Desktop Computer Advice

[jeffreyac]

Hi Folks,

Wondering if anyone wants to offer some advice on a desktop I'm considering buying. My goal is to get a good gaming setup, but I'm trying to not spend my entire life's savings - really, I guess I'm trying to find that sweet spot for money spent vs performance achieved... I'm not really computer tech savvy, so my efforts to delve into forums devoted to the topic have left me somewhat confused (I have no desire to mod, build, or personally overclock my systems; I'm talking about just your basic gaming machine purchased off the shelf...)

So, here's the questions:

1. The processors I'm considering are Intel Coe 2 Duo E6850 (dual core, 3.0 GHz, 4MB cache, 1333MHz FSB) or, for another $750, going with the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (quad core, 3.0 GHz, 8MB cache, 1333MHz FSB). It seems to me that the quad-core and extra 4MB cache would be nice, but I just am not sure it's worth the huge additional price tag... Also, is the heat generation from the quad core a problem, or would it be comparable to the dual core?

2. Separate physics processing cards and network interface cards - are they really worth it as far as improving your system's gaming performance, or is this more of a scam to gain money out of gamers who don't know much about computers? (like me!)

3. A few of the websites I've looked at advertise high performance or low-latency RAM; I know more ram=better performacne, but how important is the latency of the RAM? Any hints on what level of performance is good enough?

4. Heat is a huge concern for me - I've had problems in the past with overheats, and I'm very afraid that running a gaming rig in my office (which can get to the upper 80's ambient air temp due to my crappy air conditioner!) may be a problem. As a result, I'm considering a liquid-cooled system, as I've heard these are more effecient at heat removal... Are liquid cooled systems better than air cooled, and do I need to be concerned?


I realize this is a huge post, and if you're still with me at this point I thank you and applaud your patience! I further realize that many of the above questions are very subjective to personal tastes - however, I'd love to hear some opinions from those who are wise in the ways of gaming computers!

Thanks again!

 

[Kaost]

Hi, these advices are based on what I think I know only, many have better knowledge then me on this.

1 - It's sure that u will gain performance having a quad core instead of a 2 core, but if u seek a not too expensive machine I dont think it worth it for the moment. I can tell u that Core 2 are quite enough for gaming purpose these day (of course in the long term it might change).

2 - PhysiX card are interesting, but I would put the 100 - 200 $ that u would pay for it on the graphic card only.

3 - For the RAM, 2 GB, and around the DDR2 6400 800, 444 or 555 are great and 'cheap' atm. Also ram is one of the easiest and cheapest thing to upgrade anyway.

4 - For the heat, my advice would be buy urself a good case ! ppl often put the case quality on very low priority but its wrong, its very important part !
U can buy an extra fan like Zalman stuff over ur CPU like this thing : Link
it helps : D (whatch out to be sure it fits in the case ) and of course u need to have good fan in the case and to be sure the air flow is good.

AS for water cooling, I wouldnt suggest it for 3 reasons :

1 - Fan are cheaper
2 - U wont do overclocking
3 - Good settings with fan will do what u need

So that are my first thoughts about what u ask, of course I'm sure many other ppl have better idea then me to help you. Also, when buying a comp, take ur time to be sure that u'll have what u want and need !

 

[jeffreyac]

Thanks for the input - I appreciate it! On the graphics card, I thought I'd go with a 768 MB GeForce 8800 GTX; it seemed like the largest video memory for the price without ramping up to the 8800 Ultra.

Also, anyone have any inputs on SLI/dual graphics card configurations? I was interested at first, but I now feel that for the money a single quality card may be the way to go - I just don't feel the graphics boost is worth the huge increase in cost and complexity; plus the fact that (as far as I know) Windows Vista still doesn't support dual-card options...

 

[Kaost]

768 MB GeForce 8800 GTX will fullfill all ur needs !

With that card u dont need a sli config for sure. I have the 640 mb GTS and I'm very happy. U can still buy a sli motherboard to maybe SLI ur card later but this card should last some time

 

[MarineCorps]

2. Separate physics processing cards and network interface cards - are they really worth it as far as improving your system's gaming performance, or is this more of a scam to gain money out of gamers who don't know much about computers? (like me!)

