A possible future system

[Gig-O-Ram]

With my new job in hand, and the better money involved, I've sort of been messing around with ideas for a new system. It won't necessarily replace this system I'm on now, as it still works fine and has no major issues. Me with two systems all my own? Sort of overkill....Two people here and three PCs and a Lappy. But it just had its second birthday a while back, and I've been eager to do another build for a long time. I've done a couple for people in my family, and it's time I did one for me, LOL!

I haven't decided on a case yet, but here is a list of possible components I've made, some of which may change depending on what I figure I want to do when I'm ready to go with it:

Board
Video Card
PSU

CPU
RAM
HDD x2
DVD ROM
DVD Burner

Sound Card
CPU Cooler

[Tech Geek Deluxe]

Maybe an E8400 would get you more speed.
https://www.tankguys.com/product_inf...oducts_id=1815

[Gig-O-Ram]

Help me out here...I've never been able to get this straight - in any multicore CPU, I've been told that EACH core is running at whatever rated speed - in the case of my choice, four cores running at 2.4GHz. The CPU you suggest is two cores running at 3GHz. I understand 3 being faster than 2.4, but in the case of the quad core, is that not a total of 2.4 x 4 cores= 9.6Ghz? Or is it the 2.4GHz running over all four cores at the same time? And consequently 3GHz running over both cores on the one you showed?

If that's true, why would anyone go with four slower cores than two faster ones? Did that make any sense?

[diabloplayer75]

Originally Posted by Gig-O-Ram

Help me out here...I've never been able to get this straight - in any multicore CPU, I've been told that EACH core is running at whatever rated speed - in the case of my choice, four cores running at 2.4GHz. The CPU you suggest is two cores running at 3GHz. I understand 3 being faster than 2.4, but in the case of the quad core, is that not a total of 2.4 x 4 cores= 9.6Ghz? Or is it the 2.4GHz running over all four cores at the same time? And consequently 3GHz running over both cores on the one you showed?

If that's true, why would anyone go with four slower cores than two faster ones? Did that make any sense?

I just built a pc with the E8400 and it is very quick.
I don't know as much as some of the guys here, but from what i do understand, the E8400 is using the new Penryn which runs quicker and cooler, using less energy then the E6600. That same core is offered in quad core in the Q9300 and Q9450 if you really want to go quad.

Now, to the GHZ, each core runs at 3ghz, but that does not mean the system has 6ghz, it means you have two separate cores running at 3ghz each to do what ever task. If the program is not multi threaded, and does not take full advantage of multiple cores, then you will see better results with less cores at higher rates.

The quad core is more future proof, however for right now the dual cores are superior for gaming, it depends on what applications your going to use your computer for. '

Look at this thread if ya like, it was for my computer build and i had so many questions answered it was not even funny.
Need Help Building a computer, new to this
Gl :)

[screwballl]

Relating to speeds..... programs that only use 1 core will run faster using the 3GHz dual core... but the programs that do use multiple cores will see better performance from the quad compared to the dual core so it is kind of a trade off and dependent on what you will be using it for....

[Tech Geek Deluxe]

• Gig-O-Ram ... I have a Q6600 [Quad Core] and love it. [Main PC]
• I also have a Xeon 3110 [Dual Core] that is almost identical to the E8400 ... I love it also ... [Server]

The issue seems to be "value/performance" ... it is more likely you will see better performance with the E8400 than the Q6600 especially for the current games available and most other PC operations. Their are demanding tasks and multitasks that the Quad will do better ... but average PC/Gamer use will benefit more from the E8400.


The above generalities are true at the stock cores. The very nice thing about these chips is that they overclock with relative ease.

• It is easy to over-clock most Q6600 [GO stepping] to 3GHZ up to 3.2GHZ [Super Stable]
• It is relatively easy to over-clock most E8400 to 3.6GHZ up to 4GHZ [Super Stable] ... very easy with the Abit-IP35 Pro you have selected.

[azianai]

just a preference thing, maybe look at the Gigabyte EP35-DS3R board, i just figured mine out and the bios was very friendly for me being a 1st time OCer, and save 10 bucks =)
Newegg.com - GIGABYTE GA-EP35-DS3R LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Dynamic Energy Saver Ultra Durable II Intel Motherboard - Intel Motherboards
Any specific reason why you want the Akimbo 8800GT? Right now the normal EVGA GT is 160 AR i believe, and slapping on an Artic Cooler Accelero S1'll still be cheaper than the 220. At 220, i'd look at getting the GTS G92.

Not sure bout the PSU, but for 100 maybe look at a 80% Efficient one. Any reason for 700W? the corsair 650TX is available cheaper 4 dollars cheaper but a smaller rebate, so less up front. Newegg.com - CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX ATX12V / EPS12V 650W Power Supply 100 - 240 V UL, CE, CB, TUV, FCC, CCC - Power Supplies

CPU i'd drop the Quad personally, especially the Q6600, its a good processor, but unless you need 4 cores, its better to put that $$ towards the new 45nm ones either E8400 or E8500.

Other than that, i see its a nice build =)
I use the DVD drive too, oh may want to go for round IDE cables for better cable management.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Gig-O-Ram

Help me out here...I've never been able to get this straight - in any multicore CPU, I've been told that EACH core is running at whatever rated speed - in the case of my choice, four cores running at 2.4GHz. The CPU you suggest is two cores running at 3GHz. I understand 3 being faster than 2.4, but in the case of the quad core, is that not a total of 2.4 x 4 cores= 9.6Ghz? Or is it the 2.4GHz running over all four cores at the same time? And consequently 3GHz running over both cores on the one you showed?

If that's true, why would anyone go with four slower cores than two faster ones? Did that make any sense?

Here is a better way to think of it. Say you have a large load that you need to haul from point A to point B. You have a choice of splitting that load either between Two trucks with larger engines and making more then one trip, or splitting the load between 4 trucks with smaller engines and making the haul in one trip.

Multi-Cores/CPUs doesn't make the processor faster as far as actual speed goes. It's just enables you're computer to balance the processor load a little better. Keep in mind that very few programs are optimized for using dual cores let alone quad cores. While havening quad cores will benefit you in some programs your overall performance won't improve that much with quad cores over dual cores.

[Gig-O-Ram]

At this point, I'm just looking at different parts and playing around with different ideas. My parts list might change depending on what I find when I'm ready to start buying parts. The PSU may change, and the CPU may change. I was looking at that one PSU because I want to make sure there's adequate power for the (likely) 4GB of RAM I'll want, and I think the 8800GTs are fairly power hungry as well. I'll likely have two HDDs and two opticals. I know the drives don't use THAT much power, but I don't want to fall short either.

The video card, along with all the other parts on the list are just preliminary based on what I thought I might want to spend. I was thinking quad core because I thought that might be the way to go within the year or so. But I wasn't considering that there are programs that don't necessarily utilize all four cores. Also, like my current system, it will be primarily for gaming along with other basic stuff. I just think that my system is probably not going to be able to play newer games as time goes on, so that's why I want to do another build.

[azianai]

well Gig (too lazy to type the rest, yes i know this is longer than your name =P ), if you look at my setup, im sure i draw more power than you will with your setup you're thinking right now. And i run everything fine on a 520W system. I got 3 HDs in it for approx 1.8TB of HD space, the GX2 that'll draw more power than any GT, and it all runs fine.