All systems are Go!!

Depending on intended resolutions, that is one of the most sensible, bang for the buck oriented configurations I have seen posted in a while. The only thing I would do differently, is move away from that single TB drive and use a separate drive for my operating system. I see a three drive system as ideal (OS, page Files, data/apps), but two drives is a nice thing to have, as if you need to do a fresh Windows install, you don't effect your data, and if your data drive fails, your OS still works.

I might also consider a floppy drive. They are dirt, dirt cheap, and surprisingly, can still be very useful at times. I have several times wished I had opted for a floppy drive instead of the media reader I settled on.

I have a 24 inch high def LCD/DSL monitor and I usually run default resolution which is 1600/1200 I believe....I am not in front of the system now so that may or may not be correct. this build rings up at 3616.00!!

You gonna do the overclocking yourself or is this a non overclocking build?

Edited by SunfighterLC - 18 Apr 2008 at 3:21pm

Originally posted by SunfighterLC You gonna do the overclocking yourself or is this a non overclocking build?   p.s 3500 K is 3.5 million dollars =) thatd be one HELL of a computer...

Pure Gaming System

Originally posted by LordFess I believe this is my final answer .What cha think folks?

you could probably save some money by downgrading the sound card to an x-fi xtreme gamer, i dont know how much better the fatality card is. Also for 11 bux more you could do 9800gtx in sli mode, but youll have to rely on others to better inform you whats better...

Edited by sargeman - 18 Apr 2008 at 7:35pm

You'll be paying $83 more for the same, or downgraded performance at a resolution of 1600x1200 in selecting the 8800GTX over the 9600GT.

At the ~$300 price point, and at that resolution it's pretty much impossible to beat 2x 9600GT.

Take a look:

Here for comparisons with other cards and SLI configurations
Here for a review of the 9600GT in SLI
Here for 9600GT vs 8800GTX

I can link more if you like. Those cards are amazing performers for the price- even keeping pace with 8800GT SLI in some tests.

The rest of the build looks rock solid. I've never been sold on the expense of the Raptor HDD vs it's performance, but others swear by them.

If you take up Sunfighter's advice and go with the X-Fi, be aware that that audio card will not connect to your case's front audio panel.

Hmmm, warranties are like life insurance. If you have it, you don't seem to need it, but if you need it, you don't have it... In such cases, having it sounds like a win / win situation, but $149 in the pocket is still 149 bucks you can spend on games! hehehe. I suppose if you're concerned about the effects of DSO's overclocking, then the warranty will give you some peace of mind.

No matter how you look at it, that's a nice pc!

Warranty: If you had zero coverage, and DSO wanted $150 for 4 years, I would say "yes, do it". The reality is, you have 3 year full coverage by default, and lifetime tech support. I would skip it. It eats into your budget unnecessarily.

I play games on Vista 32 bit as old as Arcanum of Steamworks & Magick Obscura (Sierra/Troika, 2001). Older than that, and I sometimes have to load up XP. I do have to manually select "xp compatibility mode" to get older programs to work, but unless it requires a dosbox emulation I have had very few problems with Vista. The caviat is "Vista 32 bit".  You selected the 64 bit version, a decision I agree with. This is, however, where you may have problems with older games. If you have a large collection of older games I would just leave the dual boot on there. I would, however do XP Home/Vista Home Premium 64 bit. That option is only +~$130, rather than eating up $300 of your budget.

I don't agree with the assessment of the dual core vs quad core CPU's. In my mind, the thing holding back developers from offering more multi threaded support, is the large number of P4's and Athlon 64's still in the gaming community. As those computers fall out of use, and that portion of the community shifts more and more toward the core2 and Athlon 64x2, I believe we will see the shift to multi threaded applications become more pronounced. In terms of time frame, I believe this will occur over the next two years. When it does, those with tri, and quad core CPU's and up, will be happy they have a couple of extra cores to take up the OS workload and free more power for running the games designed for 2 cores. I believe we will see more and more titles with some support for 4 cores as well.

