Honesty Rocks! truth rules.

My New Computer Project!

HOME      >>       Software

Ash-Bash

Please delete...


mahesh2k

Ash i like your selection. Especially cabinet, ram, harddisk choice. It is perfect and will keep for year or two for me, if i pick this. But i didn't like the keyboard design. Any other good model ?. I didn't like the color and layout of the keyboard. Maybe some other will even agree with me on keyboard selection. Besides that for 2,2k$ this is good buy. Go for it.


truefusion

While the case may look nice, you may want to consider a bigger case or do more research on that case if you're going with that graphics card. That graphics card is 11 inches in length, the case supports no bigger than ATX motherboards. An ATX motherboard is no bigger than 10 inches in length (almost all ATX motherboards are no bigger than 9.6 inches in length).

For the memory, i'd recommend one with better timing; for example, this Patriot Viper. Just buy two of these or something if you really want 12gigs (though 12gigs is a bit exaggerating). You could also go with a PSU that provides less watts; you don't need more than perhaps 650 to 700 watts. That is, the CPU takes up about 130 watts and the graphics card takes up no greater than 200 watts. Of course, with that graphics card you have to make sure the PSU has at least 2 6-Pin PCI-Express connectors (like the one you have listed does). You will most likely not be able to have a CrossFire setup, unless perhaps you can find a PSU that has 4 6-Pin PCI-Express connectors.


Ash-Bash

Well I am going for such a "Exaggerating" build because I want to stand out from the crowd and not just have a boring 6GB. Though you think I may not need it, You do not know half of the things I do with my pcs and I am sure the 12GB will come in to use so point.


rayzoredge

Well I am going for such a "Exaggerating" build because I want to stand out from the crowd and not just have a boring 6GB. Though you think I may not need it, You do not know half of the things I do with my pcs and I am sure the 12GB will come in to use so point.

:P

That "boring" 6GB is good enough for most applications, if not all. Even "l33t haxx0r'ing" won't need that much RAM, unless you plan on processing Photoshop pictures, rendering CAD models in photo-realistic fashion, having a million Firefox tabs open, AND have multiple instances of RAM-heavy games open and working ALL at the same time. I highly doubt that what you do actually and continually stresses any system to the point where the folks at Tom's Hardware can balk and go, "Why?"

If it is gaming that you seek, then I can find an article explaining the nil difference between 4GB and 8GB machines, which makes 16GB of RAM highly irrelevant to anyone's desires (unless you ARE trying to run a super computer).

I would agree with TrueFusion's argument for RAM with better timing, because it only makes sense to have less faster memory than more slower memory that you won't be utilizing to its full potential. But then again, we "do not know half of the things" you're doing with this machine, if I recall.

Speaking of things that you do, the Razer may be a bit too much unless you appreciate sniping people from over 2KM in an FPS, in which then I would wholeheartedly agree with your choice in such a high-DPI-capable mouse. Otherwise, I would ditch it to save some cash and go for more utility. But then again, with the build that you have, I don't think that money is an object. (Ah, the joys of being single.) If you do spend as much time on the computer as you seem to, I would recommend the Logitech Wave keyboard just to keep yourself from hating life when you finally realize that arthritis sinking in... although I do love the back-lit concept of a gaming keyboard.

Also, I would check your choice in hard drives because the very hard drive you picked out is the one I was going to snag myself until I saw that there were freezing and data loss problems with it. They figured out that streaming data from it was the cause of the freezing and released a firmware update for it, but you might want to take a closer look to see if any other problems came up or if the firmware really did fix it.

Ash-Bash

I am keeping my 12GB and that is final :P, I have never had a PC with 12 and really want to try it out. The maximum I have had is 10GB which is what I got in the PC at the minute. I think 12GB will be great :P.Anyone want to suggest a good OS that you think would be good for gaming & Not freeze/crash all the time?


rayzoredge

Gaming system that won't crash? You're out of luck, bud. :P Your best choices would be Windows 7 (Home Premium or better) or Windows XP Professional SP2. Vista is still a resource hog in my eyes, and OSX or Linux in any flavor aren't exactly gaming platforms in the respect that developers don't aim to please the other 10% of computer users. As far as crashing goes, it's a Microsoft product. :P Windows 7 might be your best bet though if you want to keep up with the times and use that graphics card to its full potential with Dx10.


truefusion

Anyone want to suggest a good OS that you think would be good for gaming & Not freeze/crash all the time?

