# New pc build (what should i get and go for?)



## Pikem4n (Jul 12, 2010)

Hello folks


After years of wanting to build a dedicated pc I originally bought a case 2 years back in hope of starting it then but i never got around to it, anyway i've finally got myself a secondhand (but working) evga 680i mobo,along with a intel c2d cpu and a heatsink fan,all for 70 quid as a basis to build from.

But the problem is i am a bit like a kid in a sweet shop with so many sweets to choose from, my basic needs for the new pc will be gaming and webcasting with view in the future to maybe add a tv tuner to record HD and hooking it all up to a either new lcd monitor or hdtv, my budget now isn't too great it's going to be between 200-300 pounds.

I am thinking about getting a 650W Corsair CMPSU-650TX psu, but apart from that i don't know what exactly to get so can anyone please give me any pointers to what i should really go for?

Regards from Pike


----------



## KingPing (Jul 12, 2010)

Are you going to use those parts?, if so, then

case   - Ok
CPU    - Ok         Model?
Mobo  - Ok

You need RAM, Video card, PSU ( the corsair one is Ok, but maybe a 450w, 500w, 550w woulb be cheaper), and a monitor

If you are going to use a C2D cpu, then i recommend a ATI 5770, buy 4gb of ram, nothing to fancy (DDR2 800 will be fine)


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 13, 2010)

Pikem4n said:


> i've finally got myself a secondhand (but working) evga 680i mobo,along with a intel c2d cpu and a heatsink fan,all for 70 quid as a basis to build from.



That wasnt a smart thing to do, I know it’s cheap but it’s on a dead motherboard socket so the higher end processors are at the end of their life and what's left is rare and overpriced and hence making future upgrades might be difficult. £300 would get you a nice AMD Athlon II X3/X4 on an AM3 socket with DDR3 opposed to DDR2.




Pikem4n said:


> But the problem is i am a bit like a kid in a sweet shop with so many sweets to choose from, my basic needs for the new pc will be gaming and webcasting with view in the future to maybe add a tv tuner to record HD and hooking it all up to a either new lcd monitor or hdtv,



For gaming, the cheapest and fastest video cards that you can buy without bottlenecking a core 2 Duo is the  ATI 5750 1GB and Nvidia GTS 250 1GB, and although these cards are powerful but Iam not sure its enough to run new games 1080p if that's your intention, maybe at 1680x1050. All you need now is some decent branded DDR2 memory and a decently branded PSU and you're set to go. 

Point of View GTS250 1GB DDR3 DVI VGA HDMI Out PCI...
PowerColor HD 5750 1GB GDDR5, DVI VGA HDMI PCI-E.....


----------



## KingPing (Jul 13, 2010)

I use a 5770 with a 1080p HDTV  (the GTS 250 is also Ok, but i don't own one so i don't know for sure) and it can run most games today but not all of them maxed out: DIRT2 run at 60fps with some graphics options in medium and some in high and no AA, GTA4 mixed settings from ultra to low (because of cpu not the vga), BATMAN AA runs maxed out, METRO 2033 runs at 30fps - 40fps in high in dx9, COD 4 runs maxed out, the same for WaW and MW2, BATTLEFIELD BAD COMPANY 2 runs ok with high settings but no AA. The CPU i use is a C2D e8400 OCed to 3.6Ghz and some games are still bottlenecked by the cpu , like BAD COMPANY 2 or GTA4.

 as Dent1 said  go for a 5750 or a GTS 250, and 4gb of cheap ram (DDR2 800)


----------



## Pikem4n (Jul 13, 2010)

Hi guys,thanks for responding 


Well the cpu is (i think) a E6400 if that makes sense,compaired to what i am using atm the stuff i've bought will blow it out of the water, whether it was a wise move to buy a 2nd hand mobo and cpu i am not too sure, but i did get it from a very trusted source.


The new pc shall eventually be hooked up to either a 22 inch or 24 inch lcd, not HDTV as i previously stated so playing games and watching films in full HD on a big screen is not a must really.

This is what i've so far opted for -

Corsair TX Series 650W ATX PSU-£84.31 inc.VAT
1024Mb nVidia GeForce GTS 250 PCI-Expres VGA Card-£93.71 inc.VAT
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 7200rpm S-ATAII 32MB Hard Drive-£44.59 inc.VAT
Corsair TwinX 2Gb DDR2-6400 (2x1Gb) w/ Heat Spreaders-£41.07 inc.VAT
Total price inc VAT-£263.67

Would you say what i've opted for so far are good additions to the mobo, or can i cut corners and find cheaper stuff that is better?

Pike


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 13, 2010)

Pikem4n said:


> Hi guys,thanks for responding
> 
> 
> Well the cpu is (i think) a E6400 if that makes sense,compaired to what i am using atm the stuff i've bought will blow it out of the water, whether it was a wise move to buy a 2nd hand mobo and cpu i am not too sure, but i did get it from a very trusted source.




 The  E6400 is a very old model (July 2006), its has 2MBs of cache opposed to the 6MB of cache the higher end E8xxx Core 2 Duos have, I believe the E6400  is clocked really low @ 2.1GHz. Sitting at stock it will bottleneck most video cards, including the 5750 or GTS 250, that isnt to say games will not run, older games should run at high settings, but it will struggle on to maintain decent frame rates on newer games. I would suggest overclocking the processor, they should reach around 3-3.5GHz on a decent air cooler, this should eliminate some if not all the bottlenecking significantly.



