fatcat's computer

fatcatfatcat Mizzou
edited November 2008 in Hardware
so, I finally stopped being lazy and bought the parts to build a PC.

Case: Antec 300

Power Supply: OCZ PC Power & Cooling 610w

Motherboard: DFI LANPARTY DK P35-T2RS

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz 6MB

Heatsink: Noctua NH-U9B

RAM: OCZ Platinum Edition 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000) 2 kits

Video: Asus Radeon HD 4850 512MB Overclocked 680/2100

Hard Drive: Seagate 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s

DVD: Lite-On 20x DVD +/-

Monitor: Still looking....probably a 20" or 22" 1680x1050

OS: WindowsXP 64 Bit

Keyboard: OCZ Alchemy Series Elixir

Mouse: Logitech G5

Speakers: Still looking...

finally my iMac will get to use OSX instead of WinXP/TF2 all the time ;)
«13

Comments

  • edited October 2008
    nice picks. :cheers:
  • TBonZTBonZ Ottawa, ON
    edited October 2008
    I'd say that will work for you.:thumbup

    As for the screen, I just picked up two 24" Samsung SyncMaster's 2443BW for $319.99+tx (CDN) each.

    http://pccyber.com/?v=product&i=LCD-SA-2443BW - $372.00 reduced to $319.99.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001294&Tpk=2443bw

    Jeezus, $429.99 American at NewEgg?! I'm sure you can find this model for less somewhere else if we are getting this price. I tell you though, after upgrading from my single 22", I can tell you with certainty, this model is leaps and bounds above my previous monitor.
  • BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of Propaganda OKC
    edited October 2008
    Nice. That's a hell of a lot of RAM.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2008
    Buddy J wrote:
    Nice. That's a hell of a lot of RAM.

    4GB for $58, why the hell would I not get the max ;)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2008
    If you are putting up the money for a new system, do not skimp with a 20" monitor. 22" minimum. If you get a 20", within six months you'll be kicking yourself, wondering why you didn't wait just a bit longer to save the money for a larger monitor. Highly recommend 24". They aren't so expensive anymore, unless you need the best of the best. BTW, some of the TN panels are very, very good, unless you need to be looking at them angles greater than 130 degrees.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited October 2008
    For monitor reviews, I would again like to plug www.digitalversus.com and www.behardware.com. Nobody does it better than those two sites.
  • jaredjared College Station, TX
    edited October 2008
    hmmm a little bit more power than the stimulus PC I was looking at :\
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited October 2008
    I give very high marks to HP's w2207 22inch LCD display. It's the one I brought to the LAN. My display doesn't have any dead pixels, very little backlight bleed. 5ms response time isn't the best, but when I compared it side by side with the Samsung 22inch rated at 3ms, the HP performed better with blur and vibrancy in colors.

    But definitely do the research. I picked this display more so for colors than gaming performance for my animation/CG work.

    Great rig though, gotta love that RAM.
  • NiGHTSNiGHTS San Diego
    edited October 2008
    Another vote for the 2207, the colors are made much more vibrant with the gloss screen cover, IMO.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2008
    the reason I'm leaning towards a 20" or 22" is because I don't think the ATi 4850 can push fast frame rates(60+) AND all the eye candy @ 1920x1200. this is why I'm sticking with 1680x1050.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited October 2008
    22" monitors are still 1680x1050. Even then, 35+ FPS is fine. 60+ is nice, but not necessary.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2008
    Thrax wrote:
    22" monitors are still 1680x1050. Even then, 35+ FPS is fine. 60+ is nice, but not necessary.

    yea thats what i mean, 24" monitors are 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 which i think the 4850 might struggle on on upcoming games. i dont want to use resoultions other than default.
  • edited October 2008
    Logitech G5 mouse owns good choice!!!!
  • jaredjared College Station, TX
    edited October 2008
    so ~how much is this setting you back all in all, if someone else wanted t build one similar ;)
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2008
    jared wrote:
    so ~how much is this setting you back all in all, if someone else wanted t build one similar ;)

    Case: $60
    PSU: $68
    Mobo: $140
    CPU: $165
    Heatsink: Free, won @ ICLAN
    RAM: $58 for 4GB, other 4GB is classified ;)
    Video: $150
    Hard Drive: $55
    DVDR: $22
    Monitor: Haven't chosen one yet
    OS: once again, classifed
    Keyboard: Free (<3 Snarkasm)
    Mouse: Free
    Speakers: haven't chosen yet