Physics processors are impressive. If the game is written to take advantage of the card that is. And right now I know of only a single level within one game that can do so. Currently they are a waste of money.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2163428,00.asp

 

[jeffreyac]

Marinecorps, that site rocks - that right there may answer just about all the questions I have... Thanks very much! Looks like I have some browsing to do...

 

[Strider]

1. While a Quad-Core would be nice.. a decent dual core processor will be fine for the next 4-5 years.

2. Network interface card possibly... depends on what you do, but there isn't really much use out of a Physics card yet. For the moment I don't recommend getting one, but in a few years if it becomes needed and useful.. their not THAT hard to install.

3. Latency is VERY important. 2 gigs DDR2 should be fine.

4. Water cooling is, from my understanding, a hassle. A few extra fans are more cost effective and gets the job done just as well.

 

[Ghost Ranger]

If you want a quad core, go for this:
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/skusearch.hmx?SCriteria=BA23383&CartID=done&nextloc=
Though, you may want to overclock it...

as for no.4, go for fans and use the money saved to buy a new air conditioner

 

[MarineCorps]

1. While a Quad-Core would be nice.. a decent dual core processor will be fine for the next 4-5 years.
o install.

I would think quad cores are going to take over for dual core in about 2-3 years. 4-5 years is a bit long. It only took 1-2 years for dual core to take over for single core.

 

[taper]

For the extra $750, you can upgrade to a quad(octal? more?) core when they are actually needed. The performance boost from dual to quad is almost nothing for a home gamer. If you can wait a little bit, AMD has a new chip coming out, this might be better than a Core2 Duo, and will probably lead to Core price drops if you prefer that one.

If you've never built a system before, don't start with water cooling. A good case with lots of airflow should be fine for you. Add on cards really aren't needed, save your money for a future upgrade of the basic parts. SLI isn't worth the money, just buy a bigger card instead of 2.

 

[Quintillus]

OK, with in mind that you don't want to spend your life savings and you want an off-the-shelf system:

1. I'd go with the dual-core 3.0 GHz instead of the quad-core. $750 is a lot of money, and very few programs are written to take advantage of even dual-core yet. None of the games in the Civ series are. And a 3.0 GHz dual-core will be enough power for a good while.

2. From all I've heard physics processors are worth nothing now other than bragging rights. Not sure on network interface cards.

3. The lower the latency, the better. 4 CAS Latency RAM at 533 MHz is nearly identical in performance to 5 CAS Latency RAM at 667 MHz. So don't spend tons of money to get more MHz is the CAS Latency is higher.

4. I've never had problems with overheating with commercial systems. I've run processor-intensive stuff on my 4-year-old HP with 87 degree (F) temperatures and had no problem. Basically stay with a brand with good overall ratings - Sager, HP, IBM, even Dell. Stay away from brands such as Acer and Gateway.

5. The 768 MB GeForce 8800 GTX will get you great performance, but it's not exactly the sweet-spot of performance v. price. An 8600GT or 320 MB 8800 would be much closer to the sweet-spot.

So basically, cut a few things and go from top-of-the-line to high-performance-but-near-the-sweet-spot, and use the money saved to improve your air conditioning system. Not only will it reduce the chance of overheating, but it'll make you more comfortable, too!

 

[Mulholland]

U can still buy a sli motherboard to maybe SLI ur card later but this card should last some time

The Thing about SLI is that it is almost always more cost effective to simply upgrade your card instead of buying the same one and SLIing it. The performance increases are rarely double, they take alot more power and produce alot more heat in your case.

 

[Strider]

I would think quad cores are going to take over for dual core in about 2-3 years. 4-5 years is a bit long. It only took 1-2 years for dual core to take over for single core.

I didn't mean "take over" I meant that the dual core processor should do fine for 4-5 years until he's forced to upgrade.