Pikem4n said:


> Corsair TX Series 650W ATX PSU-£84.31 inc.VAT
> 1024Mb nVidia GeForce GTS 250 PCI-Expres VGA Card-£93.71 inc.VAT
> 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 7200rpm S-ATAII 32MB Hard Drive-£44.59 inc.VAT
> Corsair TwinX 2Gb DDR2-6400 (2x1Gb) w/ Heat Spreaders-£41.07 inc.VAT
> ...




Which operating system are you using, 2 GBs is not enough these days. If money is an issue buy 1x2GB stick then add another 1x2GB stick in the future when you've got the funds. The Corsair TX series PSU is good, but on a low end gaming rig its overkill, you can shave about £10-20 off the PSU and you'll still have enough for a pretty good branded one.


Recommended branded PSUs for cheap:

Antec Basiq Power 550W PSU £54.99
OCZ Stealth XStream 600W £57.99
OCZ StealthXstream II 600W £61.56
Antec EarthWatts 650W £67.05
OCZ 700W ModXStream Pro Power £67.46

Antec Basiq Power 550W PSU - 6x SATA 2x PCI-E 20+4...
OCZ Stealth XStream 600W PSU - SLI Ready ATX2.2 12...
Antec EarthWatts 650W PSU - 80Plus Certified 12cm ...
OCZ 700W ModXStream Pro Power Supply | Ebuyer.com
OCZ StealthXstream II 600W Power Supply | Ebuyer.c...


If you are buying just 2GBs get one of these 1x2GB modules.

OCZ 2GB DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 CL 5-6-6-15 Value Ser...
Crucial 2GB DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 Ballistix Memory ...
Corsair 2GB DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 Memory CL5 1.8V |...
Crucial 2GB DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 Ballistix Memory ...
Corsair 2GB DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 XMS2 Xtreme.. | E...
Kingston 2gb Ddr2 800mhz Hyperx Memory Non-ecc Cl5...

If you are buying 4 GBs of ram get one of these 2x2GB modules.
Kingston 4gb (2x2gb) Ddr2 800mhz Memory Non-ecc Cl...
OCZ 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 800Mhz/PC2-6400 Memory Unbuff...
Corsair 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 Memory Ki...
Crucial 4GB (2X2GB) DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 Ballistix...


----------



## dr_dream (Jul 14, 2010)

My advice is to keep away from DDR2, because it is outdated and for aproximately the same amount of money you get DDR3. However this also involves a newer platform, like the AM3 or LGA1156.

If I were you, I would sell the rest of your PC components and gather money for an AM3 platform, which has cost-efficient CPUs and accessible mobos.

You should also keep your choices for the PSU and HDD ! As for the video card, a Radeon 5750 wouldn't be bad at all.


----------



## bobisgod (Jul 14, 2010)

Pikem4n said:


> Hi guys,thanks for responding
> 
> 
> Well the cpu is (i think) a E6400 if that makes sense,compaired to what i am using atm the stuff i've bought will blow it out of the water, whether it was a wise move to buy a 2nd hand mobo and cpu i am not too sure, but i did get it from a very trusted source.
> ...


No Way you need 650w 400-500 will be just fine. Get a quality Antec, Corsair, or Seasonic one.
If you can stretch your budget, try to grab the gtx 460. I would recommend 4 gb of ram but 2gb is just fine for games.


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Jul 14, 2010)

The GTS 250 is a nice little performer. It can max ALL games at 1680x1050. Even crysis. I know since I have a GTS 250 but it isn't needed now. IF you buy a nice cpu cooler atleast overclock the e6400 to 3ghz+ to limit bottleneck, pair it with some ddr2 ram and your board has alot of fsb so overclocking shouldn't be too hard.  Atleast get 4gb of ram, 2gb just doesn't cut it these days.


----------



## Pikem4n (Jul 15, 2010)

Hi again folks


Thanks for the suggestions i've done a little bit of looking around to see if i can shave a few pounds off the original price from i originally said i was going for, this is what my current list looks like-


Corsair TwinX 2Gb DDR2-6400 (2x1Gb) w/ Heat Spreaders £34.95(£41.07)

1024Mb nVidia GeForce GTS 250 PCI-Express VGA Card £79.75(£93.71)

OCZ 500W StealthXStream PSU, PowerWhisper, Active PFC £35.95(£42.24)

750GB Samsung Spinpoint F3 7200rpm 32Mb SATAII Hard Drive £36.50(£42.89)

Total Exc. 	£187.15  VAT £32.75 Total Inc. £219.90

Would this suffice? The prices are the cheapest i could find(from eclipse computers)


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 15, 2010)

Since your initial budget was up to 300 I would strongly recommend you get a GTX460, since for 50 pounds more you get twice the performance and futureproofing or at least get a HD5770 which costs about 35 pounds more than your the GTS250, but is slightly faster and has DX11.


----------



## dr_dream (Jul 15, 2010)

Benetanegia said:


> Since your initial budget was up to 300 I would strongly recommend you get a GTX460.