Don't play the game on its maximum settings, and the failures should go away, or, i should say, you will be able to play the game for longer periods of time before a potential blue screen (that forces a restart) appears.

rvalkass

I'll be honest - it looks like you're skimping on the case compared to the rest of the build. All of your other components are quite expensive, while the case appears somewhat bargain-basement. You should be able to splash out a bit more on a better case, and one which will accommodate your graphics card. The HD 5870 is a great card, but it's massive! As truefusion has said, the case you've picked only supports up to ATX standard, and internal photos of the case don't show a lot of space between the edge of the motherboard and the drive bays at the front of the case. Also remember that you need to be able to fit the PCIe power connectors in too, and any other cables running past the graphics card. Check very carefully that your case can fit that graphics card before you buy.

 

The motherboard is currently unavailable, and receives slightly mixed reviews. The ASUS P6T Deluxe is certainly worth a look, and receives generally better reviews as far as I can tell.

 

CPU and graphics card are excellent, though of course check that the graphics card will fit, and what it will be blocking on your motherboard.

 

The memory seems an odd choice unless there's something I'm missing... OCZ Platinum memory is cheaper and has better timings, and is generally of higher quality than OCZ Gold.

 

Western Digital Caviar drives are what I would suggest over the Seagate drives. Also, as money seems to be no object, how about a SSD to use for booting? The Crucial M225 and OCZ Vertex are both excellent drives that would work well for storing Windows to improve system responsiveness and boot times.

 

For the power supply I'd recommend either a Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro or the Enermax Revolution 85+. Both are quiet and stable, and very efficient.

 

The keyboard and mouse are really a personal preference. All I can say is that I have a Razer Deathadder and it is excellent in every possible way.

 

The HDD cooler seems a bit unnecessary in my opinion. You're water cooling the CPU and the graphics card is incredibly cool running, so I very much doubt the hard drives will get particularly warm. It just seems like you'll be adding noise to the case with no real benefit in terms of cooling or reliability.

 

As a matter of interest, what are you using for your monitor? Have you already got one or are you purchasing a new monitor with this build?


Ash-Bash

I have now ordered all the products exactly the same ones it should be here within a week I will first try out the Windows 7 OS (Will not download :P) XD. Will also give it a good overclock to get it going :). I will let you guys know how it goes :P


rayzoredge

Yikes... I hope that this setup is as stable as you want it to be. Overclocking would be unnecessary, but then again, I know how it feels to be able to "just do it." :P I'm pretty sure that you'll be happy with Windows 7... personally, I am so far.I like rvalkass's pointers... have you considered them at all? To build such a massive machine only to bottle-neck yourself with hard drive access speeds, RAM latencies, and the efficiency of cooling in a "standard" case might be of concern. A little too late now, but hopefully you have a good return policy. :P Hope that graphics card fits too. That'll just suck if it doesn't...Let us know how your building and operating experience goes.


Ash-Bash

Yikes... I hope that this setup is as stable as you want it to be. Overclocking would be unnecessary, but then again, I know how it feels to be able to "just do it." :)

Yes, Although it is Quad Core, You know you just get that feeling you want the processor to go faster and have a great speed. :P.

I'm pretty sure that you'll be happy with Windows 7... personally, I am so far.

I hope so too, I have tried the Beta on my other PC it seems to run fine though I have not tried it with any games, Vista just seems to lag my games not to sure when its a Duel core and 10GB ram but never mind.

I like rvalkass's pointers... have you considered them at all? To build such a massive machine only to bottle-neck yourself with hard drive access speeds, RAM latencies, and the efficiency of cooling in a "standard" case might be of concern. A little too late now, but hopefully you have a good return policy. :P

I don't really have any concern for the case, Though when I get it and I am not pleased with it I will be happy to sell it on Ebay or something and buy another.

Hope that graphics card fits too. That'll just suck if it doesn't...

It does, I contacted Tiger Direct and they said it would fit, I am always one step ahead of most people :).

Let us know how your building and operating experience goes.

Will do, Just a waiting game now :P. I am not a paintent guy (Sky knows XD) ^^^ Forgot how you spell it XD, Correct me if I am wrong please not a word I use too often.

rayzoredge

Yes, Although it is Quad Core, You know you just get that feeling you want the processor to go faster and have a great speed. :P.

I hope so too, I have tried the Beta on my other PC it seems to run fine though I have not tried it with any games, Vista just seems to lag my games not to sure when its a Duel core and 10GB ram but never mind.


I don't really have any concern for the case, Though when I get it and I am not pleased with it I will be happy to sell it on Ebay or something and buy another.


It does, I contacted Tiger Direct and they said it would fit, I am always one step ahead of most people :P.


Will do, Just a waiting game now :). I am not a paintent guy (Sky knows XD)
^^^ Forgot how you spell it XD, Correct me if I am wrong please not a word I use too often.


