Need help building a new computer.

[Ulyaoth]

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.

 

[Mulholland]

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.

Spoiler :

 

[GVBN]

- 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

 

[Zelig]

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.

 

[Ulyaoth]

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.

 

[Mulholland]

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.

 

[Zelig]

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.

 

[Mulholland]

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.

 

[GVBN]

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

 

[Zelig]

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:

 

[Mulholland]

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.

 

[Zelig]

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 review:

 

[kuukkeli]

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 ) 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.

 

[Ulyaoth]

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.

 

[Zelig]

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.

 

[Mike Hussey]

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?

 

[warpus]

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".

 

[GVBN]

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

 

[dragokatzov]

- 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

 

[kuukkeli]

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).