Even if the CPU would be not exactly sufficient, a GTX460 would be a great choice, compared to the GTS250 1GB ! If you think that the GTX460 is too much, go for a HD5750 or a GTS250 512MB (1GB won't bring better performances, same case as for the HD4870 512 vs 1024MB -> minor performance gain at very high resolutions)! I also recomment you to go for a more powerful PSU, if the price difference is little, try to pick a 600W unit, it's more future-proof like that.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 15, 2010)

Pikem4n said:


> Hi again folks
> 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions i've done a little bit of looking around to see if i can shave a few pounds off the original price from i originally said i was going for, this is what my current list looks like-
> ...



Looks good, but as I said before I wouldnt get 2x1GB sticks, but instead I would opt for a single stick of 2 GBs, by doing this you'll have more modules available on the motherboard for future ram upgrades.





Benetanegia said:


> Since your initial budget was up to 300 I would strongly recommend you get a GTX460, since for 50 pounds more you get twice the performance and futureproofing or at least get a HD5770 which costs about 35 pounds more than your the GTS250, but is slightly faster and has DX11.



The 5770 does not perform much better thanthe GTS 250, the extra 10% performance does not justify the extra £30-40. But I agree the GTX460 768MB  is worth buying if the budget can stretch and is a better offer deal price/performance than the 5770. http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Axle/GeForce_GTX_460_768_MB/images/perfrel.gif

PALIT GTX 460 768MB GDDR5 £144
PALIT GTX 460 768MB GDDR5 VGA DVI HDMI Out PCI-E.....


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 15, 2010)

dr_dream said:


> Even if the CPU would be not exactly sufficient, a GTX460 would be a great choice, compared to the GTS250 1GB ! If you think that the GTX460 is too much, go for a HD5750 or a GTS250 512MB (1GB won't bring better performances, same case as for the HD4870 512 vs 1024MB -> minor performance gain at very high resolutions)! I also recomment you to go for a more powerful PSU, if the price difference is little, try to pick a 600W unit, it's more future-proof like that.



Oh a dual is more than enough: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/5

It's HD5870 and GTX470 they are testing there. Buying a new CPU just for gaming is a complete waste nowadays. A 3 Ghz dual is enough (I'm assuming he will OC). You do loose 10% performance in SOME games, but that does not justify the expense at all.

@Dent1

Sorry man, but you give really bad suggestions overall (EDIT: I backpedal on that statement, the 2GB stick recommendation made the deal. ). I mean, he got a decent CPU+MB+heatsink for 70 pounds and you tell him that was a stupid move, yet you recommend him a 300 pound upgrade which is going to be just as obsolete in 1 year. *If* he had not bought anything yet I could make half sense of that reccomendation, but as things are now they don't make any sense.

Good PSU recommendations though.

Regarding the 5770 I completely agree, but sometims some people just don't want or simply cannot pay more, that's why I suggested it. Sometimes even a 20 bucks difference is a lot for some people. Especially if they are kids, which we don't know if that's the case here.


----------



## Pikem4n (Jul 15, 2010)

Hi again guys

Your making me smile in a wry sort of way atm lol, anyway i will overclock the cpu, not straight away but eventually i will do so as i know the current heatsink would not be that great to Oc a cpu,And i am taking everyone's suggestions onboard (thanks truly for the input) Currently thinking about this - ditching the 500w psu and going for 600w version i think i will stick with the gfx card though as i've just checked out the site that i am looking on and the price difference between the 512mb and 1gb versions of the GTS250 is only 1 pound!

Regarding the memory, i think if i now opt for getting 4gb instead of 2gb my budget will creep up nearer to that 300 pound mark,because i forgot about adding a optical drive and the Os system into the mix! But i will have 4gb,but not straight away and Ok compaired to all the newer pc components out there what i am about to build might be a bit of a backwards step but for 7 years i've been used to a P4 based system so it will be better, but not by most of your standards


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 15, 2010)

Benetanegia said:


> Sorry man, but you give really bad suggestions overall (EDIT: I backpedal on that statement, the 2GB stick recommendation made the deal. ). I mean, he got a decent CPU+MB+heatsink for 70 pounds and you tell him that was a stupid move, yet you recommend him a 300 pound upgrade which is going to be just as obsolete in 1 year.



That’s not true, I recommended a Athlon II X3/X4, AM3 motherboard with DDR3, this could have been done from £180, maybe even £150 with the Athlon II X2. When I said £300 I was talking about the "entire build", including the PSU, case, DVD drive and hard disk.

I really do not see how the Athlon II X3 or X4 will be obsolete in a year, it stands a better chance at surviving a year than the E6400, not just because its faster but because its on a supported motherboard socket.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 15, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> That’s not true, I recommended a Athlon II X3/X4, AM3 motherboard with DDR3, this could have been done from £180, maybe even £150 with the Athlon II X2. When I said £300 I was talking about the "entire build", including the PSU, case, DVD drive and hard disk.
> 
> I really do not see how the Athlon II X3 or X4 will be obsolete in a year, it stands a better chance at surviving a year than the E6400, not just because its faster but because its on a supported motherboard socket.



Oh it will be mostly obsolete, just like almost every PC component is obsolete 1-2 years later, but that's not the reason for what I said. The thing is that he already has those components which is a clear advantage over having to buy them again. Besides an X2 X3 is not going to be any faster than what he got at games.

