Hi Everyone, I'm in the process of looking at some upgrades for my rig and was hoping to run it past you friendly bunch for some advice. My current setup is as follows; Coolermast Stacker 832 Coolermaster Real Power 850W Asus Rampage Formula C2D E6400 @ 3Ghz AC Freezer Pro 7 8GB OCZ Reaper 8500 BFG 9800GTX NEC Multisync 20WGX2 (1650x1050) X-fi Elite Pro Logitech Z-5500's Samsung Spinpoint 750GB Erm, think that's it. I was going to go mad and buy a 4870x2 Tri Fan but was told rightly so that it would be massive overkill for my resolution. Therefore I'm thinking that I can put that money to also chance my CPU. I'm thinking on going for this; As my GPU is dead on its knees and out of warranty, I need to definitely get a new one but want to make sure that I get a decent upgrade so it feels like a worthwhile purchase. So I suppose my question is, does this all make sense and make for a decent, balanced rig for my budget (£360 ish)? Also can anyone recommend a good fan for the heatsink? Ta, Simon
get a e8400 almost exactly the same and gives same performace but it is about 10 chaeper for gpu i would get a 260gtx as they are going for about £140 if you shop around the cooler you choose is good just make sure that you have 2x120mm fans spare to oput on it
Cheers for the advice on the CPU, it's £20 cheaper at Scan which is all good. Will the 4870 be a decent step up from a 9800GTX then and also is it better to then spend another £6 to get the 1GB version? Thanks, Simon
The 4870 is better than the 9800GTX or GTX+. For your res I would get the 1GB version, should help in games like Crysis, or where your using lots of AA and AF.
Also, can you get an OEM 8400, because that'd shave cash off your machine? Also, will the Freezer 7 Pro not do the job for dual-core cooling? That might give you the cash for an upgrade to a pre-OC'ed 1GB 4870 (I know, the extra expense sometimes doesn't matter, but you're guaranteed that level OC constantly, as opposed to "your mileage may vary") Also... HELLO, CLEVELA... Err, Bit-Tech!
Ta, extra pennies always help and will pay for the fan required. My Freezer Pro 7 is okay and has done a job with my current chip but just isn't the prettiest of things. The TRUE black is a mean looking piece of kit that also has great functionality.
The true is probly overkill for dual core. the freezer pro is good and should allow a high overclock. £50 is alot of money for better cooling. If you were replacing the stock heatsink be a good choice if you intend for maximum overclock but id save the cash and stick with the trusty ACF7. id opt for the 1GB 4870 is its not much more expensive or get the cheapest 512MB 260 (216Core) you can find as i tihnk its cheaper than the 512MB 4870. also an E6400 to E8400 wont make a massive difference unless you overclock the nuts off of the E8400/200. to be honest id opt for quad core as more and more apps and games are becoming quad optimized and its only getting better. dual core now seems a bit budget to me.
I've loved the E6400 as it's been a lot of fun to learn to overclock on and happily sits at 3Ghz (from 2.13Ghz) without any voltage increases. Whatever chip I go for will definitely be OC'ed because of this. So what's the quad to buy nowadays? A little while ago it seemed to be the Q6600 due to its overclocking potential but is there a better option now? I take it then it's worth going with the TRUE with a quad due to the extra heat?
to be honest for LGA775 its still the Q6600/6700 as the Q8200/400 are rubbish overclockers. With the true you should be able to get 3.5-3.7Ghz out of that Q6600 and have good temps still.
Yeh I guess I agree, the ACF7Pro always kept my E6750 cool at 3.7GHz, and an E8440 has a lower heat output, so ACF7Pro should do fine.
Cheers chaps, I think I'm getting there. I'll definitely go for the 1GB version of the XFX 4870 as it's clocked slightly quicker than the other cards. Going Ati also gives me the opportunity to go Crossfire should I ever want to. Last question hopefully. Thinking of going quad now and was wondering if there's benefit in the extra money between a Q6600 and a Q9550? Adam's said the Q8200 is poor at OC'ing but the reviews of the Q9550 suggest it's much better.
In my opinion, although it's a decent performer, the Q9550 probably isn't worth the extra cash as you're overclocking. If you weren't, it'd be a different story. At the most, you'd only get an extra few hundred MHz out of the Q9550 compared with the Q6600/Q6700. In the end it really depends on how much you want to spend and how long you want to keep it for.
Have you considered the Q9400? It offers the advantage of a Yorkfield 45nm core over the Kentsfield 65nm core of the Q6600 and comes in a bit cheaper than the Q9550. From the reviews I have read, it seems to overclock reasonably well (3.6 to 3.8 MHz), although I expect the processors sent out for review are some of the better overclockers.
Ah the Quad vs Dual debate . . . a difficult one to be sure. I have a cpu monitor up when I game, and I get hardly any activity on cores 3 and 4 (Supreme Commander being the exception) so gaming-wise I'd go for the E8400 as it will attain higher clock speeds and save money. Multitasking will take more advantage of a quad, but again would a 4ghz dual core limit your multitasking experience? I'd say go for the E8400 unless you do lots of video or music encoding, or use something like Maya
As I'm planning to keep this rig for a while I'm more tempted by the quads than previous as I can understand that they'll probably become more useful over time. The thing I don't get is why is a Q6700 cheaper than a Q6600 despite having identical top line specs and also diverting away from my original goal even further, what impact does L2 cache on the ability of a chip? Apologies for all these questions but pay day is just 2 days away, when I can go out and buy these parts!
if you need a new card, then grab the gtx 275 and let the rest lie where it's at, because honestly, you would be spending money for the sake of spending money. Quads are not a must have item yet, and the ac7 has been a pro for me. you mentioned you dont like the looks and if that alone is worth the expense, then it's your money. definitely dont waste the money to go to another dual core because it's not worth the money spent. now, if you could sell that e6400 to a buddy for, say, 60-75% of the price of the e8400, then it might be worth it. if you do go quad, the q8200/q8400 aren't "rubbish" overclockers, they just have a lower/locked multi. so you need higher ram frequencies to compensate, which you have. but my advise is the same. grab a gtx 275 (yeah it may be overkill at those resolutions, but the idea is to future-proof, right), put the rest of the money away and wait till you have enough for a real upgrade (i5 or i7) and the applications demand it. or better yet, grab a new 24" monitor to give that gtx 275 a little workout.
The Q8200/8400 are rubbish overclockers because they have lower multipliers therefore need an incredibly high FSB to achieve good clocks. They tend to top out at 3.3Ghz or less. while a Q6600 can achieve 3.6-3.7Ghz on AIR. The FSB needs to be pushed over 500 to get the Q8200 into the same ballpark as the Q6600 while the Q6600 only needs to be around 400.
i respect your opinion, but I have personally built 8-10 systems on those chips and they aren't rubbish (you have built how many i wonder?). get a good board and ram that can handle the fsb and they oc 3.5 up no problem. whats funny here though is i bet you are not aware of the performance of the two chips at the speeds you quoted. no, probably not. I'd take the q8400 at 3.3 over a q6600 at 3.6. anyway...
L2 cache impacts mostly in gaming and multitasking, so it worth having more of it. Chips with 1mb and 2mb consistently fall behind their 4mb and 6mb brothers. As for the odd pricing of the Q6700 and Q6600, who knows but the Q6700 is slightly better, so worth getting that all things considered. Worth getting the G0 stepping if possible, much more OCable than the B3.