Patient. :)

I'm currently running a 2.13GHz dual core processor, which I suppose is pretty darn good compared to what I'm used to (1.6GHz dual core, 3.2GHz single core, 1.2GHz single core...), and personally, I don't know if you can REALLY tell a difference between my computer's performance and yours unless you could seconds or tens of seconds... unless you were doing something to impact the utility of all four cores. That's how I figure it in my head, anyway... if software doesn't utilize multiple cores, you're stuck with 2.66GHz, which is probably a handful of seconds faster than mine. :P If you overclock, maybe you'll have something that's actually much faster... but in the best interests of hardware longevity, think about what overclocking will really do for you versus making that quad core last as long as possible... unless we get octocores before that i7 dies. :)

Windows 7 plays pretty darn well with games. I'm working on Fallout 3 right now and the NVIDIA 9800M GS with 512MB in this laptop runs great. I've also tried running Command & Conquer 3 and it runs pretty well without lag, plus I usually have Firefox open in the background along with a handful of other things I may have been working on. Think of XP performance with DirectX 10 capability and you've got W7 gaming performance in a nutshell.

If you have a working case, I say you keep it unless you find something better down the road. Apparently you did your research and you did ask for peer reviewing (or just a chance to brag your future rig, right?), so I think you'll be set with the case you ordered UNLESS for some reason it doesn't fulfill your expectations.

I know that you were going for uniqueness, but in all reality, a gaming tower is a gaming tower unless you have it custom made AND in a form factor that would turn heads, like making it out of Legos or out of an old NES case. Otherwise, I personally recommend you go for function and cooling efficiency... and since you already bought the case, I'm not going to bother looking at the reviews for it. However, I do remember some of my choices that you might want to take a look at in case you had an oopsies! moment and want to take another look at cases. (ThermalTake and Lian-Li have some very good cases, the latter being much more expensive because of the name.)

Ash-Bash

Patient. :)

Thanks for that. Not a word I use too often and kinda has a busy day XD.

I'm currently running a 2.13GHz dual core processor, which I suppose is pretty darn good compared to what I'm used to (1.6GHz dual core, 3.2GHz single core, 1.2GHz single core...), and personally, I don't know if you can REALLY tell a difference between my computer's performance and yours unless you could seconds or tens of seconds... unless you were doing something to impact the utility of all four cores. That's how I figure it in my head, anyway... if software doesn't utilize multiple cores, you're stuck with 2.66GHz, which is probably a handful of seconds faster than mine. :P If you overclock, maybe you'll have something that's actually much faster... but in the best interests of hardware longevity, think about what overclocking will really do for you versus making that quad core last as long as possible... unless we get octocores before that i7 dies. :P

My will be the best though I can't wait to get the parts :).

I am sure Windows 7 will also be a good fit for the hardware and software used on this computer. :P. Thanks for your advice though. I will keep you guys updated on how it goes.

truefusion

I'm currently running a 2.13GHz dual core processor, which I suppose is pretty darn good compared to what I'm used to (1.6GHz dual core, 3.2GHz single core, 1.2GHz single core...), and personally, I don't know if you can REALLY tell a difference between my computer's performance and yours unless you could seconds or tens of seconds... unless you were doing something to impact the utility of all four cores. That's how I figure it in my head, anyway... if software doesn't utilize multiple cores, you're stuck with 2.66GHz, which is probably a handful of seconds faster than mine. :P If you overclock, maybe you'll have something that's actually much faster... but in the best interests of hardware longevity, think about what overclocking will really do for you versus making that quad core last as long as possible... unless we get octocores before that i7 dies. :P

I'd consider it a waste not to overclock if one will be going with a water cooling system like Ash-Bash is. I'm not sure if the processor he's going with will have an unlocked multiplier, but most INTEL processors require you to mess around with the front side bus. Overclocking the FSB should increase performance for more than just the processor. But performance doesn't come from the processor alone (as you probably already know); having fast memory with great timing will help with performance too. Though i'll be upgrading to better memory (hopefully) soon, my current computer has DDR2 533mhz (its advertised CAS latency is 3). Before i adjusted the timings, it used to be at 5-5-5-18 (i.e. "auto"). When i set it to its advertised timings, 3-3-3-8, i noticed an increase in performance that you could visually see. Programs started up about a second faster than they used to. How fast memory is isn't really the issue, it's the timing that counts. I saw a DDR3 1333mhz memory with a timing of 7-7-7-24 outperform a DDR3 1600mhz at 9-9-9-36 (i think it was 36—maybe 32).

