# Replacing the computer of mine



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

After making a thread yesterday about my computer I reconsidered buying a new one.
These are the general things I want to exist in the computer -
CPU - Intel Core i7 920, 2.66GHz, s1366, 8MB Tray
Motherboard - GIGABYTE EX58-UD3R s1366 Core i7, Intel X58, DDR3 2000+, 3xPCI-E
RAM Mermory - DR III 1333Mhz 3x2GB Patriot Extreme Performance Triple Channel
Hard Disk - Western Digital 1TB 7200RPM, 64MB, SATA III WD1002FAEX
Graphic Card - either Gefore 9800 DDR3 1GB or Zotac GTS 250 1GB GDDR3 DX10 2xDVI HDTV PCI-Express 2.0
Power supply - not my general importance right now - will be about 600W
OS- Windows 7 Home Premium Hebrew 64Bit

This is my design of computer, do you think it can handle gaming softwares like 'Crysis:Warhead' and 'Battlefield Bad Company 2'? Is it fast enough?
Will I run on maximum performance? 

The general cost is about 1500$, but in another store it reaches 1000$ with minor changes like hard drive and RAM(the price drop is due SALE).

Is it a good deal?


----------



## Fuzzy Alien (Apr 10, 2010)

$1000-$1500??? Dude, you can get a gaming PC for $300. Your setup doesn't seem like it should cost that much; what makes it so expensive?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Fuzzy Alien said:


> $1000-$1500??? Dude, you can get a gaming PC for $300. Your setup doesn't seem like it should cost that much; what makes it so expensive?



More stuff like power supply, installing and also I will remind you that in the country I live, people are GREEDY AS HELL.
Most of the things here are sold in prices similliar to others.
Only the CPU costs me 400$ - for i7.
Also, I am not looking for a gaming PC of worms 2, I am looking for a top notch gaming computer that can run most of the basic things like Bad Company 2 and Warhead. It requires me to have Core 2 Dou 2.2 Ghz - I have 1.86 Ghz(NOT WORKING). So if I'll have i7 with 2.66 Ghz each it will be a lot more. About 10 Ghz for multi threaded games.


----------



## Yaps (Apr 10, 2010)

Hummm... From my opinion, since 80% of the PC are always underuse, I really don't see what a i7 really is for... I advise invest the CPU money to the GFX card. 

For handling BF2-Bad company with a 9800GT? No way... Those smoke will make a bad lag. Check out the new ATi range. The Nvidia just released the 400's but they hot as hell...


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 10, 2010)

i agree. invest more money in a better graphics card.
and by the way, you dont have 10ghz with a multicore CPU ;D each core has to be seen as an individual unit which is working on its own thread.
and the clock isnt that important anyways. the generation of the CPU is way more important since new CPUs have a WAY better and more efficient architecture


----------



## Bianca (Apr 10, 2010)

Ew, 9800? GTS 250? They're *both* re-badged 8800's and are doing you no favors at all. Get something from the Eyefinity Range of ATI stuff or if you must be evangelical nVidia then the GTX275 is an excellent bang-for-buck proposition.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Yaps said:


> Hummm... From my opinion, since 80% of the PC are always underuse, I really don't see what a i7 really is for... I advise invest the CPU money to the GFX card.
> 
> For handling BF2-Bad company with a 9800GT? No way... Those smoke will make a bad lag. Check out the new ATi range. The Nvidia just released the 400's but they hot as hell...



I'd still keep the i7 for the furture, as _you_ should remember that about each 1/3 year there is a mass upgrade in a certain section. I won't buy anything new for about 4-6 years, so I aim for something strong. The bad side, is that Intel is developing i9, a MONSTER. It will procress faster than the next terror attack on russia.

9800GT is too weak for that? It seems that it gets old with the time as well. What do you mean by ATi range and 400? I had ATi radeon X1300 in the past and it was DULL and super weak. I had it less than a year ago.



CaptainCool said:


> i agree. invest more money in a better graphics card.
> and by the way, you dont have 10ghz with a multicore CPU ;D each core has to be seen as an individual unit which is working on its own thread.
> and the clock isnt that important anyways. the generation of the CPU is way more important since new CPUs have a WAY better and more efficient architecture



Again, I will keep the i7 even though I never understand what the heck multithread means but i7 is the last top notch powerhouse.  i9 will get to here in about a year if it will start working in the USA right now.

The i7 is the newest generation. No expections known to me.



Bianca said:


> Ew, 9800? GTS 250? They're *both* re-badged 8800's and are doing you no favors at all. Get something from the Eyefinity Range of ATI stuff or if you must be evangelical nVidia then the GTX275 is an excellent bang-for-buck proposition.



