So I've decided to build me a computer to play some new games instead of just WoW all the time.

However, since I've never done this before, I have a bit of nervousness when it comes to doing it. Patience isn't really a virtue of mine, so I don't want to be ordering parts and having to send them back because they aren't compatable :D.

So for the last couple of days I've been reading up on some stuff, so I made a Wish List on newegg of what I planned on doing.

Here's the basics of what I plan on doing

I'm really kind of worried about the PSU not being enough. This would probably be the thing I know the least about, and I read that the processor I plan on buying (from newegg customer reviews) that's it's quite the power hog. Also, not quite sure a mid tower is enough (although the motherboard dimensions suggest it would be).

I know I don't have any RAM listed but I can easily just go to Best Buy to purchase all that. And I know it's not the best video card on the market, but mainly what I'm trying to do right now is to pick out an excellent processor and motherboard that will allow me to upgrade for a decent period of time.

And suggestions folks?

750W is more than enough, especially when you aren't dual-ing graphics cards. Midtower will fit your needs, I'm sure.

Also, check your wish list quantities noob. Are you buying 4 PSU's for 1 graphics card, 4 CPUs, 2 mobos, etc?

I would order the ram via newegg, I havent seen DDR2-1066 ram in Best Buy or Circuit City yet.

Since I see a "Black Edition" Phenom and ZALMAN cpu cooler, I am guessing you are planning on overclocking. In that case you should consider a motherboard based on the AMD SB700/SB750 South Bridge. They include a technology called ACC which will allow you to achieve a higher overclock.

The PSU is more than adequate, I am running my 9850BE and HD4850 on a 600W.

Don't get a Phenom and don't get an nVidia card. Intel and ATI are the way to go right now.

This, for God's sake this. Intel kills AMD.

Intel definately is on top in the CPU game right now, and is typically better for overclocking.

Most everything else looks okay... IMO you should pay the extra $40 and get the 750GB hard drive instead.

Yes, the price per gigabyte of the 750 is much lower than the 250.

And why are you getting an aftermarket heatsink for your CPU? The stock heatsinks are excellent, even for moderate overclocking.

You could also save money by getting a cheaper power supply. 750 is overkill. 500 or 600 is fine for you. Also, don't get a dual rail supply, those are trash. It's better to have a single, massive rail (like you one you selected).

If you picked those parts yourself, I'm guessing you already know what these guys are talking about.

CPU: Intel CPUs are superior in performance and overclocking headroom.

GPU: AMD GPU's are slightly faster than comparable NVIDIA parts at the same price. There are still reasons why you might want to choose NVIDIA like PhysX support and faster GPU Folding. If you are on the fence- AMD GPU does consume less power that the comparable NVIDIA GPU. Also, NVIDIA has also had some manufacturing issues resulting in early hardware failures with their 8x00's, the 9x00 line might also be affected.

Thanks guys.

I went with AMD because I had a heard a ton of great things about before. I'm really kind of stuck on getting an AMD, all the computers I've had have had Intel in them, wanna try something new.

Triscuit, no I hadn't planned on overlocking :D. Like I stated I'm doing this for the first time so I really don't know what I'm doing, and also I really don't know too much about computer hardware these days. I simply saw 2.6 GHz + Quad Core = AWESOME. If a Quad core is kind of overkill, it may spawn some other interest for me to take advantage of it, who knows.

Emon, I picked out an aftermarket heatsink because in the specifications for the Phenom, it said that "no cooling device was included - CPU only".

The graphics card I'm not really set on, I just kind of threw that one in there to get an idea of the total price.

What operating system should I get also?

I know that "variety is the spice of life" but I never seen anyone associate it to buying hardware.

AMD is fine. Intel does have an advantage, but the price for the same speed quad core processor is like 100 - 200 $ more. I have an AMD and I can definitely say I love it. It's only a 4200+ (Dual core 2.2GHz) but it's still plenty for the most part. Runs every game just fine. Yes, even Crysis.

Do you have a budget? It would be easier to decide if we knew how much you were willing to spend.

If you are, I say drop the Quad Core, and grab something like This

OS? Don't kill me - I think you should get Vista. Anything but the basic one.

The 9800GT is pretty much a refined 8800GT. I suggest getting something like the 4870(or 4850) or pull out your wallet and snatch a GTX 260. It's cheap (around here anyway). It's overkill, but you'll be set for a long while.

People kind of do it all the time...

Xzero, no I don't really have a budget at all. But I don't want to go completely overboard at the same time

Ok, PSU is fine as has been said.

Second, it's not at all worth it to go with phenom right now just for the novelty. Nehalem will be out soon and will be crazy awesome, and AMD's new architecture won't be about for a while and won't support any board or RAM you buy now. I have a duel core AMD running @ 2.4GHz, and it's been great but I got it three years ago. For 300$. Buy something that won't be totally obsolete in six months.

Also, definitely buy a 4850. They can had for around 140$ and are super awesome. Easily 2x that 9800. The GTX260 and 4870 are also awesome for ~50$ more.

And don't buy your RAM from a store. That's just asking to be ripped off.

