Building a gaming pc help

[jezz8me]

Ok so it is a good idea to get the 4gb ram and all my other parts are good?
I would get another hard drive but my budget requires me to let go of such luxuries. I was also hoping to dual boot linux for safer and more stable general use but i have settled on these two small things for game performance which is what i ultimately want.

i need conformation as i am buying all the parts very soon.



as for the heat sink comment i am only planning on over clocking to 2.8 which many people do using the stock cooler.









On the topic of heatsinks/ cooling systems my dad is a refrigeration mechanic. Would it be possible to put a small coil with some refrigerant running through and use it as a makeshift cooler or are there some intricate things that would make this not work?

 

[Geoffrey42]

If the vidcard WAS using all its ram just to display the desktop, they'd overheat and wear out much more frequently.

I never said it needed to use all of that RAM to display your desktop, or your word processor, or anything other than graphics intensive operations (Games, Video-playback/editing, graphic design, etc). I just don't know if the system can dynamically reallocate its address space based on usage at the time. That seems to be the crux of the matter, and until we find a real expert, I guess I'll just go lint-diving.

I'm running an 8 series card and the drivers are only taking up 5MB (nvsvc32.exe)

You're either not talking about the Video RAM address-space allocation issue, or you're way off point.

On the topic of heatsinks/ cooling systems my dad is a refrigeration mechanic. Would it be possible to put a small coil with some refrigerant running through and use it as a makeshift cooler or are there some intricate things that would make this not work?

As this appears to be your first go at a build, I'd recommend avoiding the term "makeshift". Stick to things made for the purpose, and maybe try the "makeshift"/"mod"/"custom" route your second go round, after doing a LOT of research in places like [a href=http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/]this[/a].

 

[jezz8me]

Why do you not advise overclocking? I just fear that 2.3 GHz will not be quite enough so the 2.8 would be better. It is a general consensus on other forums and sites 2.8GHz for my CPU on the stock heatsink. But if it is to unsafe and 2.3 will suffice then i will stay safe.

 

[werepossum]

Why do you not advise overclocking? I just fear that 2.3 GHz will not be quite enough so the 2.8 would be better. It is a general consensus on other forums and sites 2.8GHz for my CPU on the stock heatsink. But if it is to unsafe and 2.3 will suffice then i will stay safe.

I tend to agree with Khell. Nothing wrong with overclocking per se, but it tends to shorten the life of the processor. If you have limited funds, you may well get caught with a fried CPU and no money to replace it. The amount you can overclock a particular processor also depends on many things, primarily the cooler and the case's cooling and air flow but also the particular processor stepping and luck of the draw. Personally I prefer to spend more money on a better retail processor (comes with a decent heat sink & fan, and usually a three or five year warranty) rather than buying a slightly cheaper OEM (one year warranty) and an expensive heat sink and fan. Also, I think the CPUs you're looking at all have fixed multipliers, so you'd have to increase your front end bus frequency (thereby stressing your RAM and memory controller as well) to overclock. That said, you can probably get 2.6 or 2.8, just realize there is an increased risk of failure. I'm not sure if there's an associated decrease in life with successful overclocking, I've read opinions both ways, but there is a statistical decrease in life if only from the burned up CPUs.

My recommendation would be to run it at stock frequency until you become CPU-limited AND have the money to replace it. Then you can experiment with how much extra speed you can get out of it for free with less risk. Most games nowadays are GPU-limited rather than CPU-limited.

 

[ReepNeep]

Why do you not advise overclocking? I just fear that 2.3 GHz will not be quite enough so the 2.8 would be better. It is a general consensus on other forums and sites 2.8GHz for my CPU on the stock heatsink. But if it is to unsafe and 2.3 will suffice then i will stay safe.

OCing Core 2 based intel processors is pretty painless and (relatively) safe if you know what you're doing. That said, if you are going to do it make damn sure you don't buy an Nvidia motherboard. The 6xx and 7xx series Nforce chipsets have a tendency to screw up royally when you raise the FSB. Data corruption is common, total system meltdowns with multiple broken parts are less so. They do work fine at stock speeds however.

My personal opinion is that if you buy an intel chip, you buy an intel board. They're generally more expensive but more than make up for that in stability. They also typically perform a bit better (2-5%, nothing you would really notice without benchmarking the rig).

Also, 2.3ghz is fine. I have a 2ghz athlon X2 and it runs the games just fine despite being much weaker than the chip you're looking at. Games almost without exception put much more stress on the video card than they do the CPU. You won't see any truly dramatic improvements in real-world performance from such a small overclock anyway.

 

[jezz8me]

Thanks for putting that into perspective Khell. so 2.3 should be fine to run say crysis on high but not very high and that will last me in gaming for a least 3 years am i right?

 

[werepossum]

Here are some links to tests across CPUs in different games.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_cpu_performance/page4.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/battlefield_2142_cpu_shootout/page4.asp
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2209093,00.asp
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=499&pgno=3
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=6

As you can see, most modern games are GPU-bound except at low resolutions, so your E6550 should play them fine. I'd still recommend the E6750 as a better all-round processor and likely to last you longer, while costing only a bit more, and the E6850 as well is reasonably priced right now at New Egg (don't know about Australian stores.) If you can find the E8200/E8400/E8500 for near the same price they are even better, but make sure your motherboard has them listed as acceptable. I know the 45nm Yorkfield quads have some compatibility problems with mid-range and lower mobos, and I *think* I've read that about the Wolfdales as well. But all of these CPUs are excellent.

