PC build

[Bush]

I'm planning to make a system for about 500-600 dollars. I'll probably buy everything from Newegg, but I prefer tigerdirect for looking; so links are to TD.

I've been looking at the AMD Phenom 965: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... u=A79-1965
ATi (or AMD GRRRR) 5830 or 5850: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... _P450-5836
case will probably be free
HDD and DVD burner I can scavenge
this ram: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... u=P33-2005 ,
this PSU: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... ULT-LSP750 .

What I need help with is the mobo, and if I can get a better Intel CPU for around the same price, please let me know. I will want to do crossfirex in the future most likely, and I think you can't really beat the 5830 for the price, unless I can snag a 5850 on ebay for about the same. Thanks for the help.

 

[samjc3]

Should be able to pick up a Gtx 460 for about the same price as that 5830, which I think is a better deal. Benchmarks are about the same, but Nvidia is better than ATI. Cuda is god and phys-x is awesome. SLI 460's benchmark quite a bit higher than CrossfireX 5830s too.

Also it seems kinda silly to go phenom now. Bulldozer is right around the corner, and sandy bridge is here. You would be better off using one of those.

 

[Mako321]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... CatId=6988
Pay the extra for the CPU, get a 500 watt LSP instead. You honestly don't need over 500 watts for anything more than a CFX'd 58XX and up or dual SLI'd Fermis. (to my knowledge)

 

[Bush]

Whats better about that processor?

 

[samjc3]

Faster, lower TDP, intel.

 

[Bush]

It has a lower clock, so how is it faster? I know clock speed isnt everything, so what factors make it faster? And whats TDP?

 

[samjc3]

Thats a core processor. The 2.8 is the base clock, and it will clock itself to 3.1ghz when the speed is needed. Also intel processors have always been more efficient per ghz than AMD. Just better design overall. And TDP= thermal design power, which is to say total heat output.

 

[vskid3]

Also intel processors have always been more efficient per ghz than AMD.

(In the last 5 or so years, the Athlon XP wiped the floor with the P4 clock for clock)

Unless you are going for a budget system, I would go Intel. AMD's cheap CPUs are a great deal, but Intel is better when you get higher up.

 

[bic]

It has a lower clock, so how is it faster?

AMDs have to be clocked higher to keep up with Intels from the same time frame. Also with Intel you get Hyperthreading and better power efficiency.

People only buy AMD because they're cheap and don't know any better.

the Athlon XP wiped the floor with the P4 clock for clock

NetBurst has been gone for years, Intel has been well ahead of AMD since Conroe.

 

[Bush]

Ok, is that cpu a sandy bridge or the first series?

 

[Mako321]

Sandy Bridge.
The revised motherboards are already for sale though, no Sata II problems.

 

[samjc3]

Its Sandy bridge. Not that the Sata II issues should have been issues to anyone since anyone with any self respect would use SATA III, but the new mobos are out.

 

[Twilight Wolf]

People only buy AMD because they're not rich people.

Fix'd, though to be fair Intel has dramatically improved their priceerformance since I built my desktop.

 

[Bush]

Alrighty, did some research on that cpu and i also saw the model up, the 2400. Do you guys think its worth the 35 more to grab that instead? If so my total is about 560, plus hdd and a dvd drive, so around 600 altogether if i can grab those for cheap. And mako, i want the 750w just to be safe, the gpu draws 500 at max and i think the cpu is around 125w (at least, the amd one im no longer looking at).

 

[vskid3]

the Athlon XP wiped the floor with the P4 clock for clock

NetBurst has been gone for years, Intel has been well ahead of AMD since Conroe.

I know, I was just saying that Intel hasn't always been faster. They've really kicked it in gear these last few years, leaving poor AMD always a step or two behind.

 

[Mako321]

the gpu draws 500 at max

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?
No, it doesn't.
A 5830 runs at about 140w at full use, a 5850 runus at about 155w full load. If either ran at 500w, ATI'd be *Can'tSayThisOnTV*ed.
To put things into perspective, a 5970 run at about 300w peak.

 

[Bush]

Ah ok, sorry I know very little about all of this; I was just going by the specs on TD. Changing topic, is the i5 2400 worth the extra 35 over the 2300?

Edit: it appears to be 190 rather than 225.

 

[samjc3]

The clock speed is really the only difference between the two. So the difference would only be noticeable on CPU intensive things, like boot, and ray tracing stuff. For most purpose the difference wont be big, and the gaming performance probably wont be changed at all. So no, not really worth it.

 

[vskid3]

Are you comparing TD's prices to Newegg? Even if TD is cheaper, Newegg usually has much more information and reviews.

You could probably OC the slower CPU to the same speed as the more expensive one.

 

[Bush]

Well this article has convinced be to at least get the 2400: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... -2300.html and maybe even the 2500k. The kicker is that its not only faster, but the other two dont support overclocking in the same way; the 2300 and 2400 are limited, they can only go a few 100mhz up, while the 2500k can go to 4.7ghz without problem according to that article. The issue is, im not sure i would ever need to OC.