I finally stopped being a bum and got a job, so now I'll have some money and will maybe stop being so cheap. Anyway, after the holidays I'm planning on building myself a nice new computer, I just need some suggestions on what to get.

I'm guessing I should get a new case since the fan in the front isn't working and it's a bit cramped in there right now with just one of each part, and from what I see new video cards seem to be a lot bigger. Would I need a new power supply? My old one burned out a few months ago so my dad got me a new Antec 410watt, but is that enough? Or should I give that to him and get a new one or sell it or something?

I'm not sure of a budget, maybe $1000, give or take a few hundred. I'd like to be able to play whatever the most demanding game around now is at high, other things at max, would that be possible for that much? My comptuer now can barely play Oblivion on medium and there's some games out now I really want, let alone that it's just really annoying the long load times I've been dealing with the past few years I've had this computer.

Also, any good suggestions for a good gaming mouse? I've been looking at Logitech and Razer reviews but they both seem to be have mixed reviews with questionable durability, and I don't feel like spending that much to get a mouse that might break in only a few months or year or two.

This would be a very powerful computer. I didn't add a case but you could downgrade the video card and the power supply a bit as they are some of the best on the market.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/2350/compop2.png

- Spend $20 more and get E6750. It has higher stock frequency than E6550 (2.66ghz vs 2.33ghz) and higher multiplier (8x vs 7x)
- You should get Geforce 8800GT instead of 8800GTX

I'd get a Q6600 if you're going Intel, and can afford it, quad-core is the way of the future.

As GVBN said, an 8800GT is a much better deal, they're running around $250.

Also wouldn't get a gamexstream PSU, they're not horrible, but there are easily better options for your money.

Would also consider 4gb of ram, ram is dirt cheap, and more is always better.

Ulyaoth: In response to your questions:

You would need a new power supply. The 620 watt Corsairs are a good starting point.

With a Q6600/8800gt/4gb ram, you could play the most demanding games on high, and older games maxed out, at about 1920x1200 and below resolutions.

Logitech, Razer and MS all make quality mice, and if they break after a month, they should be covered under warranty. I always like to try mice (and keyboards, speakers, monitors, etc.) before I purchase. Head to your local Best Buy (or whatever) and see if they have the model you're looking for on display.

how much is a Q6600? I'd like to get the best cpu that's possible for me since I'm trying to build it so I won't have to upgrade for a while.

And are Corsairs good? I know Antecs are good but I don't know otherwise about power supplies.

And what's the difference between the 8800Gt and GTX? Is it a large difference? What if I don't plan on getting Vista yet?

I've also got about $200 worth of Best Buy gift cards I've never used and I'm sure I'll get another $50 this year, maybe I can buy the RAM with that, get the rest off Newegg.

how much is a Q6600? I'd like to get the best cpu that's possible for me since I'm trying to build it so I won't have to upgrade for a while.

And are Corsairs good? I know Antecs are good but I don't know otherwise about power supplies.

And what's the difference between the 8800Gt and GTX? Is it a large difference? What if I don't plan on getting Vista yet?

I've also got about $200 worth of Best Buy gift cards I've never used and I'm sure I'll get another $50 this year, maybe I can buy the RAM with that, get the rest off Newegg.

You probably won't need a quad core for a couple years as there are very few applications that take advantage of it right now. Plus the Intel quad core isn't a true quad core but two dual core processors on the same die instead. My opinion is go high end Core 2 Duo.

As for power supplies Corsair(very good) OCZ in my experience (very good) Antec they have had issues in the past, but they also make very good, quiet cases. If you're running an 8 series GPU you'll definatley want over 600 watts of power, 700 watts if you plan to go SLI(which I don't recommend).

The GTX, i think, has a slightly different architecture than the GT and is factory overclocked. I think the 8800GT will certainly be able to play any game out there right now on super high settings especially when paired with a high end Core 2 duo. If I were in your position rigfht now I'd certainly get a direct x 10 compatible video card right now even if you don't want to 'upgrade' to vista right away.

