance has nothing to do with your ingame FPS.
Let me restate this, just incase you dont realize how obsurd this is.
You know, a slow HDD also makes your things transfer slower :o :o :o :o :o :o
All of you do this, lol coolz rants about it all the time. Someone makes a legitamate satement. Then someone makes some comment in reply that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and then they go off feeling like they win the argument.
Why yes, a faster hdd does have some effect on your compile times. Thats great! I'm glad. There is just a few problems that I have.
A. You quoted me, then stated your reply as if it invalidates my statement.
B. He never mentioned anything about wanting his computer to compile things fast.
So in the future, if you wish to add something, be clear in your reply.
It matters if you do alot of compiling
This, is what you did.
While yes, while your hdd does not have a significant effect on your in-game fps. If he ever wanted to get into map design, his compile times could be helped with a faster HDD
See the difference? You need to be clear about what you are arguing when you reply to someone's statement.
Then of course I would argue back, that there are more effective ways to spend $200-$500 dollars to increase performance, than on a SSD. As they are currently too expensive to justify the increase in performance they offer. Even then, the bottleneck while you are compiling for the most part, isn't your transfer speed (unless your hdd is REAALLY slow) but your processor's computation speed.
But if he did want a SSD, go with a Crucial C300, as they are currently one of the fastest SSD's around yet still remaining at a relatively reasonable price.