Does that mean they are old? 9800 won't work, I heard. But even GTS250?
I don't know anything about the ATi stuff or the Eyefinity Range. GTX275 isn't good as well?

What do you mean by hardware getting hot or smoking? Do you mean it can't handle so much procress and because of that overheats?


----------



## Runefox (Apr 10, 2010)

> 9800 won't work, I heard. But even GTS250?


GTS250 == 9800. Start with a GTX275 on nVidia's range, or a Radeon HD 5770 on ATI's lineup if you want to run Bad Company 2 properly. It _is_ a more CPU-dependent game, but you're going to have to wind down the graphics settings and sometimes deal with graphics lag if you cheap out on the graphics card, especially if you're insisting on a Core i7.

Also, *do not* cheap out on the power supply. Get a good, reliable branded supply with a warranty equal to or greater than three years. Corsair are excellent, Antec are decent, PC Power & Cooling are outstanding, SeaSonic are outstanding. You'll pay more now, but if you pay $50 for a no-name with a year's warranty (and good luck getting them to honour it) versus $120 for a Corsair with a *five* year's warranty, you run the risk of the bugger dying in a year and requiring you to spend another $50 anyway, plus the possibility that it could take something else out, like the motherboard. Better spend the money up front. In addition, no-name supplies are generally rated as maximum output, at room temperature, which no power supply ever really does. Expect about 150W to be sliced off from what they actually say. The above brands tend to rate them properly, which is another reason why a 600W Corsair might be twice as expensive as a 600W OKIA (== absolute shit).


----------



## Bianca (Apr 10, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> I'd still keep the i7 for the furture, as _you_ should remember that about each 1/3 year there is a mass upgrade in a certain section. I won't buy anything new for about 4-6 years, so I aim for something strong. The bad side, is that Intel is developing i9, a MONSTER. It will procress faster than the next terror attack on russia.
> 
> 9800GT is too weak for that? It seems that it gets old with the time as well. What do you mean by ATi range and 400? I had ATi radeon X1300 in the past and it was DULL and super weak. I had it less than a year ago.
> 
> ...


What nVidia like to do when they don't have a _new_ product is re-release an old product with a new name. The 8800GT became the 9800GT with literally no changes. The 9800GTX and GTS 250 are almost identical, slightly ramped up versions of the 8800GT.

Anyway, the GTX275 is a solid choice. The 285 and 295 are silly now with new hardware so close, but for the price the 275 is sane. The Eyefinity Range of ATI stuff (5XXX) are all pretty solid and many can run three or six displays at once. nVidia do make better drivers, however.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 10, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> The i7 is the newest generation. No expections known to me.



thats true and its its extremely powerful^^ i like the triple channel feature they have 
i just think they are pretty overpriced, thats all XD


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> GTS250 == 9800. Start with a GTX275 on nVidia's range, or a Radeon HD 5770 on ATI's lineup if you want to run Bad Company 2 properly. It _is_ a more CPU-dependent game, but you're going to have to wind down the graphics settings and sometimes deal with graphics lag if you cheap out on the graphics card, especially if you're insisting on a Core i7.
> .





Bianca said:


> What nVidia like to do when they don't have a _new_ product is re-release an old product with a new name. The 8800GT became the 9800GT with literally no changes. The 9800GTX and GTS 250 are almost identical, slightly ramped up versions of the 8800GT.


W- w- w- w- what?! *hair blown*
nVidia lied.
I heard about the 275 and it is truly overpriced, but I will recheck the ATI's products and a bit on the prices. It looks like a huge hole has been made in my knowledge.



Runefox said:


> Also, *do not* cheap out on the power supply. Get a good, reliable branded supply with a warranty equal to or greater than three years. Corsair are excellent, Antec are decent, PC Power & Cooling are outstanding, SeaSonic are outstanding. You'll pay more now, but if you pay $50 for a no-name with a year's warranty (and good luck getting them to honour it) versus $120 for a Corsair with a *five* year's warranty, you run the risk of the bugger dying in a year and requiring you to spend another $50 anyway, plus the possibility that it could take something else out, like the motherboard. Better spend the money up front. In addition, no-name supplies are generally rated as maximum output, at room temperature, which no power supply ever really does. Expect about 150W to be sliced off from what they actually say. The above brands tend to rate them properly, which is another reason why a 600W Corsair might be twice as expensive as a 600W OKIA (== absolute shit).



