I don't know anything about current parts, I have changed parts in my computer before and putting it together won't be a problem, I need a super gaming rig, I have 3000$ what would you suggest.

Either Core 2 Duo E8400 or Core 2 Quad Q9300
2x 2gb DDR2
Geforce 9800GX2

I would not go for the 9800GX2. The driver support just isnt there and its been shown that its not worth the money. Two 9800 GTX's in SLi should be plenty.
For that kind of money, you might wanna look at the Intel QX9000 series of cpu's. They're basically the top of the line, although, they are expensive as hell (1000$)
You should also future proof and go with DDR3 motherboard and RAM as it will allow a much easier upgrade later on. Might be a bit more expensive, but its seems you dont have a small budget constraint.

DDR3 sounds good, and the bonus is since you've got money to burn there you could go for the fastest types of DDR3, which are the few that give a significant performance gain over DDR2.

Probably you'll want to design the whole thing, even the power supply, if you're going for expensive parts. And shop around for a high end case and cooling system as well.

I second going for the E8400 since it's overclockable to 4ghz reportably. Main "if" is that it's a little hard to find (looks like Tiger Direct has it in stock though).

Not sure about video, as I'm not really in the market for that. What about dual SLI 8800 GTS (the newer GTSs)?



EDIT: I'd also take the approach of spending the most money on the most durable aspects of your design.

I'd rate the case (including cooling system), the power supply, the hard drives, and the monitor in the top tier in that respect. For the case, I would look at flexibility (lots of space for adding stuff, good air flow design, flexibility for different motherboard sizes). For Harddrives, I'd go with at least a two HDD setup---one fast OS HDD, and one for your programs. You could go for 3, a small fast one for your paging file if energy and cooling is not a problem. Regardless, I would get one large, external one for the purpose of backups if you'll be downloading and archiving anything (OS reinstalls, file corruptions, and HDD crashes will happen!).

Second tier would be the Motherboard and RAM. Don't skimp on Mobo for a more expensive CPU, unless you know that the mobo is just for a very short interim. Get a mobo that is future-proof (has new, oncoming features), as well as has the features you want; Pay special attention to how the mobo maker readily provides BIOS updates. Get the RAM made by the company with the best support, as its really hard to find good RAM that a motherboard maker recommends (they tend not to test RAM compatibility exhaustively), and otherwise buy RAM based on stated specifications only (not on innuendo).

Third tier would be the CPU. CPU's are practically guaranteed to become market obsolete before you destroy them from use. I've had motherboards die before the CPU, and then be stuck so that only 1 mobo in existence supported the CPU (and it wasn't a very nice mobo ;*) ).

Here's some case reviews to read:
http://www.tweaknews.net/reviews/reviewindex/case.php
http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/
http://www.tomshardware.com/s/cases/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/ (misc around cases)

I already have a monitor and keyboard which are very good. Another thing is should I get Vista 64x from what I'm hearing without it you will have trouble running next gen DX10 games. I'm really looking forward to playing age of Conan and I need a rig that can run that in dx10 with full graphics.

Zelig's advice is get Vista if you're building a new comp. I'm gonna follow that advice with my next build ;*). I say if you're going for Vista, make it 64bit, and go for at least 6 GB of RAM. If your system will be built with AoC as a requirement, look to their recommended specs first when you build.

EDIT: from the wikipedia:

Recommended]
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 or equivalent
CPU Speed: 2.4 GHz
System Ram: 2 GB
Operating System: Windows Vista
Drive Type: DVD Drive
Free Disk Space: 30 GB
Video Card: 512 MB DirectX 9.0c Graphics Card with Shader 3.0 support (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or equivalent)
Video Card Features:
-Video Ram: 512 MB
-Video Card 3D Acceleration: Required
-Video HW Transform & Lighting: Required
-Vertex Shader Ver: Required - 3.0
-Pixel Shader Ver: Required - 3.0
[9]


I'd go with this (note there are two types, so the G92 is IMPORTANT):
GeForce 8800 GTS (G92)
[http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&Description=g92&bop=And&SrchInDesc=512mb&Page=1
a page full to review. Pick SLI if you want the option to dual-card them in the future when two are affordable. Be sure to verify that all the shader versions are 3.0 on the card you pick (though I doubt any wouldn't be).

EDIT: updated the newegg link so only 512mb cards are displayed.