I am not aware of UK prices, but a quick look at OCUK tells me that making an Athlon X3/AM3 based build for less than 300 pounds is absolutely imposible. CPU+MB+DDR3+heatsink already costs more than 200. Add a quality PSU (always a must), the most subpar case you can find and some cheap HDD and DVD drive and you clearly surpassed 300.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 15, 2010)

Benetanegia said:


> Oh it will be mostly obsolete, just like almost every PC component is obsolete 1-2 years later




The Intel Q6600 processor came out in early 2007, 3 years ago. Its just a bit slower than the 1 year old Athlon II X4 620. So are you saying that everybody that bought the Athlon II X4 620 on its release date bought a obsolete processor?

Just listen to what you're saying, if a component is obsolete in 1-2 years, you are basically admiting the E6400 is obsolete already with it being 4 years old already



Benetanegia said:


> Besides an X2 X3 is not going to be any faster than what he got at games..




You are kidding right? Iam not going to justify this with a response if you can not prove it. - sitting at 2.1GHz its a walking bottleneck.





Benetanegia said:


> I am not aware of UK prices, but a quick look at OCUK tells me that making an Athlon X3/AM3 based build for less than 300 pounds is absolutely imposible. CPU+MB+DDR3+heatsink already costs more than 200. Add a quality PSU (always a must), the most subpar case you can find and some cheap HDD and DVD drive and you clearly surpassed 300.



It is possible, maybe not @ OCUK, but you can definitely build a rig for £300 give or take.


----------



## bobisgod (Jul 15, 2010)

Pikem4n said:


> Hi again folks
> 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions i've done a little bit of looking around to see if i can shave a few pounds off the original price from i originally said i was going for, this is what my current list looks like-
> ...



Don't skimp on PSU, get Corsair or Antec.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 15, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> You are kidding right? Iam not going to justify this with a response if you can not prove it. - sitting at 2.1GHz its a walking bottleneck.



It won't sit at 2.1 Ghz because it will be overclocked and NO it's not going to be a huge bottleneck. Bottleneck is the most stupidly used meme ever. Yes, of course a faster CPU will provide faster fps, but it will never give faster enough frames to justify its price, never. When taklking about gaming a GPU comes first always. A bottleneck GTX460/HD5850 will always be faster than a GTX260 in the fastest CPU in the world. If he is willing to spend 100 pounds more those are much better spent into a GPU, EVEN if it's massively bottlenecked. A bottleneck will never affect the card as much as GPU performance does.













Woaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!  MASSIVE... BOTTLENECK!!

Now let's be fair and let's look at some better 3D engines in a GTX295...















What makes more sense a Core2 @2GHz + "GTX295/GTX470/HD5870" or "GTX275/HD5770" + "fastest CPU in the world OCed"? Look at Wizzards latest review if you are confused by now: HD5770 does half the fps than the GTX295 and no matter how much bottlenecked the latter is it will always be faster.

Now make a thinking effort again and look at the dualies running @3-3.3 Ghz... Oh! They are in the middle of the chart!! Now things look even better.

And just the last effort: we are talking about getting a GTX460 or something even slower. You are not going to see a bottleneck even remotely close to the one in those charts on a GTX460/HD5830. The GTx295 is 2 times faster AND is a dual GPU card which does need a little bit more CPU power than single GPU cards...

Settled?

EDIT: Oh the four extense charts are from this article: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/cpu_scaling_with_the_geforce_gtx_295,1.html


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

Benetanegia said:


> It won't sit at 2.1 Ghz because it will be overclocked and NO it's not going to be a huge bottleneck




I hope it will not sit at stock, I advised the OP strongly to overclock it, so you have agreed with me that the OP should overclock the CPU to eliminate any possible bottleneck, because that is what I advised, and you seem to agree the same thing.






Benetanegia said:


> [What makes more sense a Core2 @2GHz + "GTX295/GTX470/HD5870" or "GTX275/HD5770" + "fastest CPU in the world OCed"? Look at Wizzards latest review if you are confused by now: HD5770 does half the fps than the GTX295 and no matter how much bottlenecked the latter is it will always be faster.
> 
> Now make a thinking effort again and look at the dualies running @3-3.3 Ghz... Oh! They are in the middle of the chart!! Now things look even better.





Those dual cores in that review are the high end E8xxx series, they are the _newer_ and tweaked models called "Wolfdale" and feature a massive 6MB of cache on a 45nm die. The E6400 is the older, hotter architecture on a 65nm die with a sluggish 2MB of cache.


You can not compare the old "Allendale" architecture to the new "Wolfdale" architecture as there are performance differences. 

The argument at hand which you've seemed to duck was:

-the Athlon II X3/X4, with AM3 motherboard and DDR3 would of cost from >£180
-the  Athlon II X2 , with AM3 motherboard and DDR3 would of cost from £150
-Athlon II X3/X4, with AM3 motherboard, DDR3, branded PSU, HD, cheapo case for around £300

oh yeah 

- The AM3 is a new socket and has a huge upgrade path ranging from the Phenom IIs X4, Phenom II X6 and possibly the bulldozers. Unlike the dead socket 775 which has a huge list of processors which are very hard to find new or are overpriced, not to mention the fact that some of them are not being manufactured any more.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Those dual cores in that review are the high end E8xxx series, they are the _newer_ and tweaked models called "Wolfdale" and feature a massive 6MB of cache on a 45nm die. The E6400 is the older, hotter architecture.



Wolfdale was a whooping 5% faster than Conroe clock for clock. You don't have a point.



