First build attempt

I play FPS and other games at 1680x1050. Exact budget isn't critical, but it seems like I can get something  <$2K since I'm not seeking the bleeding edge. This is mainly a productivity machine including compiling, so the Raid0 Raptors were a given. And I'm not planning any overclocking so that I can maintain the best reliability.

Here's the config ticket: (most specs also listed at bottom)

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/comploadsaved.asp?id=165008

And my specific questions:

Noise level is important to me, so any changes on case or otherwise are welcome.

This will be my first multi-core CPU system, and I'm unsure whether to go with dual or quad. Better multitasking performance on the quad sounds beneficial, but I don't know if I'd really notice the difference, and/or if I'd notice any speed reduction with a slower quad. (Looking back, the E8400 looks like a good price point for the dual, making a switch to quad an even bigger speed reduction).

I'm assuming 667MHz memory is okay for a non-overclocked setup.

I don't expect to run SLI video, so I compromised the following to reduce price:
Power Supply: 550W Corsair HX (Dual SLI Compatible) (Silent Edition)
Motherboard: NVIDIA 650i Core 2 Quad (Chipset: nForce 650i Ultra)

Thanks for the forum to review specs like this.

--
John

Specifications:
Chassis: Antec 900
Power Supply: 550W Corsair HX (Dual SLI Compatible) (Silent Edition)
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.66GHz (1333MHz Front Side Bus)
Motherboard: NVIDIA 650i Core 2 Quad (Chipset: nForce 650i Ultra)
System Memory: 4GB DDR2 Corsair at 667MHz
Card Reader: Internal Digital Media Card Reader (Black)
Hard Drive 1: 150GB Western Digital Raptor (10K RPM) (16MB Cache)
Hard Drive 2: 150GB Western Digital Raptor (10K RPM) (16MB Cache)
Raid Option: Setup hard drive 1 and hard drive 2 in a Raid 0 Stripe Configuration
Hard Drive 3: - No Thanks
Optical Drive 1: DVD±R/RW/CD-R/RW (DVD Writer 20x / CD-Writer 48x)
Optical Drive 2: - No Thanks
Video Card: ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Sound Card: Integrated Motherboard Audio
Extreme Cooling: Air Cooled Stage 2 (Silent Artic Cooling Heat-sink Upgrade (Copper Heatpipes)
Windows OS: Microsoft Windows XP Home (Includes Service Pack 2)

Thanks harlyman and skyR for the responses.

Originally posted by skyR If noise level and reliability is a concern, I'd suggest a SSD because Raptors can be quite loud.

I'm running twin 80GB Raptors right now, although they're in a case with insulating sound foam so it isn't a problem. They may well be objectionable in different case styles.

The SSD option does indeed sound intriguing though. I could config with two 128's, and get close to the same storage space, with tons more speed and no noise. Any drawbacks to them other than the price?

Originally posted by skyR A slower quad is almost always better than a faster duo, just depends on what type of software you are using. The Q9450 is the popular choice atm for $2000 builds. If you decide to switch to a quad core, you will have to switch your motherboard to a 750i or 790i or Asus Rampage because the 650i does not support quad cores.

Okay thanks, I appreciate the recommendation. On the MoBo, the 650i itself is specced by nvidia and the DS dropdown to support quad core. I used this comparison:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce_600i_tech_specs.html

...and didn't see anything in particular between the 650i and the 780i that looked critical. Is it just the specific MoBo that DS uses here that doesn't support quad?

Originally posted by skyR You need a 64-bit operating system to utilize 4GB of ram.

I figured I'd get at least 3GB usable, and possibly all of it depending upon PAE (reports seem to vary). Even 3GB should work fine for me and avoid potential compatibility problems with xp64.

That said, I don't see a config option for XP x64.

--
John

Originally posted by skyR SSDs have limited writes but on average use, they should last about 15 years... And try not to defrag them often or you will kill them quick =p

This leaves me a bit confused, as I trust what you say SkyR. I've read in more than one emagazine where they state that the new SSDs have a very long MTBF. What you describe is pretty much the way flash mem is and how the earlier cheap notebook drives were. I'd hate to think these "authorities" are passing on marketing hype that is total BS...

Everything I have read pretty much backs what Sky said.

SSDs are great for data that gets written once and read lots.

There you simply can't beat it, the speed of access is incredible and as long as the files are not gigabytes in size the slower data transmission rates are not an issue really.

Multiple writes apparently are terrible for SSDs, reducing the viability of the memory chips faster than otherwise expected.

Dave