What do you think thos build?

[Dwayne]

[H]ardOCP has a new review up on the HD4870X2 and it seems that they got the power consumption at idle under control, more or less. It is still a beast mind you!

[H] Enthusiast - AMD ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2

[tzetsin]

i also want to point out that there is more to a computer than video games, if your using Vista, and i assume you are, the quad will make your os run better. It'll also make multi tasking more bareable. if your going to do any modern benches, you'll need a quad, as any new bench is going to make use of those extra cores. there are alot more reason's to having a quad on a computer than just gaming.

Check out Dwayne's link, read the review... you'll notice that the "stock" Q6600 is around 5 to 10 frames difference at the LOWEST resolution. as soon as you bump the res up even one notch they all bench the same anyway so there is no difference between running an e8400 over even a stock clock q6600. You might ask why bother with the quad if there isnt any difference anyway... I say to that, no bother... today. but games will be multi threaded tomorrow and im not talking future proof i'm talking like 6 months, a year... Any RTS game will be cpu hungry and multi threaded, get yourself a copy of Flight Simulator X, if you have a dual core, good luck running autogen, i DOUBLE my framerates and have no chugging on my quad vs my dual. ATM fsx is the most processor bound game i know and shows today what games of the tomorrow area going to be like for a dual core. perhaps not so much on FPS games becuase they really are quite "simple", but there are alot more genres than FPS.

now dont forget that the review in that link didnt bother overclocking. a half decent aftermarket cooler will net that q6600 3.0ghz, same speed as the e8400 and only 20 bucks more. with twice the processing capability.

[NOOBUNIT]

I knew it, but my friend kept insisteing that a 620 watt is enough, and i will look into all the suggestions made here, before making any final decisions, i chose the xion case just to be diffrenet lol and ive heard great reviews about and iv'e seen one in action =P. Also, ive had plenty of research between vista and the duo to quad and ive decided to go with a duo since my gaming and homework etc will be done sepreately so i dont need multi thread, also i heard games take the advantage of both cores compared to the quad where you have 2 not in use, so i dont know yet >.<, i also need to know if i can use XP rather than vista to run the video card. more research >.<

[geokilla]

If you don't trust me, here's a good thread of why the Corsair HX620 is more than enough for the 4870X2. Corsair HX620W Power Supply Running 791W - Can't Break It!!

Also, why are you buying a 4870X2 if you're just going to run a 19 inch monitor? The graphic card will be SEVERELY CPU limited if you use a 19 inch monitor. To me, a 4870X2 is not worth it unless you're going to game using a 24" monitor. A 4850/4870 will be more than enough for the 19 inch monitor.

Also, don't forget about the Acer 22" monitor I showed you at school. That's an excellent multimedia monitor. And you don't need DDR1066 RAM unless you're overclocking A LOT, which probably won't happen unless you're gonna water cool. Running 400FSB with a 1:1 RAM divider = DDR800 speeds. And DDR800 RAM can overclock up to at least DDR900 easily.

Get a Samsung DVD-Writer at NCIX as well. No need to go for a Sony. However, it's your choice.

[cwestwell]

Geokilla is right in both respects the 620 will handle the 4870X2 as I said earlier however for longevity the HX1000 would be a better choice. As long as you get a corsair PSU your set they are almost unbreakable I pushed my HX520 over 600watts for months however now it is dead still in warranty so no real sweat but I have upgraded to the HX1000 to compliment my incoming 4870X2. And as Geo stated if your gonna spend the $$$ on the X2 then spend the $$$ on a bigger monitor to make it worthwhile. or even get 4850 in crossfire for about $360 and get a solid setup then spend the extra on a 24" LCD.

edit..However using the PSU calculator your usage OCed would be 600watt and under

[NOOBUNIT]

O NO, what do i get a quad or duo what if they are right future gaming will use quad core >.<

[Boldeagle]

Future gaming will fully utilise Quad Cores, but when is this going to happen is the question and at what density? Frankly you will be waiting at least a year before hard core mainstream games are showing significant differences between 2 or 4 cores, by then you will be thinking upgrade. The Octa cores will have filtered into the market place. I have a Quad but now wish I had gotten a Dual because I really don't do any excessive "multi-threading, modelling or rendering" which is where the more cores excel. The duals would kick it's but for what I do, gaming and surfing.