To put a computer like this in perspective, one and a half years ago I built a computer. AMD 4200, combined with a 7950 gt, and two gigs of RAM. It still plays new games very well on very high settings and is faster than what I need in a computer.
Your computer would probably be about twice as fast and half as expensive today as mine was 1 1/2 years ago.

The Q6600 runs around $270. Although isn't *needed* yet, it will hold up better against future applications and games than a dual core that is clocked a bit faster. Same thing happened whene everyone was moving from single cores to dual cores. To the end user, it makes no difference that it isn't a "true" quad core, it works just as well as one, the only difference is in manufacturing.

The 8800gtx is slightly faster than the 8800gt, and signficantly more expensive, not worth the price difference.

The Q6600 runs around $270. Although isn't *needed* yet, it will hold up better against future applications and games than a dual core that is clocked a bit faster. Same thing happened whene everyone was moving from single cores to dual cores. To the end user, it makes no difference that it isn't a "true" quad core, it works just as well as one, the only difference is in manufacturing.

The 8800gtx is slightly faster than the 8800gt, and signficantly more expensive, not worth the price difference.

I just don't think the price of a quad core can be justified when looking at things on a price/performance wise basis. By the time applications will be able utilize four cores we will have the Octo core... Will you suggest that he jumps on the bandwagon then just to be on the bleeding edge of technology? Where does it end? Why posses technology that software can't keep up with? If I recall correctly there are few applications that actually take full advantage of two cores. Why would we want four if we're not going to need them in the near future? The Thing is, the guy want a computer that will play games and do what he wants for a couple years to come, and he wants to stay within a budget. Dual core is the best bet IMO. When looking at gaming rigs the most important purchase 9 times out of 10 is the graphics card. That makes sense to me.

Software is targeted at people with the average computer; I think the average home computer is less powerful than the most basic dual core. So, don't worry if you don't get the quad you won't be left in the dust.

If you're running an 8 series GPU you'll definatley want over 600 watts of power, 700 watts if you plan to go SLI(which I don't recommend).
8800GT requires a 400w power supply with 22a on +12v rail. A good 500w PSU is more than enough

I just don't think the price of a quad core can be justified when looking at things on a price/performance wise basis. By the time applications will be able utilize four cores we will have the Octo core... Will you suggest that he jumps on the bandwagon then just to be on the bleeding edge of technology? Where does it end? Why posses technology that software can't keep up with? If I recall correctly there are few applications that actually take full advantage of two cores. Why would we want four if we're not going to need them in the near future? The Thing is, the guy want a computer that will play games and do what he wants for a couple years to come, and he wants to stay within a budget. Dual core is the best bet IMO. When looking at gaming rigs the most important purchase 9 times out of 10 is the graphics card. That makes sense to me.

Software is targeted at people with the average computer; I think the average home computer is less powerful than the most basic dual core. So, don't worry if you don't get the quad you won't be left in the dust.

New games are able to use four cores, and a number of rendering and compression applications scale quite nicely past four cores. Much of the benefit from multiple cores is from increased multitasking performance, with almost everything now supporting dual cores, it's quite simple to completely load of 4 cores if you're gaming with anything happening in the background.

Quad core isn't exactly bleeding edge, it's been available for 11 months now, already.

I'm not suggesting that dual cores are useless, or that they don't have a place in the market, given their price, but to suggest that quad cores don't have significant advantages over dual core systems is foolish.

This is what we're going to be seeing in future games, a quad-core at 2.4 GHz is neck-and-neck with a dual core at 3.85 GHz:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2quad-q6600/lp-2.png

New games are able to use four cores, and a number of rendering and compression applications scale quite nicely past four cores. Much of the benefit from multiple cores is from increased multitasking performance, with almost everything now supporting dual cores, it's quite simple to completely load of 4 cores if you're gaming with anything happening in the background.

Quad core isn't exactly bleeding edge, it's been available for 11 months now, already.

I'm not suggesting that dual cores are useless, or that they don't have a place in the market, given their price, but to suggest that quad cores don't have significant advantages over dual core systems is foolish.