Edit: yes you will need Vista to enable the DX10 features. XP does not support DX10.
The reasons why:

according to M$ (why not charge XP users $10 for DX10 support? ;*) ):
from http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb219721.aspx#Will_DirectX_10_be_available_for_Win dows_XP
Will DirectX 10 be available for Windows XP?
No. Windows Vista, which has DirectX 10, includes an updated DirectX runtime based on the runtime in Windows XP SP2 (DirectX 9.0c) with changes to work with the new Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) and the new audio driver stack, and with other updates in the operating system. In addition to Direct3D 9, Windows Vista supports two new interfaces when the correct video hardware and drivers are present: Direct3D9Ex and Direct3D10.

Since these new interfaces rely on the WDDM technology, they will never be available on earlier versions of Windows. All the other changes made to DirectX technologies for Windows Vista are also specific to the new version of Windows. The name DirectX 10 is misleading in that many technologies shipping in the DirectX SDK (XACT, XINPUT, D3DX) are not encompassed by this version number. So, referring to the version number of the DirectX runtime as a whole has lost much of its meaning, even for 9.0c. The DirectX Diagnostic Tool (DXdiag.exe) on Windows Vista does report DirectX 10, but this really only refers to Direct3D 10.

Apparently the real reason for Vista is to cut down on internet piracy, by enforcing DRM (Digital Rights Management) from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
Microsoft's Windows Vista contains a DRM system called the Protected Media Path, which contains the Protected Video Path (PVP). PVP tries to stop DRM-restricted content from playing while unsigned software is running in order to prevent the unsigned software from accessing the content. Additionally, PVP can encrypt information during transmission to the monitor or the graphics card, which makes it more difficult to make unauthorized recordings.

And DX10 is the lure to get people onboard for Vista. I suspect pirates will resort to dual-booting XP and Vista, until Vista somehow disallows that.
So M$ will probably NOT make it easy to ever run XP with new software or new hardware.

There are apparently some people trying to get DX10 working fully within XP, but it's iffy, so likely you will need Vista for DX10, if you need to use DX10-requiring software immediately. They may get full workability, but like predator-prey evolution, I suspect there'll always be a catch.

An E8400 is pretty good, and DDR3 might be useful for future-proofing. Vista x64 is the way to go. A single 9800GTX if good, an extra just seems like a waste of money, IMHO.

I'm on the fence on 9800 GTX vs. 8800 GTS (92).

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2280462,00.asp

As you can see, the GeForce 9800 GTX is nearly the same thing as the GeForce 8800 GTS 512: a G92-based card with all functional units enabled. The difference is clock speeds, which for the most part isn't really a big deal. The new 9800 GTX has a core and shader clock speed a paltry 4% higher, and a memory clock speed 13% higher. With 8800 GTS 512 cards going for about $250 online and XFX promising us their non-overclocked 9800 GTX card for $350, we're talking about a $100 price difference. Nvidia says 9800 GTX cards should cost as little as $300, and that might end up being true, but of course the 8800 GTS 512 cards might drop in price a bit as well.

Thought that's countered by:

Well, the 9800 GTX has the requisite two SLI connectors necessary to support three-card SLI setups (in supporting nForce motherboards), which has been limited to GeForce 8800 GTX and Ultra cards thus far. So it's the first triple-SLI capable G92-based card.

and more importantly:

Also new is support for Nvidia's HybridPower feature, also available in the 9800 GX2. This will allow new graphics cards, when used in new nForce motherboards with integrated graphics, to shut down completely when you're not running a full-screen game. So when you're sitting at the desktop surfing the Web or whatever, you'll save a lot of power and noise.

But I think for MMORPG use, the single 8800 GTS would do ok (And looking at the game specs in the quoted article, the improvement in graphics doesn't justify an extra $100).

The 9800 sounds like good future-proofing (3xSLI and a power savings mode). More power and more intelligent use of the power. Sounds like a great future plan to me. If under-budget for video, I'd think about starting a certificate of deposit and using the interest to buy more 9800s as the price falls. :smile: The catch is we need to find a better article testing the power savings mode since it only works with specific NVIDIA motherboards. <Never buy on innuendo, only specs!!!>

I would not go for the 9800GX2. The driver support just isnt there and its been shown that its not worth the money. Two 9800 GTX's in SLi should be plenty.
9800GTX SLI costs more, uses more power and requires a SLI board. Not worth the price when the performance difference is so small
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/518/7/

Apparently the hybrid power of the hybrid SLI on the 9800 GTX is only on these mobos:

GeForce 8300 X X
GeForce 8200 X X
GeForce 8100 X X
nForce 730a X X
nForce 720a

some more on hybrid SLI: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=3193

All in all I can't seem to find a good tech review of the power savings of the hybrid power mode. It seems like marketing hype to me now.