Dent1 said:


> -the Athlon II X3/X4, with AM3 motherboard and DDR3 would of cost from >£180



180 pounds wasted.



> -the  Athlon II X4 , with AM3 motherboard and DDR3 would of cost from £150



150 pounds wasted.



> -Athlon II X3/X4, with AM3 motherboard, DDR3, branded PSU, HD, cheapo case for around £300



300 wasted.

oh yeah 



> - The AM3 is a new socket and has a huge upgrade path ranging from the Phenom IIs X4, Phenom II X6 and possibly the bulldozers. Unlike the dead socket 775 which has a huge list of processors which are very hard to find new or are overpriced, not to mention the fact that some of them are not being manufactured any more.



Futureproofing is shit. Get whatever you need when you need and save the rest. Spebding 150 pounds right now when he already has a CPU+MB that is more than capable of running current games is complete waste. Save those 150 and in 1-2 years when he really needs a faster CPU, because games changed radically, because he got a better GPU, whatever... only then, take those 150 pounds and buy the best you can for the price. That thing, whatever is going to be its name or brand, that thing is going to be much much faster than the X3. Besides buying an X3 now just to buy another CPU later on == bad idea all over again.

I could almost agree with you *if* he didn't have anything, but since he already has a capable CPU there's no need to waste money. I tell you again if for whatever reason he decided to spend 150 pounds more than his original budget, he must spend them on a better GPU and more ram, not on a crappy AM3 setup/Core i5/i3 setup that will hardly be faster than the Core2 he already has (as I have demostrated). Period.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

Benetanegia said:


> Wolfdale was a whooping 5% faster than Conroe clock for clock. You don't have a point.




Where is the link to prove the 5%. 

Whether there is a 5% or a 500% difference it is not ethical to say the Allendale with 2MB cache and Wolfdale with 8MB cache are equivalent and pass them off as the same CPU.




Benetanegia said:


> 180 pounds wasted.
> 
> 150 pounds wasted.
> 
> ...



Wasted. You say "wasted" like if the one word explains your argument. The OP has already spend £70 on a socket 775 motherboard and a E6400 CPU, he has to spend another £40-45 for 2GBs of DDR2 ram to complete the build. That is a total of £110-115. 

£30-40 ontop of the initial £70 investment and he would of had _new_ components with a fresh warranty. He would of had a faster CPU, a cooler CPU based on 45nm technology, higher memory bandwidth of DDR3 with overclockability for low timings and a upgrade path. Whether you believe in future proofing or not the upgrade path AM3 has can not be denied.




Benetanegia said:


> Spending 150 pounds right now when he already has a CPU+MB that is more than capable of running current games is complete waste.



The thing is you never read or comprehended what I said which is why you've got your panties in a twist. 

I am not telling the OP to spend £150 extra. I told the OP in plain English that he should *KEEP* his motherboard and overclock his CPU and buy some DDR2 memory and a good PSU.  - I said that it was the wrong decision as AM3 route was better since he initially had a £370 budget. However since he missed the deal he should KEEP his components.

If you read you would of understood me telling him to KEEP his components.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Where is the link to prove the 5%.
> 
> Whether there is a 5% or a 500% difference it is not ethical to say the Allendale with 2MB cache and Wolfdale with 8MB cache are equivalent and pass them off as the same CPU.



I lied:

http://www.techspot.com/espanol/articulos/96-intel-core-2-wolfdale-vs-conroe/pagina6.html

It was a wooping 0-1% faster. Now yes, now you do have a point do you?


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> £30-40 ontop of the initial £70 investment and he would of had _new_ components with a fresh warranty. He would of had a faster CPU, a cooler CPU based on 45nm technology, higher memory bandwidth of DDR3 with overclockability for low timings and a upgrade path. Whether you believe in future proofing or not the upgrade path AM3 has can not be denied.



You simply cannot understand that since he would have to buy everything, AM3 is NOT the best upgrade path? At all? Not buying anything and being able to buy whatever you want (Core i6? i8? AM4? whatever) in the future is his best upgrade path BY FAR!

Besides the X3 is NOT a faster CPU for gaming as I have repeteadly demostrated.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

This is getting boring, you do not even make it a challenge....




Benetanegia said:


> I lied:
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/espanol/articulos/96-intel-core-2-wolfdale-vs-conroe/pagina6.html
> :



So your evidence consists of two games? only two games? are you serious two games and you are already convinced. One of the games is from 2006 (Crysis), four years ago, and the other game is from 2004 (Unreal Tournament 3), 6 years ago. You are basing games from 6 years ago to prove that the Conroe and Wolfdale are equivalent today in 2010 and beyond? 

Also, that Core 2 Duo E6550 in the review has 4MB cache, the OP's E6400 is even more crippled with 2MB cache, so your review is not ethical again 




Benetanegia said:


>



Mature, your immaturity killed any point you may of had.



Benetanegia said:


> You simply cannot understand that since he would have to buy everything, AM3 is NOT the best upgrade path? At all? Not buying anything and being able to buy anything (Core i6? i8? AM4? whatever) in the future is his best upgrade path BY FAR!



Yes but Iam saying AM3 would (past tense) of been the better build if he did not (past tense) invest in the socket 775 motherboard and E6400. From the very beginning I said that AM3 is NOT the best route now that he has committed and bought his components already. The OP understands what I said surely, its just you.




