[Case Gallery] 680i Quad Gaming Rig **1st Build** v2.0

[p_o_s_pc]

sorry about that after looking at the case and the WM also the specs again i put aside that i don't like the case and gave you a new rating.

 

[Robert_GameXpert]

Excellent build so I will give a 7 - I would think to get a 10 you will really need to focus on aesthetice - it looks great as is, but I think the stickers on the side spoil the look a bit.

 

[Scrizz]

onboard audio, minus 1 point
9.2/10 lol

 

[Ravenas]

onboard audio, minus 1 point
9.2/10 lol

Hehe, thanks much. Yeah I've been debating wether to get a new sound card or a tv tuner card... Maybe I should just get both! lol

 

[Scrizz]

yeah lol

 

[Weer]

I give you an 8/10 because of the horrible CPU overclock, and the Ultra.

 

[Ravenas]

Cool thanks, what problems do you have with the Ultra?

 

[btarunr]

2x 3.0 > 4x 2.8

Dude, that's a nice-a$$ rig you've built. But seriously if I were you, I'd get myself a Core 2 Duo E6850, a dual-core that chugs at 3.0 GHz, you can take it upto 3.53 GHz with the same cooling you used in your rig. You'd say four cores are better than two, but 3DMark 06 and Vista's internal benchmark aren't really four-threaded applications. Plus four cores sharing a 1066 MHz FSB is a bottleneck and a power-hog compared to the E6850's two cores feasting on a 1333 MHz FSB, your NF 680i supports FSB 1333 as well. E6850 spews a TDP of 70W at stock-speed, 92W at 3.55 GHz and costs as less as $180.

I'll rate your rig 9/10, sure your choice of CPU was okay, but your four cores will come handy in the future. Take it up to 2.93 GHz, you've got pretty good cooling and winter's round the corner.

 

[Ravenas]

Dude, that's a nice-a$$ rig you've built. But seriously if I were you, I'd get myself a Core 2 Duo E6850, a dual-core that chugs at 3.0 GHz, you can take it upto 3.53 GHz with the same cooling you used in your rig. You'd say four cores are better than two, but 3DMark 06 and Vista's internal benchmark aren't really four-threaded applications. Plus four cores sharing a 1066 MHz FSB is a bottleneck and a power-hog compared to the E6850's two cores feasting on a 1333 MHz FSB, your NF 680i supports FSB 1333 as well. E6850 spews a TDP of 70W at stock-speed, 92W at 3.55 GHz and costs as less as $180.

I'll rate your rig 9/10, sure your choice of CPU was okay, but your four cores will come handy in the future. Take it up to 2.93 GHz, you've got pretty good cooling and winter's round the corner.

Hehe thanks man.

However, I did get the same 3dmark06 score as someone with a 3.8 ghz oc on a c2d @ 2.86. Problem is, my mobo has a fsb wall can't get past 318 fsb.

 

[btarunr]

You're both right and wrong.
The "right" part: Yes, you're right saying your NF 680i mobo sits tight at FSB 318.
The "wrong" part: That it's your mobo that's holding your FSB at FSB 318.

The "why" part: You see, NV made the NF 680i in a way that it supported all the stock 1066 (266) chips, be it Conroe (2 core) or Kentsfield (4 core). And the chipset is designed to take even the stock 1333 (333) FSB like C2D 6550, C2D 6750, C2D 6850 etc. BUT, when making the BIOS, most vendors didn't enable FSB 1333 for Quads. That's right. So the C2 Quads stall at close to FSB 320 (like the 318 at which yours stalled). However a simple BIOS update fixes it. Because irrespective of it being a 1/2/4 core chip, FSB 1333 is supported by the 680i. But the BIOS doesn't seem to recognise Quad-core FSB 1333 chips like the Q6750 (2.66/333).

Yours being a Kentsfield 266 FSB chip, gives you room to take it till 325 at brutal cooling.

Another thing, if you weren't aware: The Core 2 Extreme series chips are the only ones that have a completely unlocked multiplier. Others, Core 2 Duo/Quad have a downward multiplier meaning that though its unlocked, you cannot take the multiplier value above the stock value. C2Q Q6600 has a 9.0x multiplier, 9 x 266 = 2394 (your stock speed)

Cheers!

 

[Ravenas]

You're both right and wrong.
The "right" part: Yes, you're right saying your NF 680i mobo sits tight at FSB 318.
The "wrong" part: That it's your mobo that's holding your FSB at FSB 318.

The "why" part: You see, NV made the NF 680i in a way that it supported all the stock 1066 (266) chips, be it Conroe (2 core) or Kentsfield (4 core). And the chipset is designed to take even the stock 1333 (333) FSB like C2D 6550, C2D 6750, C2D 6850 etc. BUT, when making the BIOS, most vendors didn't enable FSB 1333 for Quads. That's right. So the C2 Quads stall at close to FSB 320 (like the 318 at which yours stalled). However a simple BIOS update fixes it. Because irrespective of it being a 1/2/4 core chip, FSB 1333 is supported by the 680i. But the BIOS doesn't seem to recognise Quad-core FSB 1333 chips like the Q6750 (2.66/333).

Yours being a Kentsfield 266 FSB chip, gives you room to take it till 325 at brutal cooling.

Another thing, if you weren't aware: The Core 2 Extreme series chips are the only ones that have a completely unlocked multiplier. Others, Core 2 Duo/Quad have a downward multiplier meaning that though its unlocked, you cannot take the multiplier value above the stock value. C2Q Q6600 has a 9.0x multiplier, 9 x 266 = 2394 (your stock speed)

Cheers!

There still hasn't been a single BIOS update.

 

[btarunr]

There still hasn't been a single BIOS update.

But XFX, BFG, EVGA: Makers of NF 600 series boards have all given BIOS updates for 1333 MHz Kentsfield processors months ago, check their websites.

 

[Ravenas]

But XFX, BFG, EVGA: Makers of NF 600 series boards have all given BIOS updates for 1333 MHz Kentsfield processors months ago, check their websites.

Yeah I can remember reading about those updates, thing is Gigabyte seems to not be paying too much attention to this board... Guess I'll just have to wait.

 

[Flightsimmer]

Just wondering, what can I do to get a 10 (from those of you who voted 9 or less)?

Make something to rival this.

Sorry, not trying to be rude or anything, but this is a case modding gallery. I love to see modded stuff and while you have some holes cut out for better CM, I wouldn't really call that worthy of a "10". Don't get me wrong, I really like your computer, I gave it an 8 (which is higher than my average). But I haven't given anyone a 10 yet and I likely won't until I see something that's just so outrageous there's no doubt it deserves a perfect score. I wouldn't come here with anything less and expect a 10 from everyone.

ps. for more of that case check it out here if you haven't already

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=76374

 

[mamat555]

I voted 2/10 because:

......