 

[Virgil]

Ok so it is a good idea to get the 4gb ram and all my other parts are good?
I would get another hard drive but my budget requires me to let go of such luxuries. I was also hoping to dual boot linux for safer and more stable general use but i have settled on these two small things for game performance which is what i ultimately want.

I would suggest sticking with 2gb if you're on a budget - you can always add more RAM later. You won't notice a significant enough improvement by increasing to 4gb to justify doubling the cost of the RAM when you could use that money for something else that you'd end up appreciating more (like a slightly faster CPU, a larger HDD, or nicer monitor).

I'd also recommend you don't play with overclocking - the increases you get will generally be in single percentage points, and you're adding to the risk that something is going to fail. My general rule on overclocking is that if you can't afford to replace it, don't overclock it. If you do decide to overclock, don't do it without a better cooling system, and don't try to cobble one together either. If you can't do it right, don't do it at all, or you might find yourself without a working PC. It's just not worth it.

I'd recommend one of the large-radius Zalman [http://www.zalman.co.kr/ENG/product/CategorySecond_Pic.asp?categoryname=Coolers&categorySecond=] heatsink/fan combos if you do plan on overclocking, and have the room in your case. They work very well, and the larger fan keeps the noise down a bit too.

 

[ReepNeep]

The Zalmans are also really expensive for how much extra cooling you get out of them.

Honestly, the stock HSFs for Core 2s work perfectly well for even moderate overclocking. Those chips are running at a fraction of what they're capable and as such are quite cool. If you do want to upgrade the heatsink you might want to take a look at this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835186134

Its pretty inexpensive and cools better than the stock HSF as well as being pretty quiet, if that matters to you. I have the socket939 version and the only thing in my case that makes less noise is my PSU (yes, I include my hard drive in that). It can be a major ***** to install it the first time but it works quite well.

 

[jezz8me]

The whole idea of upgrading my CPU instead of 4gb ram sounds like a pretty good idea could i have some more discussion on the topic please.

This will also bring the cost down to $994 which is $6 under budget and if it is a better performance than the 4gb then i will be very happy.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I agree with Virgil that you're going to have an easier upgrade path if you go with 2GB now (assuming 2x1GB pack?) and the nicer processor. Months from now, when you've got another $45 to blow, you can drop in another 2GB, and get that boost then. The same would not be true if you buy the slower processor, and the 4GB now. Your cost to upgrade the processor will be much higher, given that the resale of your existing processor is nearly worthless (at least in comparison to the cost of the newer processor).

Now, on the other hand, if you're sticking in a 2GB stick, and waiting a few months, then buying a second 2GB stick, you may or may not have compatibility issues (or supply issues, depending on where you are in that SKU's lifecycle; those sticks, with those exact chips, may be out-of-stock, never to be made again).

The 3rd option, not yet discussed: how long do you have to hold off to get the 4GB, and the better processor? This can be an endless game, if you're always waiting (like waiting for Nehalem, and waiting for a newer chipset, oh snap, now they've got DDR4 coming, etc), but that doesn't mean that there are not good times and bad times to buy. Compare the positives and negatives of just getting both, for $45 more, X many days from when you would've bought the system originally. Or, forego a single AAA-title for X many days from when you would've gotten it.

 

[jezz8me]

Well i want to but the computer ASAP seeing as i run a mac and am unable to game on a pc. Luckily i am getting GTA which should tide me over for a while but i want a good working computer asap so if i got 2gb ram now i can run the games now and upgrade a bit down the line.

 

[Kedcom]

Check out CentreCom online. I'm in Melbourne too and just bought a new gaming rig from there in bits and the prices are pretty good. I went for double your budget so it's all pretty tasty stuff buuuut I've still not got it to work yet 4 days after putting it all together. The components are running ok it would seem but keeps giving me the nasty "Insert boot disk etc etc etc" message when I try to install XP. So no Crysis for me yet!

Bugga!

 

[werepossum]

Well i want to but the computer ASAP seeing as i run a mac and am unable to game on a pc. Luckily i am getting GTA which should tide me over for a while but i want a good working computer asap so if i got 2gb ram now i can run the games now and upgrade a bit down the line.

There are not to my knowledge any games which are greatly affected by 2GB versus 4GB in Windows XP; your experience today should be virtually the same either way. RAM is dirt cheap and will probably remain that way until DDR2 begins to be largely supplanted by DDR3, which should take a year or two. If I were in your position I'd go for 2GB RAM and a better processor; probably neither will make a discernable difference in gaming today, but it's much easier and cheaper to add more RAM than to swap processors. And you'll also find that it's easier to sell old RAM if needed than old CPUs.

If you're going to be using Vista, look carefully at some good articles testing games on 2GB vs 4GB. I'm not sure, but I think some games may play slightly better on 4GB than on 2GB in Vista because it's a resource hog. Personally I'd stick to XP for a gaming platform - it's cheaper, faster, uses less resources (memory and CPU cycles), DX10 is not yet compelling, and the OEM license is more liberal than Vista.

Kedcom, I had a motherboard like that years ago that just gave me fits. Eventually I went over every jumper and discovered the board had been shipped with the CMOS reset jumper enabled. I doubt there are any motherboards today that use any jumpers, but sometimes the oddest things can cause problems.