Benetanegia said:


> Besides the X3 is NOT a faster CPU for gaming as I have repeatedly demonstrated.



When did you demonstrate that, the X3 was not in any of your reviews that you posted 

Edit: Any replies will be read tomorrow morning.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> So your evidence consists of two games? only two games? are you serious two games and you are already convinced. One of the games is from 2006 (Crysis), four years ago, and the other game is from 2004 (Unreal Tournament 3), 6 years ago. You are basing games from 6 years ago to prove that the Conroe and Wolfdale are equivalent today in 2010 and beyond?



It certainly is not my problem if you don't know how to navigate a review... Next/Prev page button? You do know how to use them right?

And which game is used is next to irrelevant. Not to mention that Crysis is still the most demanding game and UT Engine 3 the most used one by far...



> Also, that Core 2 Duo E6550 in the review has 4MB cache, the OP's E6400 is even more crippled with 2MB cache, so your review is not ethical again



Now I have to find a review that demostrates that 2mb versus 4mb. Ask! And you will be provided...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709-5.html

Ey have another one for free:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2006/07/14/intel_core_2_duo_processors/12

And another one!! (I should start asking you money for this )

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/4



There are Next/prev page buttons there too. Just don't get stressed, don't let that difficulty get in the way. 



> Yes but Iam saying AM3 would (past tense) of been the better build if he did not (past tense) invest in the socket 775 motherboard and E6400. From the very beginning I said that AM3 is NOT the best route now that he has committed and bought his components already. The OP understands what I said surely, its just you.



I don't know why are you complaining then. I said that in my first reply post and all you had to say was: Indeed.



> When did you demonstrate that, the X3 was not in any of your reviews that you posted



Well there's plenty of X4 there. Which comes next? You're going to claim that an X3 is faster than the higher end X4? This is starting to be pathetic. Thanks god that I enjoy posting links and all.

Which reminds me... I have posted like 8? different links that prove you wrong, when are we going to see a proof that demostrates how outdated the Core2 is?

EDIT: Oh and BTW Crysis was released in November 13 2007. Just saying. (and internally thinking: will this guy be correct once?) j/k 
EDIT2: Wait wait wait, how can I say something about Crysis when you are mistaking UT3, released in 2007, with Unreal Tournament 2004.  Sorry if I laugh, but you should understand... be humble an understand this whole situation is quite funny.


----------



## bobisgod (Jul 16, 2010)

I'm pretty sure a C2D is faster than a crapthlon


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

Benetanegia said:


> It certainly is not my problem if you don't know how to navigate a review... Next/Prev page button? You do know how to use them right?



I read the direct links you sent me, I’m not going to go out of my way to navigate the website when you are the one that’s trying to convince me here.




Benetanegia said:


> And which game is used is next to irrelevant. Not to mention that Crysis is still the most demanding game and UT Engine 3 the most used one by far...



I'm not disputing choice of titles, I'm disputing the fact that you are using old games which have no bearing in 2010 and beyond.





Benetanegia said:


> Now I have to find a review that demonstrates that 2mb versus 4mb. Ask! And you will be provided...
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709-5.html
> 
> ...



I really do not want to offend you. But you are coming across as reading impaired slightly, the issue is about the _NEWER _ *6MB* Wolfdale Core 2 Duo 8xxx against the OPs *2MB * conroe. 

You gave me a 2MB vs. 4MB review, so you can half read, when you want to. But when you get better at pronouncing out the words you'll understand that again your links are invalid because we are talking about 8MB vs. 2MB Core 2 Duos here, nothing else.

You failed in two posts to send me a relevant reviews pertaining to the 6MB vs 2MB Core 2 Duos, any further link posting about this matter will be ignored because I shouldn’t have to give people 3 chances to read correctly and provide link evidence on the actual subject matter.




bobisgod said:


> I'm pretty sure a C2D is faster than a crapthlon



So you are saying that a Conroe E6400 Core 2 Duo with 2MB Cache is faster than an Athlon II X3? You obviously have no place in a hardware forum, heck you only have 4 posts, I would be surprised if you were Benetanegia second account.


----------



## Pikem4n (Jul 16, 2010)

Hello folks


Well i've just ordered the 1st part of what i am buying, a samsung f3 spinpoint 1tb Hdd and 2 gig stick of crucial ballistic ram ( I took dents advice onboard to get 1x2gb stick of ram) so next is the psu,gfx card os system and optical drive,thanks for the advice folks


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

Pikem4n said:


> Hello folks
> 
> 
> Well i've just ordered the 1st part of what i am buying, a samsung f3 spinpoint 1tb Hdd and 2 gig stick of crucial ballistic ram ( I took dents advice onboard to get 1x2gb stick of ram) so next is the psu,gfx card os system and optical drive,thanks for the advice folks



I'm glad to hear, if you need any help selecting any components just ask


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 16, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> I really do not want to offend you. But you are coming across as reading impaired slightly, the issue is about the _NEWER _ *8MB* Wolfdale Core 2 Duo 8xxx against the OPs *2MB * conroe.
> 
> You gave me a 2MB vs. 4MB review, so you can half read, when you want to. But when you get better at pronouncing out the words you'll understand that again your links are invalid because we are talking about 8MB vs. 2MB Core 2 Duos here, nothing else.
> 
> You failed in two posts to send me a relevant reviews pertaining to the 8MB vs 2MB Core 2 Duos, any further link posting about this matter will be ignored because I shouldn’t have to give people 3 chances to read correctly and provide link evidence on the actual subject matter.