I won't cheap out on it, but it is less important to me right now.
Also, I don't want to ruin your knowledge, but _not all products are sold in everywhere_. I never heard those names. We have different companies here for some things. Power supplies and cooling are completly different. For example we have Thermaltake.
Motherboard is important to me and I won't let it get ruined by another thing.
Still, there is no truth in your information as there are no OKIA and no Corsair here.
Though, I know there are cheap copies like Panasonic and Panshonic.



Bianca said:


> Anyway, the GTX275 is a solid choice. The 285 and 295 are silly now with new hardware so close, but for the price the 275 is sane. The Eyefinity Range of ATI stuff (5XXX) are all pretty solid and many can run three or six displays at once. nVidia do make better drivers, however.



Here we don't have the 285 and the 295 yet - prices are too harsh. Even the 275 is overpriced.  Then I'd get either a 5XXX ATI or a 275 nVidia as there is no use in 9800. Which should I pick? 



CaptainCool said:


> thats true and its its extremely powerful^^ i like the triple channel feature they have
> i just think they are pretty overpriced, thats all XD



I think with my lame duo 1.86 CPU I can spare and make an i7(Better than quad) 2.66. Too bad four cores with 2 GHz don't equal one 8GHz core as that would be awesome.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 10, 2010)

> For example we have Thermaltake.


We have Thermaltake here, too, and while they're _OK_, they aren't quite as good as the others I've mentioned (decent for a budget-minded build if they're on sale). I'm fairly sure that you should be able to find some of these brands if you were to look around online, and while I don't know what things are like in your area of the world, most of the time, PC shops and box stores don't actually carry them. As for OKIA, they aren't everywhere, either, but they're quite shit.



> I think with my lame duo 1.86 CPU I can spare and make an i7(Better than quad) 2.66. Too bad four cores with 2 GHz don't equal one 8GHz core as that would be awesome.


Well, the actual clock speed of CPU's tends to matter less and less as time goes on, and many would argue that it hasn't really mattered in some years. Especially comparing your current CPU's frequency to the i7, the i7 would probably be faster, per-core, than what you have now at half its speed.

While 4x2GHz cores won't make 8GHz, it _is_ 4 2GHz cores, which means the CPU can do _four_ tasks at once without losing much in terms of performance (which a single 8GHz core would not be able to do). Consider, too, that the i7 does hyperthreading and that actually makes it _virtually_ eight cores, as far as Windows sees it.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> We have Thermaltake here, too, and while they're _OK_, they aren't quite as good as the others I've mentioned (decent for a budget-minded build if they're on sale). I'm fairly sure that you should be able to find some of these brands if you were to look around online, and while I don't know what things are like in your area of the world, most of the time, PC shops and box stores don't actually carry them. As for OKIA, they aren't everywhere, either, but they're quite shit.
> 
> 
> Well, the actual clock speed of CPU's tends to matter less and less as time goes on, and many would argue that it hasn't really mattered in some years. Especially comparing your current CPU's frequency to the i7, the i7 would probably be faster, per-core, than what you have now at half its speed.
> ...



I will see, I'm just comparing things with people saying 'Buy gt240 buy gt240' and when I say anything about ATi they are like 'Too expensive don't buy it get gt240'.I still believe what you guys said and I think that ATi 5770HD which costs about 300$ here is really good. As with DDR5 and not the usual _3_ which I thought was the top notch, and direct X 11! 11! I never heard of that!

Ah.. I understand now. As one 8GHz core would be able to procress one 8GHz requiring procress it wouldn't be able to procress four, three or two 2GHz procresses. Four 2GHz cores would be able to do four 2GHz requiring actions clearly well but won't do any action with higher requirement. 

Then still, which should I take? nVidia 275 or ATi 5770HD? I am neither a big fan of nVidia or ATi.


----------



## Bianca (Apr 10, 2010)

Take the GTX275 over the 5770, unless you need the Eyefinity or DX11 features of the 5770 (tho I'd advise the 5850 over both, but it's pricer). In raw numbers, the GTX275 _is_ faster than the 5770 tho in power consumption it can't compare to the newer architecture of the 5770.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 10, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> As with DDR5 and not the usual _3_ which I thought was the top notch, and direct X 11! 11! I never heard of that!


It's actually *GDDR5*, which is a little different. It's a different "type" of DDR, and so has a different nomenclature. As for DirectX 11, that _is_ something that just came along with Windows 7. It offers a lot of new features such as tessellation and so on that can really increase image quality, though at the price point you're looking at in terms of video cards, the 5770 probably wouldn't be the best card to do any of that with.



> Then still, which should I take? nVidia 275 or ATi 5770HD? I am neither a big fan of nVidia or ATi.


