My proposed build

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Well guys, I've found out everything I needed to know about the parts.

That PSU has very good reviews on Tom's Hardware and other well known hardware review sites, so I think I'm safe with it.

I am tempted also to go for the Geforce 8800 GTX as I expect to only be able to fit one graphics card in (as it'll cover 2xPCI-E slots supposedly).

I'll be ordering the parts within the next few weeks and, if you are all interested, I'll post some pics to let you all know how my first build is going!

Thanks for all the help!

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Unless you can get an 8800GTX dirt cheap (and I mean for about 120-140) then I wouldn't bother. I'd go for a factory overclocked 8800 GT. You can pick them up for about £110 now and they can match and in some cases beat a GTX. I believe the GTX is better at very high resolutions.

Cheapest GTX I could see on Ebuyer was £276 and that is a total rip off compared to a GT IMO. If you want that extra bit of power, maybe go for the newer of the GTS's (512MB as opposed to the 320 or 640 which are based on the older tech).

 

Looks like the new Geforce 9800GTX's are fast cards and are the fastest single card based on the G92 chip (which is also in the 8800 GT's and some 8800 GTS's).

The 9800GTX is not to be confused with the 9800GX2. It's not SLI'ed like the latter so much less problems when it comes to driver support. Looks like you can pick one up for about 180ish at the moment.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/143065

I'm not sure it's worth the extra cost compared to an pre-overclocked 8800GT though. It's difficult at the moment, there is a great deal of choice out there and ATI now seem to be getting back into the game with some good value high speed cards as well. Talk about a minefield.

 

Thanks for the advice Modey! I've read up on those now and a lot of people are suggesting waiting on the GeForce 9900 GTX and 9900 GTS cards, so depending on when they come out (hopefully before august) then I'll get one. I can make myself wait until then, but not much longer as I want this beast up and running for Uni

 

Get a £25 card for now so you can get the beast built, then add the new graphics card when they are available.

 

The only problem with waiting is that by August there will be another card just round the corner that sounds even better for less money. It's always the way with PC upgrading.

 

I am going for the same CPU as you C2D E8400. I am either getting the P5K or the Asus Rampage formula.

Get the 8800GT 512MB factory overclocked jobby, the EVGA ones are great.

 

Just as a small off topic here, but still interesting for the OP.

I know that XP won't see 4GB of RAM but only 3.x but how much will Vista see? Modey mentioned that even the 32 bit Vista will only see the same as XP but the 64 bit Vista would see all 4GB. Could anyone clarify this a little?

Edit: I actually found this article at MS that explains quite a bit.

Second edit: this blog entry explains it even better.

 

Yep, and EVGA have a 90-day 'step up' programme! Very good

I was asked by a friend "Why are you buying a dual core 3ghz instead of a quad core 2.4ghz?"..
My first answer was because, forgetting the number of cores for a second, the dual core still has lower clock speeds.. then I thought WTH!

The Dual core is £128. The quad core is £130, and I can overclock the quad core to 3ghz and get double (literally this time) for £2 extra, with no need for any extra cooling..

Why did I never think of it!?? Quad core here goes I guess...

 

But... by that same logic, you could overclock that dual-core as well... to far over 3 GHz. Thus, you don't really get double for nothing, if you're cool with overclocking anyway...

Just sayin'.

 

But nothing uses 4 cores really at the moment. Overclock the C2D to 4GHz or overclock the Quad to 3.4GHz, the C2D will still be faster

 

Thanks for that!

Yes I suppose, but I really wanted 3Ghz as a minimum and anything more would be a bonus. It's a hard decision..

Well would you rather have a 3.5ghz Dual core or a 3ghz quad core. The core speed to core quantity ratio (if that makes any sense) makes me think that.

I wont be doing video editing or rendering and there's only one game that'll use all 4 cores (supreme commander) but, come on, it's an extra £2.. Yet the 4ghz is faster.

Is there really a right answer here?

 

If you compare the E8400 3GHz C2D cpu and the QX6600 2.4 GHz cpu, you will see that the c2d cpu has a higher FSB. The quad core has a higher cache but thats only if the cores are being used to their full extend which they wont so the c2d is the one.

I'll go up to quad core when there is a need for it.

 

Me, I'd rather have the 3.5 GHz dual core. I'll use two cores (or one core!) a lot more than I'll use four cores... and when apps ARE programmed to better handle multiple cores, the quad cores will be cheaper (which I can upgrade to using my current mobo), and more cores (8 or more) will be available.

But there's not really a wrong answer to this question; either would be good for now.

 

Slightly off topic... The link on that blog to the MSDN page, it says you can add the /3GB switch to the boot.ini file on Vista, Server 2003, XP et al. Now I thought Vista did not have a boot.ini file as it uses the Boot Configuration Data (BCD) file.

We used the /3GB switch to tune the RAM on a SQL server at work running Server 2003, it did a nice job so I know it works, but not sure how it could be setup in Vista. There may be a BCDEdit command for it.

 

The /3GB switch does some strange things. Be *sure* you want to use it.

However it *doesn't* enable a 32bit OS to use more memory - it just redistributes how it uses memory.

Harry.

 

The /PAE switch (physical address extensions) will allow a supported 32bit OS to use more than 4GB of RAM. I used it on a 32bit Server 2003 Enterprise Edition server to run 16GB of RAM for a test project I did with some IBM data analysing software. Whatever you do, don't use the /3GB and /PAE switch together, bad things will happen (your server wont boot....)

 

Indeed. However - before using the /PAE switch research it for your app. Some apps don't like it and misbehave with it.

My view is that if you *need* more than 4GB do it properly!

Harry.

 

Does this PAE allow you to use all 4GB, or just see it?