[serverguy]

That build is pretty good apart from the power supply. Get a Corsair 620 or similar. Something from the Corsair range around 500 - 700W.

Also, that is one hell of a processor. It is almost certainly overkill.

The benefits of a Core I7 system are basically the memory bandwidth ( much faster communication between the RAM making things seem faster) and the way that it can scale two graphics cards. Supposedly dual / tri graphics cards perform up to 50 pecent better on the X58 motherboards.

Oh, and it is the most up to date kit available.

[Razer]

As good as things appearing faster may be, an I7 still is a bit much for me. Both cost and usefulness. Could save money and get adequate performance no?

I'll have a look into getting a corsair PSU, any reccomendations on the wattage? I dont wanna buy a kilowatt one when 500 watt is more than enough haha

[thingie2]

Yea, Core i7 isn't worth it at the moment.

As for the PSU, I would recommend the Corsair 650W if you don't want modular, and the 620W if you do.

[serverguy]

We don't know what is going to happen to Core I7 prices by January.

[thingie2]

I suppose getting a core i7 in January might be OK, but at this exact point in time, it's not worth it.

[Razer]

I'll look again at the I7 setups in Jan but I doubt they will be at a good enough price, the C2Q's mght have come down to a better price too. I didn't think they would be worth it yet, its brand new technology and is therefore expensive. While quad core isn't Cheap per se, I'd assume at the moment its better value based on price and performance.

Quick question while I look at the picture I posted, the processor doesn't say 64 bit on its description, that mean I have to change? Having only ever built 32 bit systems up to this point I've never really thought about it.

Thanks again guys, this is excellent stuff! =D

[serverguy]

No the processor is fine. It is suitable for 64 bit.

[Carbon]

Originally Posted by Razer

While quad core isn't Cheap per se, I'd assume at the moment its better value based on price and performance.

For the kind of work that quad cores do, it's actually great price/performance. $1000 Quad Extremes are destroyed by <$400 i7s in Cinebench and niche scientific applications. The problem here is that you are attempting to gauge price/performance against a quad, instead of doing it against a dual - in which case the dual obviously wins out.

Every time someone calls their computer a "rig" I want to shoot myself. Nonetheless, I'll begrudgingly offer my advice: the 1200 is a horrid case (Coolermaster Cosmos 1010 or S is much better), and you're better off with a P45 (the P43 is very much a budget motherboard).

I'm also questioning your logic here with the processor. Disregarding the obvious quad/dual thing, you seem to be very interested in buying overkill processing power and focusing very little money and time on your graphics card. There is no reason to buy a high-end CPU. Zero. If you are spending over $200 on your CPU, you are slashing away at performance with a rusty hatchet because for every bit of money you spend on a CPU that money would increase frames by 100x or more being dedicated to the graphics card. It's also a lot more fun if you're at 1920x1200.

So what I suggest is simple. If you want to keep the quad, fine. I don't suggest it, in fact I would advise against it. But what you should really be investing in is not a fancy case or a $300 X58 motherboard with a $300 processor but dumping that seemingly large budget into 1. a high-end monitor and 2. just as high end of a graphics card. Not knowing your total budget, I have no idea how to break this down. It doesn't help when I see ValueRAM and a Twelve Hundred in the same list.

Something like:

- P182
- 4GB RAM
- GTX 260
- P45 motherboard
- Corsair 650
- Spinpoint 1TB or WD 640GB
- 1920x1200 monitor (these exist out of 24" now)
- E8500

..would be the more ideal start. I'm not sure if this will cost more, but I severely doubt it.

[Razer]

I can save money on the monitor there, the one being delivered to me shortly is more than enough and does do 1600x1200. As I say I'm not a graphics freak and am not going to freak out over 1 jagged edge on my games haha so I'm not looking to spend £300 on a graphics card either.

Since I'm going to be using this computer over a period of about 10 years, can I ask why you would suggest dual core over quad? That E8500 does look very good and supplies better FPS in most games over a Q6600 but in time will quad core serve me better than that dual core?

[serverguy]

Originally Posted by Razer

Since I'm going to be using this computer over a period of about 10 years, can I ask why you would suggest dual core over quad? That E8500 does look very good and supplies better FPS in most games over a Q6600 but in time will quad core serve me better than that dual core?

10 years! You really better be looking for I7

Who knows what is going to happen with the quads. Most probably more games will start to support them, as well as more applications.

A Q6600 is a bad investment IMO though. It is old, and been replaced by far better quads.