Opinions needed for new computer

[seaside]

Hello guys.

My 5 and 6 old computers are obviously outdated, so I decided to assemble new computer system soon. Assembling it is not the problem, but find right CPU is headache.

* VGA will be ATI 4850 or something in that level, 4 to 8 G memory DDR2 or DDR3 depends on the choice of CPU and the mainboard. Already had other components.

* New system must be able to play HD/blueRay video without a hiccup, able to play Crisis and other 3D games.

* I am hoping I can use it without feeling too outdated for next 2 years.

* Intel or AMD doesn't matter.

* I am looking into the performance/cost ratio. but able to spend more if needed.

I guess high clock dual core CPU like E8400 will do the job. But I am curious about the performance of newer CPUs, and want to know investing more for newer CPU is worthy or not.

- Is there any noticable performance boost with newer quad core to compare with dual core of the same clock speed?

- Is it worthy spend more for i7 at this moment?

- OR, recent CPUs are fairly fast enough anyway, so buying relatively cheap dual core system and getting better VGA is the way to go?

- How well AMD phenom II compare to the intel CPUs at the same price range?

I'd like to hear your opinion and recommendation on this matter.

Thanks.

 

[Mjolnir]

I'm not really sure why ANYONE would want to play crysis anymore; it is basically a buggy unoptimized game.

I personally would go for the new i7 CPUs, since they are not all that much more, but require a completely different socket. If you use an LGA775 CPU like the e8400, then it will be much harder to upgrade later on.

The Intel CPUs tend to outperform the AMD ones. I haven't really payed as much attention to CPUs since I built my computer a year ago, so I am not 100% informed on the i7 CPUs.

 

[StarHalo]

The i7 920 is the unbeatable bang-for-the-buck long-term combo, especially if you're going to be gaming. As-is it'll easily play all the modern games without breaking a sweat, then as an added bonus, you can do some huge overclocking with no/very little added cooling needed. Many users report being able to overclock to 3.6Ghz on air alone, and with more serious cooling, it can actually match the $1000+ 965 Extreme model; very impressive for <$300. This is the chip that will play pretty much everything for the next couple of years.

 

[csshih]

...a cheaper CPU, and a more expensive graphics card.

I never see why people keep recommending top of the line, super expensive CPUs, when you're playing video games..

...video card is more important, especially if you run graphics hogging operating systems like vista.

I'd say, stay with the Core2 line. The i7 series needs DDR3 ram, rather pricey, and not enough of a performance boost for its price.
edit: oop, I'm still in the past. seems DDR3 is cheaper now... go for it!

I've built, for a friend, a PC with a Core2 E7300, and an Nvida 280 card a few months back.
It still runs crysis on max. (23" monitor)

 

[orbital]

+

If I could do it right now,
I'd start with an i7 system & the lowest latency DDR3 I could find.

GPUs come & go.. there are always die shrinks and architectural changes.

 

[LEDAdd1ct]

I am in a similar boat, though for me, it is more of an "I wish I could afford to build a new computer right now." But, yeah, I've been debating the same thing, E8500 vs. i7 920. For a small bump up in price, you get a newer socket, newer board, newer architecture, faster RAM...I say go for the i7!

 

[Mjolnir]

CPUs definitely aren't as important as they used to be. I only have a Q6600 overclocked to 3.2 Ghz, and I can't see it bottlenecking my system with games anytime soon. If I need to, I could probably get it up to 3.6, but it would require a fairly higher voltage. Video cards are more important; my 8800gt isn't the best for my 24 inch monitor. One of these days I will find something worth upgrading to.

 

[Tekno_Cowboy]

I'd recommend:
CPU-Intel, Core2 E8500 or i7 920. Either way you go, you should be set for a while. Unless you're a hardcore gamer or you're editing lots of video, the E8500 should be able to handle it.
Motherboard-Gigabyte. They make the most solid boards I've ever seen. I've been running one for about 2 1/2 years 24/7 without so much as a hiccup. I've built more than a dozen core 2 systems with a Gigabyte board, and have not had a single complaint.
Memory-G.Skill or Corsair. Again, ram I've used myself extensively, without any issues.
Power Supply-Corsair. IIRC their power supplies are made for them by Seasonic, with the top quality components. I've installed over 30 of them, and the only return I had was because UPS ran it over.