[tzetsin]

Originally Posted by Boldeagle

I have a Quad but now wish I had gotten a Dual because I really don't do any excessive "multi-threading, modelling or rendering" which is where the more cores excel. The duals would kick it's but for what I do, gaming and surfing.

i think thats "grass is greener" syndrome check my sig, i have a heavily overclocked dual core and quad core proc and i will tell you FIRST HAND that in every game that i have that doesnt use quad threading i have ZERO performance gain with the dual over the quad.

i'm sure there could be a difference if you run the most simple graphics on a game, where all that ruled was a processor, but after turning the graphics card up a bit to make it pretty, you'll enter GPU bound territory where any cpu of any speed isnt going to help even one extra frame.

if you check out that link you'll notice that what i'm saying is true. but more than the link i'm telling you from experience.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by NOOBUNIT

O NO, what do i get a quad or duo what if they are right future gaming will use quad core >.<

Clock for clock the duo cores are FASTER than a quad in everything unless the software/program can take advantage of said cores; With that said there is very little that does so you gain very little by going to a quad core.

No offense to tzetsin but he's giving really bad advice on this. He keeps talking about the future and blah blah and what does the future contain? Nehalem is around the corner.. what happens in 2 years?

Right now the best cpu on the market is the e8400 and some people may argue the 8600. Personally I ran the e8400 and its a awesome little performer and backed by a good motherboard and good ram will eat the quad for breakfast in a lot of stuff.

Also you don't need a 1000w power supply to run a 4870x2 you could use a Corsair 750w or a PC P&P and be perfectly fine.

I notice you wanted to go with a 19" Widescreen Monitor I also advise against that. The reason is that with a 19" WS monitor you lose vertical desktop space and it feels squished. Either go for a 20" or a 22" depending on budget.

Coolermaster 590/690 tho seemingly over done by everyone is a great case that has plenty of room and cooling and can fist pretty much anything you throw at it. If you don't want to go that route you could go with something like a p182.

Yes theres lots of choices but right now the following is pretty much a guaranteed kick ass system:

e8400
P5Q (any variation)
Mushkin Memory (any variation)

[tzetsin]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Clock for clock the duo cores are FASTER than a quad in everything unless the software/program can take advantage of said cores; With that said there is very little that does so you gain very little by going to a quad core.

your absolutely right, you do gain "little" but you DO gain, you gain nothing at all except a 20 dollar bill by going with a dual core. Even you cant argue that they both perform the same while gaming in any resolution than bare minimum.

Truth enaberif, the e8400 that is sitting im my lesser system was bought because of your arguments. I bought that processor because the system i was building was exclusivly a gaming system i overclocked the hell out of it and went in to play and wasnt overly impressed. of couse the computer was better than the last because of the quad SLI, but really, after swapping out the dual for the quad i noticed NO benifit to my computers gaming ability. EXCEPT of course for the two games that i use that DO utilize quad cores, wich of course the quad was wonderfully benificial.

now without saying anything about the future, there arent many places where the quad will outperform the dual, but whenever you find those places, you'll be happy you had it, also while using cpu affinity your computer will be alot more powerful when doing any muti tasking.

My argument has never been that the quad is "better" or "faster" (because life isnt clock for clock and real life use says that the dual and the quad perform pretty much exactly the same) its always been "its a whole 20 dollars more, and will be awsome on the occasions you need it" where if you cheep out on the 20 bucks, you'll never have the option to use the horsepower.

so my (damn good) advice is:
dual @ 4 ghz vs quad @ 3 ghz = EXACT same gaming performance
dual @ 3 ghz vs quad @ 2.4 ghz = dual is greater than quad.
cheep aftermarket heatsink will easily overclock a Q6600 to 3 ghz.

if you plan to O.C. go with the quad.
if you DONT plan to O.C. go with the DUAL. (as long as the dual is greater than 2.4ghz)