|
Budget Intel Machine
|
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
6. January 2009 @ 21:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. January 2009 @ 18:57
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
6. January 2009 @ 21:27 |
Link to this message
|
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. January 2009 @ 18:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Indeed, Rosewill PSUs are deathtraps. The rest of the build is OK, but krj's motherboard and graphics card would be better choices.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
11. January 2009 @ 21:14 |
Link to this message
|
Ok guys, Ive changed the build for better/cheaper/stabiler products.
Oppinions?
As a side note, where do I get screws to screw in OEM parts?
**EDIT**
Sammorris changed me from an AMD to Intel man. New build is still further down. Mhm'k? :)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. January 2009 @ 17:09
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. January 2009 @ 06:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
12. January 2009 @ 21:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
That's a way inferior graphics card you've chosen. We're talking a third of the power of the 9800GT at best.
Get this instead
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121274
Assuming you actually play games of course? If all the graphics card is for is to play HD Video, the HD3650 you chose will be fine.
I appreciate the suggestion but the HD3650 is more then I need. (To be truthful I was wanting a GeForce 7800 but I can't find them anymore)
EDIT***
After looking at reviews of the HD3650 I found and seeing that I can't find another GPU as cheap I am going to go with your suggestion. Konichiwa!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. January 2009 @ 22:01
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. January 2009 @ 06:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
The 7800GT is way, way inferior to the HD4670, and uses a LOT more power.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
14. January 2009 @ 21:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
The 7800GT is way, way inferior to the HD4670, and uses a LOT more power.
See, I haven't been in the scene for a while and when I stopped building computers to do some other "things" the 7800 was the beast for casual gamers. Since its been so long I thought they'd be dirt cheap and would be perfect. (I eventually found one and it was more expensive then the HD4670)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. January 2009 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
The 7800GT (rivals X1800GTO, X1800XT) hasn't even been made for nearly 3 years, it was superceded by the 7900GT/GTX in 2006 (rivals X1900XT, X1900XT-X, X1950 Pro, X1950XT, X1950XT-X), then the 8800GS (9600GT, 9600GSO) , GT (9800GT), GTS, GTX, Ultra, 9800GTX and 9800GTX+, all of which are beaten by a Radeon HD4850 which is barely much more than 100 dollars. The HD4670 and its older counterparts the HD3870 and HD2900XT sit around equals to the lower end 8800s. The GTX260, revised version of it, GTX280 and GTX295 have since been released too (rivals HD4850, HD4870, HD4850X2, HD4870X2)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. January 2009 @ 14:11 |
Link to this message
|
I wouldn't waste my money on the AMD "Black" series. It's a marketing gimmick and I don't believe that there is "bang for the buck" there, that having been said, I don't OC anymore because I value reliability over "juice squeezing".
AFAIK, the "Black series" are standard CPUs that were pulled off the line that would clock faster (stably) than their batchmates.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 11:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. January 2009 @ 11:55 |
Link to this message
|
Well, the 6000+ is better bang for the buck initially, though the amount of power it uses is going to cost a fair bit more over the time you own it. For games, however, I have to say that this is far better than either:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116074
Take it or leave it, but if you're that far behind on the graphics market, you should also know that AMD have been second best for a while now for CPUs.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Well, the 6000+ is better bang for the buck initially, though the amount of power it uses is going to cost a fair bit more over the time you own it. For games, however, I have to say that this is far better than either:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116074
Take it or leave it, but if you're that far behind on the graphics market, you should also know that AMD have been second best for a while now for CPUs.
I know that AMD/ATI have been behind since Intel rolled out with CPUs on the socket 775. But, I like RISC architecture over CISC.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. January 2009 @ 15:10 |
Link to this message
|
As far as I'm aware they are both CISC and have been for a long time. Besides, what difference does it really make? Knowing the superior real world performance of the E5300 is why I recommended it.
Also, only AMD are behind, ATI are still very much a competitive company now.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 15:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
As far as I'm aware they are both CISC and have been for a long time. Besides, what difference does it really make? Knowing the superior real world performance of the E5300 is why I recommended it.
Also, only AMD are behind, ATI are still very much a competitive company now.
Has AMD really switched to CISC? Thats a shame. :( Call me a fool for nostalgia.
Looking at the wattage on each the 7750 uses more power but you didn't comment about that... So... Is the 6000 or 7750 best bang for my buck?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. January 2009 @ 16:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
That wasn't the original comparison, but the 7750 is the best bang for the buck of all the Athlon X2s. That said, the comment about the Core 2 is still valid.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 16:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
That wasn't the original comparison, but the 7750 is the best bang for the buck of all the Athlon X2s. That said, the comment about the Core 2 is still valid.
Can you find a comparable CPU to the 7750 from Intel in the 65-80$ range?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. January 2009 @ 16:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
You're gonna kill an AMD enthusiast!
Damn Intel and better products! (Although I have a ThinkPad with a T2390 currently and love it)
Ok, So Im gonna rework the build now.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. January 2009 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
In some environments, the E5200 falls a little behind the X2 7750, but it's never by a level you'd notice, and the E5200 is a 50W processor versus the X2 which is a 90W processor. i.e. if the CPU is at full load for just two hours a day on average, it will save you $10 a year in power alone.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 17:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
In some environments, the E5200 falls a little behind the X2 7750, but it's never by a level you'd notice, and the E5200 is a 50W processor versus the X2 which is a 90W processor. i.e. if the CPU is at full load for just two hours a day on average, it will save you $10 a year in power alone.
I'll post new build quickly.
Isn't my power bill associated on how many Watts the PSU pulls?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. January 2009 @ 17:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
The PSU wattage figure is an 'up to'. The PSU only draws what the system requires, which is controlled by what's in it.
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 17:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. January 2009 @ 17:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's with the random overpriced graphics cards creeping back in? The HD4670 is literally triple the performance of the 8600GTS.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Sazy
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 18:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
What's with the random overpriced graphics cards creeping back in? The HD4670 is literally triple the performance of the 8600GTS.
The 4670 is PCI Express x16 2.0.
The MoBo I chose doesn't support it. Unless GFX cards are dual-mode ???
|