That is my best guess. Everyone has a different take on it, but I thought this counterpoint might prove worthy of consideration. I believe that any processor that can be pushed to 3.0GHz or beyond will be very capable in today's games, with greater longevity going to the quads. If you upgrade every 3 years, IMO, go dual core. If it's more like 5 to 6 years, definitely consider sticking with your original selection. 

Given the current configuration, the power supply is massive overkill. It does offer maximum upgrade potential, so I would base the decision to keep it in the build on my normal upgrade choices. If you can honestly see yourself spending $1000+ on a GPU upgrade in the future, I would leave it in. If that thought makes you nauseated and you would probably stay closer to the $300-$500 price segment for any upgrade, you could very safely drop to a 750W power supply. This would put the load on the PSU closer to optimal, which means more efficient operation, and lower electric bills (and a greener PC).

Man oh Man my brain is beginning to hurt...LoL.... I have gone back and forth so much I think I am beginning to to feel like a tinnis ball....Here is my latest build which I think answers what I want for my system....I want a killer machine that gets the best bang for the buck.I want the highest speed with the most solid performance possible now. When gaming technology changes in two or three years down the road I will cross that bridge when I get to it at that time. The only thing I think I am still not sure about is the 750 wat drive as opposed to the 1000...  Again thanks guys for all your most helpful suggestions and  advice!!! Wheh here we go again...... Price Tag $3668.00!!!

Edited by LordFess - 19 Apr 2008 at 11:49pm

ha Ha ha Sunfighter you do make me laugh....Well dang now i am back to should i duo or should i quad ugggg

I wouldn't worry about quad SLI if you're looking for best value for the dollar. Unless you plan on gaming at extreme resolutions, it's not going to do much, if anything for you. Even tri-SLI has negligible impact in just about anything I can think of in terms of game experience at the resolutions you intend to play at.

Again, any processor getting more than 3.0Ghz is not going to be a significant bottleneck in performance for gaming, so there's basically no way to make a bad choice for today's games from among the processors offered.

I believe This article will help you sort through the decision between core2duo vs core2quad. Of specific interest to you. LordFess, will be the framerates listed for the 1600x1200 resolution. The author leans towards the core2duo for gaming in his conclusion, which is a perfectly valid point of view. My MMO of choice happens to put ~85% stress on all four of my CPU's cores, so I'm quite happy I went quad, but this is an individual decision.

I don't think I'd stress much over it, tbh. If you like the core duo, go for it. If you like the quad, do that. Some of the guys I game with bought systems about the same time I did, and a couple of them have told me they wished they had gone quad, but at the same time, they have not expressed any lack of performance from their E6750 or E6850 based systems.

One final tweak to that last config from me:
Replace the 80GB with a 160GB drive- personal experience on this one, using an 80GB drive for dual OS. You'll thank me later.

If I were going to build a "killer system" with an eye toward value for the dollar, specifically geared towards gaming at 1600x1200, it would look alot like this. Much of it will perhaps look familiar? 

You have room within that build to upgrade any number of items, but as I looked over your original configuration, I changed something only if I could find tangible benefit to so doing, following this simple commandment:

"I want a killer machine that gets the best bang for the buck"

Again, you have another $500 to play with beyond what I put into that build. You could upgrade GPU's (but I simply couldn't justify this based on performance gains at 1600x1200 resolutions)... or you could put that towards software to put that new beast through it's paces. $500 buys 10 to 20 of the latest. most graphically demanding titles available.



Edited by Tyler Lowe - 20 Apr 2008 at 4:24am

Heh. Everyone tries to convince others what they have purchased is optimal at least at first. It validates their thought process when someone else selects a similar build. That's my theory anyway.

That is an interesting review of the quad sli, although I prefer the one done at HardOCP. Both do show gains at 1600x1200, but I find it hard to recommend a system based on one game.