 

While a program may not utilize all cores and probably doesn't utilize more than one, that doesn't mean only one core will be working. But i can tell you one thing, if you are one that compiles programs a lot, multiple cores are very useful. Me and a friend of mine wanted to see just how much of a performance gain a quad-core has compared to a dual-core running at the same speed. We both downloaded the latest Linux kernel (2.31.*.*) and timed how long it took to compile it on our systems. GCC is "required" to compile the Linux kernel, and GCC, i hear, can utilize up to 16 cores. Though my system is not as up-to-date as his and my processor was (is) an older model, AMD AM2 Windsor 6400+, 3.2ghz, his being an AMD AM3 Phenom II X4, 3.2ghz, it took me about an hour and 15 minutes to compile the Linux kernel. It took him about 40 minutes.


rayzoredge

I'd consider it a waste not to overclock if one will be going with a water cooling system like Ash-Bash is. I'm not sure if the processor he's going with will have an unlocked multiplier, but most INTEL processors require you to mess around with the front side bus. Overclocking the FSB should increase performance for more than just the processor. But performance doesn't come from the processor alone (as you probably already know); having fast memory with great timing will help with performance too. Though i'll be upgrading to better memory (hopefully) soon, my current computer has DDR2 533mhz (its advertised CAS latency is 3). Before i adjusted the timings, it used to be at 5-5-5-18 (i.e. "auto"). When i set it to its advertised timings, 3-3-3-8, i noticed an increase in performance that you could visually see. Programs started up about a second faster than they used to. How fast memory is isn't really the issue, it's the timing that counts. I saw a DDR3 1333mhz memory with a timing of 7-7-7-24 outperform a DDR3 1600mhz at 9-9-9-36 (i think it was 36maybe 32).

 

While a program may not utilize all cores and probably doesn't utilize more than one, that doesn't mean only one core will be working. But i can tell you one thing, if you are one that compiles programs a lot, multiple cores are very useful. Me and a friend of mine wanted to see just how much of a performance gain a quad-core has compared to a dual-core running at the same speed. We both downloaded the latest Linux kernel (2.31.*.*) and timed how long it took to compile it on our systems. GCC is "required" to compile the Linux kernel, and GCC, i hear, can utilize up to 16 cores. Though my system is not as up-to-date as his and my processor was (is) an older model, AMD AM2 Windsor 6400+, 3.2ghz, his being an AMD AM3 Phenom II X4, 3.2ghz, it took me about an hour and 15 minutes to compile the Linux kernel. It took him about 40 minutes.


True... I forgot the fact that his hardware is going to be liquid-cooled. I'm so into the mindset that overclocking won't make that much of a noticeable difference nowadays, and with the factor of introducing more heat and killing the hardware that much faster, it just wasn't worth it.

 

Now, back in the day when you could hit that Turbo button to go from 33MHz to 66MHz, that was amazing... :P

 

I do remember from doing prior research back in the day that it basically was the combination of the speed and latency of the RAM that gave it the oomph we describe. But isn't RAM stability an issue as with overclocking a processor? You say a second or so of difference... to a tinkerer, that's a very big deal, but to the average user, it's not that big of a deal to invest the time and effort to gain that extra second. I'm not belittling the art of overclocking, but from an "average user" standpoint, a second or even a few seconds isn't that big of a deal. When we start talking double digits, then it's on (10, 20, even 30 seconds would be very noticeable).

 

I read somewhere that multi-core processing is evolving to that point where a load will be balanced amongst cores as opposed to just taxing one when it comes to software being the limiting factor, so you're right on that. The thing that's a concern right now is that there isn't a heck of a lot of software that actually utilizes multiple cores right now, which is changing now as we start seeing more dual and quad-core processors on the mainstream side. You are definitely 100% good to go with compiling kernels with a quad-core processor; however, this leaves a wide audience [that excludes programmers and advanced users] still to wonder if their processors are actually being utilized to its full potential or not for their programs, games, and everyday tasks. Like I said, I'm not saying that quad-cores or even dual-cores are useless, but maybe I'm under the misconception that you are limited to clock speeds and performance when software limits hardware utilization?


Ash-Bash

True... I forgot the fact that his hardware is going to be liquid-cooled. I'm so into the mindset that overclocking won't make that much of a noticeable difference nowadays, and with the factor of introducing more heat and killing the hardware that much faster, it just wasn't worth it.

Yeah, I thought water calling would look nice in the Case & Would also be great for over-clocking as it should NOT overheat O.o I just can't wait for all these parts to arrive :):( :( :D :D :D

inverse_bloom

Nice comp specs, if i had anywhere near half that i reckon i'd be quite content. That comp would be great for 3d work, one particular 3d model i have made would quite probably benefit from that much ram (model is a stomper with full raytrace rendering, etc). Your comp would also be great for emulating certain game consoles (purchased games of course) perhaps on ps2 or the old dreamcast (the dreamcast emulator supposedly does an excellent job). Imagine how quickly you'll be flying through photoshop filters and video editing. You should try video compositing if you dont already.