I'd say go with the 8800 GTS (92) in SLI version. It meets the recommended specs (it beats a 7900 GTX) for AoC. If you aren't happy with the in game graphics and resolutions, a second one will only run you another $250. If you are happy, you can invest some money and take it out later for a mobo with more PCIE 16x slots and whatever is the advanced video card later on.

9800 cards are a waste of money.

8800 gts g92 provides more then enough power for current and future games. Or you could buy 2 of the 9600 gt to go SLI with.

The 9800 GTX is a decent deal for its price. It beats the 8800GTX by around 10% and the GTS by around 15%. It doesnt cost that much more, especially if you find a good deal (300$). You have to consider that the budget is also higher, so splurging by 40$ isnt all that bad.

Some of the reviews we've posted are giving the 9800 GTX only 1-4 frames per sec over a 8800 GTS. Consider they're both based on the G92. The only big difference I'm reading of is in 3DMark.

The triple-SLI sounds like the biggest selling point for a 9800, if you commit to that kind of mobo and buy 3x 9800s.

Next point: hard-drives.

How about 2x Western Digital Raptors in 150GB flavor? One for the OS boot drive, and one for the most common programs.

Then a third hard drive in a 1 Tetrabyte flavor, as an external archive. That to make all your internet downloads crash-proof. Though why not a dual drive external, with 2x Tetrabyte drives in Raid1 for extra data protection?

If there's room for 3 hard-drives inside the case, how about a small (40 gb?), plain 7200rpm drive for the paging file?

Altogether that should improve on the hard drive speed bottleneck of the computer, though would require a very nice case with a very dedicated cooling solution.

You could get a new VelociRaptor 300 gig instead of two Raptors.

Wow, $3000? How about you build a $2500 computer and give me $500 for my own? :)

These other people have it covered, although I am an AMD/ATi guy myself.

Don't forget a good power supply. A good one of at least 500 watts for a new system, and more than that if you are running extras off it. And get an uninterpretable power supply, UPS, which is a key component for protecting your system.

For memory you want a minimum of 2 gigs. There's no escaping the fact that programs are getting bigger, and you need the big as well as fast hardware. Do 2 hard drives instead of one. That lets you seperate your files.

Order online, it's cheaper for everything, even after shipping.

http://www.pricewatch.com/ is a good place for bargain hunting.

http://www.newegg.com/ has good prices and i built my last mostly from stuff i ordered from them.

Wait 1 month until the new ati cards are out. You don't want to spend $3000 on a Quad-SLI rig, only to be instantly surpassed by a dual 4870x2 setup.

new ati cards?

lol

whatever ATI throws out, nvidia will probably beat it considering the 9900's are due out in june i believe

I agree with WildFire. nVidia probably has the next GPU already set for production, or at least in later stages of R&D and will release it soon after ATi releases the R7xx cores.

new ati cards?

lol

whatever ATI throws out, nvidia will probably beat it considering the 9900's are due out in june i believe

Yeah, but it's very unlikely that the 9900's will make any sense for Kranden's budget. They would go nicely in a 4000$ or 5000$ rig, but ATI's value can't be beat once you get into the 3000$ price range.

Yeah, but it's very unlikely that the 9900's will make any sense for Kranden's budget. They would go nicely in a 4000$ or 5000$ rig, but ATI's value can't be beat once you get into the 3000$ price range.

You can build a top of the line gaming rig for 2000. 5000 is just stupid spending.

9900's will probably not be above 600$, and even if they are, they will force the prices on all the other cards down which is also a good thing.
Also, more than 3000$ on a gaming rig is either stupid or really rich. YOu can get some high end parts for a PC for around 2000, as Luckymoose said. After you pass 3000, you're just throwing money on small performance increases.

I guess you may be right... my point is that (assuming that ATI has a ~50$ price drop in response to the 9900 launch), it would b possible to get TWO 4870's for about as much as a 9900.

2x 9600 sli is currently the best you can do right now considering it's only ~$300

that's crazy since i believe both of those kill the 9800 currently out