Uh, no. Intel has had quad cores under $200 for some time. I can't find the benchmarks off hand but I think the Q6600 beats the 9950.

If you want to take full advantage of your new graphics card (DX10), you need to get Vista. If you plan on getting more than 4gb of ram immediately or in the near future go with some version of Vista X64.

Very help thanks Obi. How about AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor, would that be a little more fitting you say? There's also this AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Brisbane 2.6GHz. What would ya suggest? Looks like it'll save me a couple of bucks.

I want to have a really nice computer but it doesn't have to be a very top end one at the same time. I'm looking into trying Warhammer Online and Left 4 dead. I've never really been much of a PC gamer so my knowledge is pretty lacking

Really? Last I checked they were well over 300$.

I do know that Intel's processors of the same ranking GHz are faster. A Core2Duo 2.0GHz (I can never get the model names right, soz lol) vs my x2 4200 (2.2GHz), I know that the Intel one is just as fast if not faster.

Like I was saying, an AMD quad core is not worth it. If you want quad core that bad, grab Intel, if not, you can grab any x2 or Core2 and they should do you good service.

No, they're also trash. Seriously, get over your AMD "stuckness" and stop looking at inferior product. You're literally throwing money in the trash simply because you're "tired" of Intel. There's so many things wrong with that explanation I don't know where to begin.

A. If you were buying Intel a while back you were doing wrong. AMD used to be the best.
B. If you're buying AMD now you are doing wrong. Intel is by a large margin better than AMD, even at the same price point.

You really need to keep in mind what we're trying to tell you. AMD isn't just a small bit slower, it's a LOT slower. You are simply ripping yourself off by buying AMD right now, plain and simple. Do yourself a favor, get over your hump, and go Intel, or you'll be regretting it a lot down the road.

A tad? Try a huge margin faster.

Eh, if you're hellbent against intel I'd say go with the X2 6000 or an overclocked opteron. However, the Intel offerings are a lot better, but I'm still dreading having to go c2d or nahalem. Motherboard prices are insane.

Ok then offer me some advice as to what motherboard and CPU to get, since I openly admit to not knowing much about this sort of thing.

for motherboard i have an asus P5N32-E SLI which apparently newegg doenst carry anymore but if its in your price range the P5N-T looks very similar.

as for processors, i havent kept up with them lately as my dual core 2.8 works just fine for me.

I have yet to see an intel processor equal to mine that costs the same. It's over 100$ more. Just look:

AMD 4400+ (can't get 4200 anymore)

Intel Core 2 Duo E6550

So what, the intel is faster, but look at the price difference. The only reason I use AMD is because:

1. It came with my PC
2. My mobo uses socket AM2
3. Not going to buy new Mobo just for an intel processor
4. Can't afford intel.

There are more reasons to buy an AMD processor. Get your head out of your *** and stop being an Intel Fanboy. Both are great, but for budgets, AMD wins. Same as ATI. It's all a matter of opinion and what side of the coin you're on.

Don't get me wrong, when I get the money and upgrade my PC again, chances are if Intel is still ahead, then I'm going Intel.

Er, that Intel process is leaps and bounds faster than yours. Are you comparing just by clock speed? Clock speed is meaningless. The Core 2 Duo has a vastly superior architecture, four times the cache, etc.

The E2220 is more in line with the 4400+.

I have this same board with an E6750 (Intel chip, a newegg search will show you what it is) and I have no issues running anything. I can even run Mass Effect in retardedly high res with max everything and the only areas it slows down in is the citadel because of my 8800gt.

A friend of mine runs the same setup on crisis and gets good responses, but is also bottled by the 8800gt.

*sigh*... some day I'll update it again.

Why do I bother. Of course intel has better architecture. Anyone can tell you that. But the price from where I'm standing isn't so nice. (Canada + Intel prices = Suckage) That's how I put it I guess.

ANYWAY. Enough with the anti-opinion crap. To each his own.

Spectrael, the system you have in your "plan" should be good for AMD aside from the processor. You should probably get a monster Dual Core instead.

Either that or find an equivalent motherboard/processor on the Intel side for better performance. Just look for the same type of features (SLI abilities, speeds, RAM support) Might cost extra but if you don't have a tight budget then go for it! It will probably do you good. And grab something with lots of power, you don't want it going obsolete right after buying it (most frustrating thing in the world.)

As for the Intel Quads. I'm not sure how they compare to the 2Duos so I'd suggest google reviews and other information regarding the newer CPUs and decide for yourself if the Quads are worth it.

Oh and for video card, definitely grab 4850 - 4870 - GTX 260. Those are the only 3 that I can think of as being "worth it" right now.

750W is plenty, and should be fine. You'll have the room for SLI or Crossfire if you ever decide to use it. I have 700W myself and it's great (and it glows.. ooooohhhhh ahhhhhh)

Everything else should be fine no matter what system you get. Oh! And don't forget RAM!

I say get 4 GB and a 64bit copy of Windows Vista. You won't need the RAM right away but it's definitely welcome in any PC. And if you plan on playing Crysis, the 64bit version runs better.