This is what we're going to be seeing in future games, a quad-core at 2.4 GHz is neck-and-neck with a dual core at 3.85 GHz:


I checked out that article and there is a caveat.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_12.html#sect0

However, those computer users who do not want to mess with processor overclocking may think differently. In this case Core 2 Duo E6850 with 25% higher clock speed performs better in a lot of applications, including games. Moreover, it is also more economical. As a result, the most optimal choice for a system working at nominal speeds would depends a lot on the type of tasks it is intended for.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t forget that most upcoming applications and games are being designed with multi-threading in mind. That is why Core 2 Quad Q6600 may be a more promising solution even if used in its nominal mode.

So basically good for the overclocker right now, bad for someone with no intention of doing so.

So basically good for the overclocker right now, bad for someone with no intention of doing so.

Not bad, simply slightly slower in certain circumstances, selection depends on application usage, length of time the computer will be used, and budget.

However, in other circumstances, namely multitasking scenarios and newer applications, it's going to be significantly faster.

More fun benchmarks, of what performance is like with all current rendering and compression programs, and in multitasking situations, from this (http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/) review:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/flashers/adobe%20premiere.jpg
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/flashers/winrar.jpg
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/flashers/extreme.jpg

If you're buying after the holidays you'll have time to wait some reviews for the upcoming GeForce 8800GTS cards (they look rather promising). From the current cards I'd have a hard choice between GeForce 8800GT and Radeon 3870 (slightly leaning towards Radeon ATM).

For CPU I'd go with E6750. I think it's the best $-to-power ratio today.

Motherboard is hard choice. For single GPU I'd probably go with cheapish Abit IP35-E. About SLI and CrossFire mobos I really can't say. I'd need to see some tests for mobos with two real PCI-E x 16 slots that support PCI-E 2.0 (at least with new Radeons there are rumours that PCI-E 2.0 gives them a hefty boost but I haven't seen a single test yet). Note that I wouldn't even consider two GPU's below 1680x1050 resolution, but I believe it becomes rather mandatory at 1920x1200 and above.

As long as you're using 32-bit OS 2GB of memory is just fine. With 64-bit OS it would be hard with current prices not to buy 4GB.

If that 410W power of yours is a quality one it should be enough (in tests even the SLI/CF computers have been using less than 300W under load). If you're suspicious (like me :lol: ) you may wish to get good 500W or so (but that 700W that was given earlier is definetely overkill and money wasted).

At least in here 250GB hard drives have the best value for money so I'd pick one (or two) of those. With cases I've been preferring Antec but I really haven't read a single case review since I bought my last one about a year ago. Just google some reviews and see for yourself. Most important things to look at are ventilation, size (especially if you're considering some extra large GPU), silence and of course the looks.

My current monitor's native resolution is only 1280 by 1024, so I don't think I'll be needing two gpus. And I've only used about 35% of my current 160gb Harddrive and that's with pretty much every program I have installed. So I can save a bit of money not getting a HDD until I need one I guess. And silence would be nice since one of the fans in the front of my current case is loose and off kinda and keeps making annoying wurring sounds all the time.

Note that I wouldn't even consider two GPU's below 1680x1050 resolution, but I believe it becomes rather mandatory at 1920x1200 and above.

I don't think so, I know a guy on another forum I frequent is running dual quad-core 3.0 GHz Xeons with 16GB of ram, gaming at 1080p, and doesn't bother with two GPUs.

Only time I'd bother with SLI or crossfire would be for gaming at 2560x1600, otherwise I'd stick with the fastest model single GPU available, less issues and more compatibility than with dual cards.

At least in here 250GB hard drives have the best value for money so I'd pick one (or two) of those.

Lowest $/GB in North America is in 500GB drives, they're down to about $0.2/GB. I picked up a 500GB drive for $80 this weekend, but that was on sale, not typical prices.

As long as you're using 32-bit OS 2GB of memory is just fine. With 64-bit OS it would be hard with current prices not to buy 4GB.

Better to make your OS choice based on the amount of memory you need, rather than the other way around. Not that there's much of a difference either way, or in usability between 32-bit/64-bit OS's.

I finally stopped being a bum and got a job, so now I'll have some money and will maybe stop being so cheap.

Where do you work?