Your pretension that 8 vs 6 mb makes a bigger difference than 2 vs 4 or 4 vs 6 mb is quite funny and shows that you lack the required knowledge to be discussing this matter. Besides my linl shows a E8200 which has 6 MB so I have no idea what you are talking about, neither do you. I already showed that a Core2 E8200 running at 2 Ghz can play latest power hyngry games and that it will only make the GTX295 33% slower than an i7 @3.6Ghz. I already showed that the difference between Wolfdale (E8200) and Conroe is negligible. I already showed that 2 mb versus 4mb cache, or what it is the same Conroe vs Allandale makes little difference too so A=B & B=C soooo A=C-----> 2mb = 6mb. Anyone with a working brain can understand that. I have already demostrated that a Core 2 E6400 will play any game and you have demostrated nothing so far. You still keep spreading FUD and BS saying that a E6400 will bottleneck games when is more than abvious from my proofs that is not. Do you and us a favor and stop this nonsense, it's been 5 posts ago when your point was debunked.

It's also funny how you pretend that 2 mb cache are going to bottleneck the PC more than losing dual channel memory. With 1 stick of ram he will lose dual channel and it will be slower until he can buy the second stick. Not by much, but by more than 2mb vs 6 mb cache that is guaranteed. I agreed that it is a good compromise for the time being, but it will bottleneck the PC much more than the CPU itsef. 

P1keman don't worry, it's going to be a 5-10% difference and barely noticeable, but still bigger than the difference that your CPU being 2 MB supposes.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

Benetanegia said:


> Your pretension that 8 vs 6 mb makes a bigger difference than 2 vs 4 or 4 vs 6 mb is quite funny and shows that you lack the required knowledge to be discussing this matter



The issue is about the Conroe E6400 with 2MB cache and the E8xxx with 6MB Cache, 8MB was obviously a typo.



Benetanegia said:


> . Besides my link shows a E8200 which has 6 MB so I have no idea what you are talking about, neither do you. I already showed that a Core2 E8200 running at 2 Ghz can play latest power hungry games




I never said the E8200 couldnt play games even @ 2GHz, I said the E8200 has an unfair advantage over the E6400 because of the additional cache, for this reason it is unethical to compare the two and pass them off as the same processor. I never said it was a big advantage or a small advantage, but the advantage exists and I pointed it out. Secondly I never said the E6400 couldnt run new games @ 2GHz, I said the E6400 will limit the maximum performance in which the 5750 or GTS 250 has. There is a difference. 





Benetanegia said:


> and that it will only make the GTX295 33% slower than an i7 @3.6Ghz.



Perhaps



Benetanegia said:


> I already showed that the difference between Wolfdale (E8200) and Conroe is _negligible_..



You never posted a Wolfdale with 6MB Cache vs Conroe vs a 2MB cache review so how did you prove it was a negligible difference? 

Whether the difference is negligible wasn’t my initial point, the point is that sitting at 2GHz the Conroe with 2MB will restrict certain video cards from reaching their full potential, and to a certain extent a E8xxx sitting at only 2GHz  may also restrict certain video cards from reaching their full potential. But just because I believe  the video card will not reach its full potential, it doesn’t mean games will not run well, but it might mean newer games might suffer, hence the overclock recommendation. 



Benetanegia said:


> I already showed that 2 mb versus 4mb cache, or what it is the same Conroe vs Allandale makes little difference too so A=B & B=C soooo A=C-----> 2mb = 6mb. Anyone with a working brain can understand that. I have already demostrated that a Core 2 E6400 will play



Yes, but you are forgetting the other tweaks unrelated to cache which may have gone into these processors as intel transition from Conroe to Allandale to Wolfdale.  You presume cache was the only adaption.



Benetanegia said:


> any game and you have demonstrated nothing so far.



What do you want me to demonstrate and I'll do it?




Benetanegia said:


> You still keep spreading FUD and BS saying that a E6400 will bottleneck games when is more than obvious from my proofs that is not



Again, reading impaired. I said that the E6400 at stock can play games at high settings. But newer games might require an overclock to get the most out of the video card. 

I _never_ said the "E6400 will bottleneck games", if I said that quote me 

The funny thing is, I never said the E6400 couldn’t play games. You are presuming that I said something that I never did. Post #6 I said:



> _I believe the E6400 is clocked really low @ 2.1GHz. Sitting at stock it will bottleneck most video cards, including the 5750 or GTS 250, that isnt to say games will not run, older games should run at high settings, but it will struggle on to maintain decent frame rates on newer games. I would suggest overclocking the processor,_


http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1958484&postcount=6

Let me translate my quote above as you have difficulty decoding long sentences. I am saying that the E6400 @ 2GHz can play games well even at high settings if they're older, however on newer games he may not get the full benefit of the 5750 or GTS250, just because he doesn’t get the full benefit it doesn’t mean that he will not have a good gaming experience. To further enhance his gaming experience overclocking  of the CPU could be performed. I did not once insinuate the E6400 could not play games and If I did the OP would of called me out on my BS.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 16, 2010)

You guys make strong points, but it's not really helping the OP. Ben is right stick with what he has.