You know why it's so ridiculously cheap? Because it's 2 years old! And it was an underperformer to start with! They're trying to clear inventory of their old crap.

Price should NEVER be the important factor when buying computer parts. It's the ratio of price:performance that you should be concerned about. Why in the world would you get that processor when $20 more would net you a much less inferior product?

Do you hear that? It's the sound of my point flying over your head. You were comparing the two processors based on clock speed alone. This is a terrible way to compare performance, as CLOCK SPEED MEANS NOTHING.

Bah forget it.

DROP the comparison. I don't know how much faster the Intel chip is over the AMD one. It was just an attempt.

I know intel is faster but for someone with no income like me, AMD is better suited.

Just leave it at that. Oh and Cool Matty. THE INTEL CHIPS AROUND HERE ARE OVER 100$ MORE. I'm not spending that much money for the CPU when I have a 500$ budget.

Except they're not cause I just looked at the exact same TigerDirect.CA site you linked from.

You have just won THE GAME.

I haven't checked the site in over a month, the prices may have dropped.

Why can't anyone accept that I like AMD processors? Sheesh it's not a big deal.

I'm going to play Guitar Hero. Good luck with the PC Spectrael.

(PS: Cool Matty - for an admin you really are close-minded.)

We all like AMD. The problem is that you were making recommendations based on erroneous information.

I admit that my information isn't complete, but some of it is there. Have you not noticed my earlier post? I clearly stated I didn't know much about Intel's speed dominance.

Instead of *****ing about it, why don't you point me into the direction of proper information instead? That way I can learn a little more myself and help accordingly.

The prices the last time I checked on Intel were much more. I did hear of a price drop but I was unaware of when and what processors concerned. Must have been recently.

A. Some of it isn't there. You openly admitted to not knowing anything on the subject then proceeded to offer advice on it anyway.
B. When informed that you were totally wrong, you defended yourself with more erroneous information.
C. Once you got called out on that, you play the victim.

The prices were never as ridiculously different as you say they are. If you think they were you were obviously mistaken/looking at the wrong thing.

And whether you like AMD or not is not the subject at hand, the issue is which is better, both in performance and price (funny sounds like I have said this before).

Anyway this has gone on long enough. Spectrael should get an Intel Core2Duo E8x00, depending on his budget is which of those he should pick.

I agree. My point was the AMD were better for budgets from my old information.

Trust me. I went through the site about a million times while trying to build my own PC. They were more expensive, by quite a bit. Seems they've got down enough for me to consider now.

I was just trying to say AMD wasn't a bad choice because it has decent prices. I had no idea there were Intel CPUs for the same price. "Openly admiting to not knowing anything on the subject"? It's not that I don't know anything. It's that I didn't know everything. Give a kid a break.

My information wasn't completely erroneous. It was just based off old sources (or a lack of multiple sources). It was in no way erroneous. That would mean that Intels advanced architecture is erroneous.

Whatever, I don't care what CPU he gets, it's the video and ram that need more attention in games atm (even the highest end games don't need a powerhouse CPU - at least not yet).

By the way I call 120$ and up expensive. Not sure what you call it.



The fact is the second I said AMD was fine, everyone lashed out at me. Why? What you should have done was link me to a cheap processor and say "They're not that expensive". Would have prevented the whole thing. Explaining things isn't something I do easily (hence why my information is all messed up and incoherent.)

Back to video cards.

Anyone know when the next line of cards is coming out?

Ummmm....

/facepalm

Yes it was. I don't know how to make this more simple...

You were finding "equivalent" processors by looking at clock speed. I'm trying to tell you that clock speed is NOT A WAY TO MEASURE PERFORMANCE. CLOCK SPEED IS NOT PERFORMANCE.

A 2.0 GHz AMD processor is not necessarily the same as a 2.0 GHz Intel processor. In reality, they are often very different. There are many criteria one must look at when evaluating processors, least of which is clock speed. Things like clock speed and cache are usually only useful for comparing two processors of the same product line.

Years ago when the Athlons first came out, Pentium 4s had much higher clock speeds, yet the Athlons were faster.

Do you get it yet?

You do know what clock speed is, right?

I know. Clock speed is how many clocks it does per second or so. You can do thousands of cloks but be blocked and only end up being the slowest of the bunch. You're trying to tell me something I already know.

I told you. I used clocks because I wasn't sure which CPU would go against that particular AMD CPU. I knew the AMD one for the same clock rate was faster, but I'm not sure if a 2.0 GHz is faster, or a 1.8 GHz is. So I went with the one that was most convienient for me.

Don't mistake me for an idiot. I've actually worked as a technician, I've just never had to compare AMD and Intel to eachother directly. I simply told people "Intel is faster."

Doesn't matter. This whole thread was trashed. Let's just let it go and let Spectrael tell us what he chose.

The last time AMD was better for budgets was back when they were faster than Intel. As in, before the Core Duos landed.

Your point is still the issue, in that even your past knowledge was incorrect. We even have old threads here on Massassi that show that Intel was the best price/performance even a couple years ago.