8800GT requires a 400w power supply with 22a on +12v rail. A good 500w PSU is more than enough

That depends on what else you're gonna stick in that case. 500W is enough - but not "more than enough".

Watt figures in video card requirements indicate total system output. A 500w power supply can easily power a standard dual-core system with a single 8800GT

- Spend $20 more and get E6750. It has higher stock frequency than E6550 (2.66ghz vs 2.33ghz) and higher multiplier (8x vs 7x)
- You should get Geforce 8800GT instead of 8800GTX

what he said... anyone who buys a GTX these days is pretty much has more money than brains... the GT is very close to the GTX

If you're buying after the holidays you'll have time to wait some reviews for the upcoming GeForce 8800GTS cards (they look rather promising). From the current cards I'd have a hard choice between GeForce 8800GT and Radeon 3870 (slightly leaning towards Radeon ATM).

Just to update my opinion to this thread as well as it has somewhat changed. I don't recommend 8800GT anymore (I've seen enough complaints about its cooling solution) so my choice would be either Radeon 3870 or GeForce 8800GTS (the new 512MB one, not the old 320MB/640MB one).

I haven't had 8800GT yet. I don't know if it's a good one or have enough complaints (like you said), but I think Radeon 3870 is a nice one. you can look up
http://www.dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=71334
I recommend it to anyone that need a video card.

I would only chime in with the following personal observations about power supplies and cases (often overlooked):

Dont skimp on your PSU and your case. Your case you can skimp more on because it's not going to kill your system (unless it causes you to screw things up during construction) but you're going to be staring at this thing forever and if you get a good one you can re-use it over and over again. Also, putting it together can either be fun or it can be miserable and your case has a lot to do with it. (Also make sure you get a big enough case for the 8800's.)

-Thermaltake are great Powersupplies. DON'T skimp on your power supply!

-Lian-Li's make great, sweet looking cases that are awesome to work with. There are good ones in the $80-120 range. BUT replace the fans! They are loud.

-You don't need Quad-core and that's not "budget."

-If you're not into overclocking and really messing with your system very often you don't need a high end motherboard or high end RAM. GSkill RAM is cheap (last time I checked) and I've been using it for a year now w/out a hitch. Save money here. A 775 mobo by a good manufacturer is going to last you a while, and as others have mentioned SLI or Crossfire isn't really necessary (and doesn't appear to be in your budget).

-HDD are cheap, getting a new doesn't cost much and they do affect performance. You also may have issues putting your old HDD onto a new motherboard, IIRC XP won't run. (Am I wrong on this one? Doesn't it think its being installed on a new PC with a new mobo?) If anything port your DVD burner over rather than your HDD.

-Often, paying top dollar for the newest GFX card is a waste of money. Read the reviews and get the next best, lower tier card. (Odds are it was almost as expensive 7-8 months ago.) Then you're actually getting a good performance per dollar ratio IMHO. Tom's Hardware is a great place to check these reviews out. (For reference, on my C2D 6600 w/ a 7600GT ($80 1 year ago) I'm still running CoD4 at 1024x768, albeit with most of the eye candy turned off. It still looks AWESOME however, and the 7600GT is obsolete these days. So, don't be too concerned with the best thing around. If you want to save money that may not be possible.

Have fun! I did the same thing a year ago and it was a blast and I learned alot.

Dont skimp on your PSU and your case.

True, but at times it seems that people try to avoid skimping by recommending PSUs nominally providing twice the power required instead of buying a PSU of quality brand. At least Corsair, Seasonic, Fortron, BeQuiet and Nexus have been doing pretty good PSUs. With cases I've been an Antec fan for years now (I'm sure Lian-Li makes good cases too but the last time I checked they costed a lot here in Finland) :)

Often, paying top dollar for the newest GFX card is a waste of money.

Maybe often but not at this time. The new cards from Nvidia and Radeon are (if not cheap budget cards then at least) very affordable mid-price cards with the performance almost rivalling the top models costing two to three times more.