    $718 so far....remember I used newegg promo codes also to get these prices.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA
    edited October 2008
    Love me some w2207

    Also, G5. EXCELLENT mouse, best I've ever used. You got the V2, right?
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2008
    UPSLynx wrote:
    Love me some w2207

    Also, G5. EXCELLENT mouse, best I've ever used. You got the V2, right?

    nope, the orange original one ive had for awhile now. I might get the newer one down the road.
  • bullzisniprbullzisnipr Topeka, KS
    edited October 2008
    I would've gone with Q6600... I had an E8400 and kicked myself then traded with Gnome to get his Q6600. :p
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2008
    I would've gone with Q6600... I had an E8400 and kicked myself then traded with Gnome to get his Q6600. :p

    why would I want a quad core that is lower speed/fsb and higher watts/heat and costs more?
  • bullzisniprbullzisnipr Topeka, KS
    edited October 2008
    Because in games that support multi core processors, the Q6600 is much more efficient. Almost every game coming out these days supports multi core processors and most old ones do too. For example, when I had my E8400 overclocked to 3.8Ghz and was playing UT3, both cores were running at 90+%. With my Q6600 each core runs 60-70%. For gaming these days, Q6600 is certainly the way to go.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited October 2008
    If it's not running at 100% and locking, what's the difference?
  • bullzisniprbullzisnipr Topeka, KS
    edited October 2008
    My point is, it's a current game which is already using almost all of the E8400's power. (I say this knowing that UT3 is EXTREMELY dependent on the CPU.) Q6600 is just a few bucks more, why not go quad? Unless he's really that concerned about heat and energy consumption (some have valid reasons) I see no reason why not to. Games will run so much better on the quad.

    For the argument that not all games use 4 cores. Can you think of a game that uses two cores to the max? (that isn't quad core capable like UT3) A Q6600 will perform equally compared to an E8400 for those older games that don't use all 4 cores. Aside from UT3, I can't think of a single older game that would max out two cores of the Q6600.

    Seriously though, go quad. Unless power consumption is something you're trying to watch, there's no reason not to. All games these days ship with quad core capable engines, why not use them? Why keep yourself limited in dual core when for a few bucks more you could have 4 cores?
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2008
    bullzisnipr, you need to define "multi core" in the context of gaming. It my understanding that multicore-compiled games usually are designed for dual-core CPUs, not quads.

    Don't get me wrong, I think the Q6600 is an absolutely awesome beast! I have five computers running them. In my case though, the CPU choice was influence first by Folding@Home capability, second by overclocking ability, and third by price. The Q6600 scored very highly in all three of those priorities for me. If I were not a dedicated Folding@Home donor, I probably would have gone with a competitive dual core CPU.

    Really, at the consumer level, there are very few applications that will make efficient use of more than two cores.
  • bullzisniprbullzisnipr Topeka, KS
    edited October 2008
    The back of the new game "Crysis Warhead" says "multi-core capable" it will fully utilize 4 cores. Sure I completely agree that the Q6600 is overkill for an average consumer, but its 10 bucks more! Why have games that almost use the E8400 now, when for $10 more you can't have anything close to a stutter. Not to mention, nobody on here is an "average consumer", we're enthusiasts, always trying to gain a step up. :p
  • WinfreyWinfrey waddafuh Missouri
    edited October 2008
    fatcat wrote:
    why would I want a quad core that is lower speed/fsb and higher watts/heat and costs more?

    For folding, duh! Aren't you just going to dedicate your brand spanking new machine to curing diseases?:tongue:
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou
    edited October 2008
    I play TF2 on an iMac.
  • BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of Propaganda OKC
    edited October 2008
    Lets see...

    Q6600 = 2.4 Ghz x 4 cores = 9.6 ePeens
    E8400 = 3 Ghz x 2 cores = 6 ePeens

    Obviously the E8400 is the best. ;)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2008
    Q6600 is overkill for an average consumer, but its 10 bucks more
    I haven't looked at CPU prices in a while. $10 difference? Wow, that's nothing! Yeah, I see your point. If the price points are that close, might as well get the quad core.

    EDIT: Alright, I'm lost here. What the heck is an "ePeen?" Virtual urinating?
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited October 2008
    I actually suggest a Xeon 7460.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited October 2008
    Tell me more. (about the 7460) I could look it up, but why, when Thrax can render an excellent summary. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.