 

[Nials]

Depending on what resolution you plan on playing at, I would go for a 320MB or 640MB 8800GTS. It's really the best bang for buck at the moment. The 8800GTX does of course offer more performance but at a far steeper cost.
SLI isn't really worth it, it's purely a tool for extreme performance with no regard to cost efficiency.

And as far as heat issues go, try not to skimp on the case. It really can make a difference. I have an Antec P180 and it is extremely quiet and quite cool but it was a bit of a hassle trying to fit the PSU which goes into the bottom of the case.

The only component that gets really hit on my rig is my 8800GTS which can climb slightly above 80C at full load although it has never caused the system to crash.

 

[felagund]

Thanks for the input - I appreciate it! On the graphics card, I thought I'd go with a 768 MB GeForce 8800 GTX; it seemed like the largest video memory for the price without ramping up to the 8800 Ultra.

Also, anyone have any inputs on SLI/dual graphics card configurations? I was interested at first, but I now feel that for the money a single quality card may be the way to go - I just don't feel the graphics boost is worth the huge increase in cost and complexity; plus the fact that (as far as I know) Windows Vista still doesn't support dual-card options...

Memory isn't everything when it comes to graphics cards... the 320MB 8800GTS will perform almost as well for most games at a much lower cost. However, if the 8000GTX is in the price range you are looking for, then go for it. SLI is good if you can really afford it, but the performance increase you get for the price isn't much. A single high-end graphics card is always better than 2 SLI medium/low-end cards.

Oh, and on the processor, I think the dual core is more than adequate for most programs. The quad core is a bit like SLI - you pay much more but the performance gain isn't that big.

 

[mdwh]

I didn't mean "take over" I meant that the dual core processor should do fine for 4-5 years until he's forced to upgrade.

Agreed. They will take over because the price difference for the extra cores will eventually become minimal - however there's still an awful lot of software which doesn't take advantage of multiple processors. Dual core at least offers some advantage, as you can have a single threaded application taking up 100% of one core, without hogging the system, but I would fear that $750 is just going to give him a system that runs at 25% most the time (are there many games these days that will take advantage of multiple cores?) Certainly not what I would call the "sweet spot"!

 

[dwaxe]

1. The processors I'm considering are Intel Coe 2 Duo E6850 (dual core, 3.0 GHz, 4MB cache, 1333MHz FSB) or, for another $750, going with the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (quad core, 3.0 GHz, 8MB cache, 1333MHz FSB). It seems to me that the quad-core and extra 4MB cache would be nice, but I just am not sure it's worth the huge additional price tag... Also, is the heat generation from the quad core a problem, or would it be comparable to the dual core?

A. The price, sorry, but none of us can give a really fair opinion on that. The heat should be fine.


2. Separate physics processing cards and network interface cards - are they really worth it as far as improving your system's gaming performance, or is this more of a scam to gain money out of gamers who don't know much about computers? (like me!)

A. Not really useful.


3. A few of the websites I've looked at advertise high performance or low-latency RAM; I know more ram=better performacne, but how important is the latency of the RAM? Any hints on what level of performance is good enough?

A. The clock rate is just as important as RAM.


4. Heat is a huge concern for me - I've had problems in the past with overheats, and I'm very afraid that running a gaming rig in my office (which can get to the upper 80's ambient air temp due to my crappy air conditioner!) may be a problem. As a result, I'm considering a liquid-cooled system, as I've heard these are more effecient at heat removal... Are liquid cooled systems better than air cooled, and do I need to be concerned?

A. Liquid cooled is FAR more powerful than air cooled ones. It's enough for pretty much the most powerful processors/graphic cards. Of course, a dual fan or really good fan will most likely be enough.

 

[jeffreyac]

Just wanted to say thanks again to all the great responses - I appreciate the help very much!

 

[Paradigne]

I just want to add (because a LOT of people do) Don't underestimate the Power Supply. Get a good one.

 

[Comraddict]

there's no use for quad cpus aside some content creation; few games are able to take advantage of dual core.