P.S. It even looks that 8800GT may get my recommendation back after changing the cooling fan (http://en.expreview.com/?p=78). Unless you're going to change 3rd party cooler be sure to get a card with the new fan. Now raising the RPM shouldn't make your ears bleed :lol:

-Thermaltake are great Powersupplies. DON'T skimp on your power supply!

-You don't need Quad-core and that's not "budget."

-If you're not into overclocking and really messing with your system very often you don't need a high end motherboard or high end RAM. GSkill RAM is cheap (last time I checked) and I've been using it for a year now w/out a hitch. Save money here. A 775 mobo by a good manufacturer is going to last you a while, and as others have mentioned SLI or Crossfire isn't really necessary (and doesn't appear to be in your budget).

-HDD are cheap, getting a new doesn't cost much and they do affect performance. You also may have issues putting your old HDD onto a new motherboard, IIRC XP won't run. (Am I wrong on this one? Doesn't it think its being installed on a new PC with a new mobo?) If anything port your DVD burner over rather than your HDD.

-Often, paying top dollar for the newest GFX card is a waste of money. Read the reviews and get the next best, lower tier card. (Odds are it was almost as expensive 7-8 months ago.) Then you're actually getting a good performance per dollar ratio IMHO. Tom's Hardware is a great place to check these reviews out. (For reference, on my C2D 6600 w/ a 7600GT ($80 1 year ago) I'm still running CoD4 at 1024x768, albeit with most of the eye candy turned off. It still looks AWESOME however, and the 7600GT is obsolete these days. So, don't be too concerned with the best thing around. If you want to save money that may not be possible.

Have fun! I did the same thing a year ago and it was a blast and I learned alot.

SOME Thermaltake power supplies are good. Others have been complete crap. They don't build them themselves, you have to look at the specific models, you can't just rely on a brand being good.

Quad-cores are around $270, that's not budget, but neither is it prohibitively expensive. Nobody needs them, but they're significantly better than dual cores.

No reason to get XP on a new computer, however if XP was left on a drive and transfered to a different computer, it usually does work. It's recommended to do a fresh install of whatever OS you're using though, which can be on any hard drive, new or old. (Though obviously newer drives are faster, in general)

Like you said, going with slower cards saves money; you get what you pay for. Most gamers don't want to get a new video card that struggles to play new games with reduced settings at low resolutions.

@OP

Check this (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/)forum, tons of info and always a lot of people seeking similar advice. There is a specific forum on Homebuilt PCs. Generally good advice is given here and every day there is a new poster asking for advice on components within X budget and so on, you probably don't even need to post, just browse.

Also look at the reviews on NewEgg for each product you buy, the more reviews the better as you can get a better idea of the product by reading more of them. Sometimes there are good combo deals as well.


Like you said, going with slower cards saves money; you get what you pay for. Most gamers don't want to get a new video card that struggles to play new games with reduced settings at low resolutions.

True, good thing that's not what I was recommending. Merely pointing out that spending twice as much on hardware doesn't get you twice the performance. Dropping $200 on a card as opposed to $400 isn't going to get you a card that "struggles to play new games with reduced settings at low resolutions."

however if XP was left on a drive and transfered to a different computer, it usually does work.

I don't think it's correct that XP will usually work when porting your old HDD to a new mobo. IIRC if your old drive is from an OEM like Dell, XP thinks a new Mobo is a new PC, and thus will think you are breaking your EULA and it won't function. It depends on your license but I think XP commonly "marries" itself to mobos to monitor EULA compliance, even if you are the OEM under the license (i.e. the home-builder). I don't want the OP to be SOL when he sets up his new rig with an old HDD that doesn't want to boot.

True, good thing that's not what I was recommending. Merely pointing out that spending twice as much on hardware doesn't get you twice the performance. Dropping $200 on a card as opposed to $400 isn't going to get you a card that "struggles to play new games with reduced settings at low resolutions."

I don't think it's correct that XP will usually work when porting your old HDD to a new mobo. IIRC if your old drive is from an OEM like Dell, XP thinks a new Mobo is a new PC, and thus will think you are breaking your EULA and it won't function. It depends on your license but I think XP commonly "marries" itself to mobos to monitor EULA compliance, even if you are the OEM under the license (i.e. the home-builder). I don't want the OP to be SOL when he sets up his new rig with an old HDD that doesn't want to boot.