 @Pikem4n are you going to be running a 32bit OS or 64bit? If it's just 32bit then 2gb will be fine. You can upgrade later. As for PSU i would get the Cosair one. I have a E6400 and it overclocked to 3ghz in the winter time..lol but in the heat I had to back it down to 2.4 to 2.6Ghz. it varied on how hot the day got. lol The 250 is a great card and has a G92 chip. Your new setup will be like night and day.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

Mindweaver said:


> Ben is right stick with what he has.



You mean that we are both right because we both told the OP to stick to what he has 


But yeah sorry Pikem4n for messing up your thread, most of it wasnt really constructive to helping you. Corsair make really good PSUs, but if you're on a budget do not be scared to look at a cheaper OCZ or ANTEC at a lower wattage rating. 

When your components come just ask if you need help overclocking, I've seen E6400s reach around 3.5GHz on midrange air cooling, if you are running the stock HSF maybe 3.0GHz should be your upper limits though.

BTW, if you order from Ebuyer you get Free delivery if you select "super saver" on orders over £50.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 16, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> So your evidence consists of two games? only two games? are you serious two games and you are already convinced. One of the games is from 2006 (Crysis), four years ago, and the other game is from 2004 (Unreal Tournament 3), 6 years ago. You are basing games from 6 years ago to prove that the Conroe and Wolfdale are equivalent today in 2010 and beyond?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fail, badly, please improve your google skills the op needs true advice, not random thoughts.
http://games.ign.com/articles/810/810142p1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3


both games are from 2007, both games utilize dx10, all modern games thus will mirror the cpu usage of those two games. Also don't be a fool, it's already been posted all over the forums since they've been around and really I'm tired of being a broken record. If you want better frames, buy a better gpu. If you want a higher 3dmark score, you need a better cpu and gpu combination.

the gpu does the work during the game, not the cpu. The cpu cna already handfle all the instructions for the game at a high framrate. the gpu is then left to do all the shaders, textures, and all the other effects that cause frames to drop like rocks. 

the op already has the combo. Stop trolling this thread telling him to get soemthing else. Just reocmend the best setup he can get for the money with what he already has.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

^

Yogurt, whether I got the date of the games release correct or incorrect is not the issue at hand. The intensity of the game isn’t the issue at hand either.

The issue at hand is that a E6400 at stock (2.1GHz) may restrict certain video cards from reaching their full potential in newer titles. Again this is not to say half-potential isn’t enough to game well.

I agree the OP has his combo, I was one of the first people to recommend that he KEEPs his combo (ask Pikem4n  yourself), your post is mis-guided and you should probably delete it as its based on the wrong argument and frankly isn’t helping the OP either.


----------



## Pikem4n (Jul 16, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> You mean that we are both right because we both told the OP to stick to what he has
> 
> 
> But yeah sorry Pikem4n for messing up your thread, most of it wasnt really constructive to helping you. Corsair make really good PSUs, but if you're on a budget do not be scared to look at a cheaper OCZ or ANTEC at a lower wattage rating.
> ...



Hey no worries Dent,it made me smile seeing people offer their views and criticisms in regards to whats hot or not, only wish i knew about the ebuyer thing, i bought both the hdd and ram from there,not at the sametime and i wasn't aware of the super saver thing lol.

Btw just wondering about the O/S am i right in thinking its going to cost near to 100 quid for windows 7?


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2010)

Pikem4n said:


> Btw just wondering about the O/S am i right in thinking its going to cost near to 100 quid for windows 7?



The within 5 working days "super saver" option appears in the drop down list once the items are in your basket for orders over £50. Depending on the day you order and luck your items can come sooner. 

Windows 7 is well worth it, I used it for a few months during the beta phase, I am back on Windows Vista and whilst its good it feels more bloated, my ram usage has suffered. You never really specified the types of gaming you'll be doing but in my experience 2GBs is enough for general usage, but gaming with either Vista or 7 might be sluggish. With respect to your budget I'd add another 2GBs of ram in a few months down the line if money is tight.

Take a look at this link and It’ll explain the differences between Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate, it might be worth buying the 64-bit version to ensure that all 4GBs can be populated.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare

You might be able to shave money off if you opt for the OEM OS opposed to the retail version.

System Builder Software (OEM) - Windows 7 | Ebuyer...

Edit:

Ebuyer are doing a short promotional offer ATM where all orders, even ones under £50 are FREE, but its upto the buyer to select "super saver" in the basket still. Technology Delivered | Ebuyer.com


----------



## Pikem4n (Jul 25, 2010)

Hello all

Just like to say that the pc is now built and running really well ,i've not had a good fragging session as of yet BUT i have had a quick dabble @ quakelive and i am pulling a steady 125fps 

With the motherboard,cpu and fan i bought off my mate, the new stuff i opted for was the following -A samsung 1TB f3 hdd,2gb of crucial ballistic memory (will be 4gb come next month) a ocz 600 stealthxstream psu, the generics gfx card turned out to be a Inno3D 250 gts and i for the OS i got windows 7 64-bit all installed without any problems at all.

Anyway just like to say a big thanks to those who helped me with the constructive views and the others who were not  All i need now is 2GB more of ram, a widescreen lcd monitor and a decent HD webcam which shall be bought next month and I shall try to get a picture or 2 uploaded somewhere, once again cheers all.

Regards from Pikeman


----------