I recommend newegg.com for getting your parts.

Probably more info than you wanted, but I offer it anyways.

 

[seaside]

Tekno_Cowboy

That's the kind of info I was looking for. I may go for asus or DFI for the board though, I like your selection in general.

So, does it mean high clock dual core would do the job just fine like the same clock quad core would do because majority of not-to-intensive programs do not support multi core?

***
Mjolnir

You got nice one, Q6600 once was overclocker's dream CPU and it still is going strong. Something I want to know is, does the games you're talking about use all 4 cores while you're playing? or you're talking about it using just 1 or 2 cores, but still kicks a$$?

***
And to the folks.

I am not a hardcore gamer or a video encoder. I haven't played any recent games for years since my current system can't handle them. I just wanted new system can handle recent games without giving me peeves for next two years or so. In other words, DIABLO III

So far, some folks recommended high end system, and others said upper mid range CPU would do the job. I do appreciate you guys all, but still a question remains.

What's the merit of getting quad core over dual core of the same clock, if majority of programs still don't utilize all the cores? What does those two other cores do for the system?

Thanks.

 

[Tekno_Cowboy]

Glad I could help. I would stay away from asus though. Tons of people swear by them, and there was a time when they were good, but I've had more than 20 burn out on me, so I'll never buy one again.

With older games you'll want to opt in favor of higher single-core throughput, as quite a few games can't handle all the cores. Many newer games can use more cores, but as long as your video card is top-notch, a dual-core should be powerful enough to get the job done, and will save you in power consumption in most cases.

That there is one major dis-advantage to more cores. More Cores = More Power. I saved about $20/month swaping out high-TDP(W) processors for their low-TDP counterparts, with no appreciable difference in performance.

The biggest advantage is seen when using programs designed for multi-core. You would do well to check out the CPU charts here.

 

[RA40]

If you aren't running or plan to run apps that are multi-threaded/quad core capable, you will have 2-3 cores just idling along consuming power. Why buy them?

Vid cards and prices change rapidly thanks to the ATi & Nvidia competition. Find one mid-range and you should be happy for 6-8 months until they drop in price and the next level becomes enticing.

DDR3 is still $$ but you know in a spell it will be the dominant module. DDR2 won't fade fast though this is dating your upgrades as more mobo's and CP combos will use it. If I were buying now, I'd jump into DDR3. A good mobo will carry you along the next 2 years. Don't skimp so buy mid-range+. If you buy good DDR3, you can carry those over to the next build hopefully. DDR2 has had such a good life, I've been able to use mine for 2 builds.

A quality PS like the above mentioned Corsair. Buy one with enough overhead and they will carry over build to build for a bit so they are cost effective long term. Suffice to say, a healthy PS is necessary to drive a good video card and any other power hungry devices stuffed into the case.

Most my builds, the mobo, memory and PS will last about 2 years. CPU, video and hard drives get updated regularly. The last year, I haven't swapped CPU's since my apps run well with dual cores so I save that $$ for the next round of video cards. YMMV.

 

[HarryN]

I am personally an AMD Phenom fan, but of course there are many opinions out there. Perhaps I just cheer for the underdog. In any event, graphics processing is best done by a graphics specific core, whether it is in the same package / chip, or separate hadware.

AMD has a good explanation of this on their web site, as they are adding more and more "types" of cores to their CPU - similar to the idea of adding math co-processors in the past.

 

[geepondy]

I thought the knock on the i7 systems is that it required a pricey motherboard/ram combination. Is this still true?

 

[seaside]

I thought the knock on the i7 systems is that it required a pricey motherboard/ram combination. Is this still true?

As of now, yes. i7 mainboards are pricey. DDR3 memory usually is expensive than DDR2 at least at this moment.

 

[geepondy]

I also thought I read, Intel was supposed to come out with an i5 processor that presented a more affordable option for the home user.