But dropping $250 on a card will get you double the performance of a $125 card, it just doesn't scale well past that.

I was referring to any copies of XP that aren't specially modified by vendors. Any regular OEM or retail copies will go from computer to computer fine, I've done it loads of times. But like I said, I wouldn't recommend it, and I also wouldn't recommend XP for any new computer in the first place.

I've only had this HDD for a year and a half, it's 7600RPMs I'm sure, do they have bigger 10000RPM ones now? And I was going to reformat when I switch it anyway. And doesn't HDD speed only really affect loading up programs and Windows itself?

And I read something about some Penryn quad cores coming out next month or February, should all the other prices drop when those come out?

On another forum they suggested I just get a plain dual core and overclock it to a better cpu's speed, then get a Penryn a little later when prices drop, but I don't really feel like risking anything with overclocking, and I don't feel like having to just upgrade again in another few months, but I suppose if some prices drop I could just get a better dual core.

I've only had this HDD for a year and a half, it's 7600RPMs I'm sure, do they have bigger 10000RPM ones now?
The biggest retail is 150GB.

And I was going to reformat when I switch it anyway. And doesn't HDD speed only really affect loading up programs and Windows itself?
Yes, it also increases file copying and how fast windows boots.

And I read something about some Penryn quad cores coming out next month or February, should all the other prices drop when those come out?

On another forum they suggested I just get a plain dual core and overclock it to a better cpu's speed, then get a Penryn a little later when prices drop, but I don't really feel like risking anything with overclocking, and I don't feel like having to just upgrade again in another few months, but I suppose if some prices drop I could just get a better dual core.

Just wait until January 20th, and get a Wolfdale/Penryn, because even if the current generation chip prices go down, it won't be worth it because they will be slower then the Wolfdale/Penryn's.

And I read something about some Penryn quad cores coming out next month or February, should all the other prices drop when those come out?

On another forum they suggested I just get a plain dual core and overclock it to a better cpu's speed, then get a Penryn a little later when prices drop, but I don't really feel like risking anything with overclocking, and I don't feel like having to just upgrade again in another few months, but I suppose if some prices drop I could just get a better dual core.

There will always be something faster coming out in a few months.

Don't bother overclocking if you're not comfortable with it, noticable performance gains aren't huge in any case.

I've only had this HDD for a year and a half, it's 7600RPMs I'm sure, do they have bigger 10000RPM ones now? And I was going to reformat when I switch it anyway. And doesn't HDD speed only really affect loading up programs and Windows itself?

And I read something about some Penryn quad cores coming out next month or February, should all the other prices drop when those come out?

On another forum they suggested I just get a plain dual core and overclock it to a better cpu's speed, then get a Penryn a little later when prices drop, but I don't really feel like risking anything with overclocking, and I don't feel like having to just upgrade again in another few months, but I suppose if some prices drop I could just get a better dual core.

IMHO if you want a computer now just buy it now. As Zelig said you can potentially wait forever as there is always something better. If you buy a quad core you will be set for a while. If you've got a quad core under the hood (or even a good dual core, like a 6850), just update your video card periodically if having the absolute top notch settings in the latest games is that important to you. A Q6600 should easily last the next 2 years if you keep updating your video card. I'm also not sure which mobos support the Penryn's, I'm guessing that going Penryn might put you over your 1K budget as you'll probably need a newer mobo. Also consider what type of RAM the mobo will have-- if its a newer mobo supporting 45nm chips it might want DDR3, which is more expensive than DDR2 which is currently dirt cheap. There is no need to lock yourself into DDR3 at the moment. All in all I think just going with a solid, affordable LGA 775 mobo and a good dual or quad core chip is the way to go right now if you don't want to spend too much money. You WONT be sorry or need to upgrade in a few months I can assure you of that.

Always having the latest and greatest is difficult and costly in the computer world, and sometimes the latest and greatest isn't worth the extra price over the next best thing. If you're budget is 1K you probably can't afford having all the absolute top notch stuff anyway.