Reviews vary based on methodology, applications run, system specs, and driver version. NVidia and ATI both have a long history of optimizing drivers so their products perform better specifically in timed demos they know will be used to benchmark their products. So the highest frame rates will be in "canned demos" while the lower numbers seen from FRAPS captured real game play are generally closer to what the end user should expect. Canned demos are sometimes more useful in comparing cards head to head, while the FRAPS capture method is probably the most accurate way to predict what someone will actually see, as marketing hype will not help once the product is installed.

From the same Article linked above, I can see in UT3 that quad SLI actually *lowered* performance. It's actually coming in behind the 9600SLI in this test. Note that the single 9800gx2 is also within ~8FPS of the cheaper setup.

Now, without concern for whether or not the processing power will be useful, and taking a "more power!", no questions asked, this *will* kick some serious approach:
$3701


Edited by Tyler Lowe - 20 Apr 2008 at 10:32am

IMHO, at that rez, some more graphic intensive games will probably stress the single 9800GTX. Most games probably wouldnt though. Especially MMOs, even the most graphic of those games wont push things too hard. After all a MMOs goal is to reach many customers, so they have to keep things kinda toned down to hit the largest market they can.

Originally posted by LordFess After much deliberation last night with my fiancee we came to an agreement as to how much we could spend on our new system! I want one in the 6 k range,but that was just freaking her out so much I had to compromise so we met half way and now I have the green light to shell about 3500 k for the new gaming PC!!!!  Man am I stoked!!!!! Yeah baby!!!!

This is how things started... I notice you said OUR new system. I started wondering when the fiance would be getting her personal DSO pc. Seems to me that when a couple both game, there's less complaint about there being too much time spent on the pc going on. I call this PC envy... I would consider what sorta games she might enjoy, no matter how dumb they might seem to you. Couples rarely seem to like the same games, but I chalk that up to games that stroke the male ego vs. the cutesy games. Then there's Tomb Raider. I like being a girl with guns, but I'm not really clear as to why guys wanna be one...

Perhaps saving a little on overall cost could grant you enough favor to purchase a budget DSO with a few games for the fiance. $1,000 could get you started on a decent entry level gamer. I think my setup right now would run around $900 and it plays C&C3, Oblivion and NWN2 maxed out on 1680 x 1040 or somewhere around there. I also play EQ, but my dialup connection is what limits my graphics. (during raids I lag badly if I turn things up). Don't forget, she could watch DVDs and listen to her CDs or MPGs on her own DSO. Grab some decent headphones for her! Granted, the cost is without peripherals, but if you don't have em, you also don't necessarily have to go with pricey stuff.

Originally posted by widdlecat Originally posted by LordFess After much deliberation last night with my fiancee we came to an agreement as to how much we could spend on our new system! I want one in the 6 k range,but that was just freaking her out so much I had to compromise so we met half way and now I have the green light to shell about 3500 k for the new gaming PC!!!!  Man am I stoked!!!!! Yeah baby!!!! This is how things started... I notice you said OUR new system. I started wondering when the fiance would be getting her personal DSO pc. Seems to me that when a couple both game, there's less complaint about there being too much time spent on the pc going on. I call this PC envy... I would consider what sorta games she might enjoy, no matter how dumb they might seem to you. Couples rarely seem to like the same games, but I chalk that up to games that stroke the male ego vs. the cutesy games. Then there's Tomb Raider. I like being a girl with guns, but I'm not really clear as to why guys wanna be one... Perhaps saving a little on overall cost could grant you enough favor to purchase a budget DSO with a few games for the fiance. $1,000 could get you started on a decent entry level gamer. I think my setup right now would run around $900 and it plays C&C3, Oblivion and NWN2 maxed out on 1680 x 1040 or somewhere around there. I also play EQ, but my dialup connection is what limits my graphics. (during raids I lag badly if I turn things up). Don't forget, she could watch DVDs and listen to her CDs or MPGs on her own DSO. Grab some decent headphones for her! Granted, the cost is without peripherals, but if you don't have em, you also don't necessarily have to go with pricey stuff.