It's up to you really. The 5770 has more features and will probably be easier on heat and power consumption, while the 275 is a bit faster overall, as Bianca said. The 275 won't be able to do DX11, however, but since you didn't even know about that until just now, you probably won't be missing it.

If you *did* care about DX11, though (and you should probably look it up on YouTube or something to see if it's something you want), I wouldn't recommend either card. The Radeon HD 5850 or higher should be what you should look at. No nVidia card right now supports DX11, despite several games supporting it, and really, they haven't released a "new" card in forever. They're planning to push the new 400-series cards soon, but they're said to be rather susceptible to heat and no doubt will carry a hefty price tag.

There's a lot of fanboys out there who will blindly support either ATi or nVidia, but my preference swings with the market conditions (as it should). If ATi is better costerformance (as they've been since the Radeon HD 4000-series), then ATi it is. If nVidia is better costerformance (as they were in the GeForce 8000/9000-series), then nVidia it is. Really, neither is specifically better than the other. Much like my current preference for AMD is beginning to fade with the (very slow) reduction in cost for the Intel Core i-series parts (though having two sockets on the market in parallel is just insane, Intel, seriously), as when they came out, they were over 200% the cost and generally far less than 50% better-performing than AMD's top-tier chips. They still are quite a bit more expensive for not a whole lot more performance, but the gap is lessening.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry, Fermi-based GeForce 400-series cards are already out, only by a couple weeks (so they still don't really exist to buy _just_ yet). They're pretty pricey, but benchmarks seem to compare favourably. Unfortunately, they only compare to the Radeon HD 5850/5870 (470) and 5970 (480/excellent C ratio) - No luck for mid-range right now. They guzzle nearly 50% more power than the Radeons, though, requiring some 200+ watts at minimum for the cards alone.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Bianca said:


> Take the GTX275 over the 5770, unless you need the Eyefinity or DX11 features of the 5770 (tho I'd advise the 5850 over both, but it's pricer). In raw numbers, the GTX275 _is_ faster than the 5770 tho in power consumption it can't compare to the newer architecture of the 5770.


I will write any cost from now on in NIS because I don't have the power to convert it to dollars. DOLLAR = 3.7 NIS

There is no GTX275 here, but there is the GT285. It costs 1800 NIS.
The GT240 costs 490 NIS, while the identical hardware 9800GT costs 620.
ATi 5770HD costs me 920 NIS. In the 285 I found GDDR3 and DX10 and 1GB. Nothing special. In the 5770 I found GDDR5 and DX11. I know that those are vital in graphics. DX11 will be better than DX10 at all costs, and also I use DX9. GDDR5 is a new league compared to GDDR3. I do not really understand what those mean, but they are more critical.

We don't have 5850 here, but we do have 5830 which costs only 1360 NIS and 5870 which costs 2150. 

Wait.. actually we do have 5850 and it costs 1450 NIS.

The 5750 costs me 800 NIS.

In raw numbers, I see ATi as 1337 and nVidia as failing recycle company.
Which are the numbers you are talking about? Open your eyes. They both have 1GB but the DDR and the DX make all the difference.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 10, 2010)

GDDR3 = Based on DDR2 spec.
GDDR5 = Based on DDR3 spec.

There's obviously more to it than that, but generally GDDR5 is faster and will give off less heat while taking less power to run.


----------



## Bianca (Apr 10, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> I will write any cost from now on in NIS because I don't have the power to convert it to dollars. DOLLAR = 3.7 NIS
> 
> There is no GTX275 here, but there is the GT285. It costs 1800 NIS.
> The GT240 costs 490 NIS, while the identical hardware 9800GT costs 620.
> ...


In performance stakes (which is where it matters), the 9800GT/GTS 250 are left behind by the 5770, which is in turn trounced by the GTX 275. Don't pay heed to buzz words, and the individual components of the card - instead focus on what actually matters: _real world performance_. DX11 support is nice, but by the time it's mainstream you'll definitely want a better card than a mid-range card like the 5770 anyway. So take it as a factor, at least, but not a huge one. Weather a card uses GDDR3, GDDR5, 768MB of RAM, 1280MB of RAM, DX10, DX10.1 or DX11 - the important thing is how it performs on today and tomorrows games. Next years games may support DX11, but will you card you buy now be able to play them at high enough settings to notice? I doubt it.


----------



## Jelly (Apr 10, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> We don't have 5850 here, but we do have 5830 which costs only $368 and 5870 which costs $582.



Just letting you Americanos know what the New Israeli Sheckel means price-wise.

By the way, I bought a computer with nearly the same specs yesterday, and I've gotta say that the i7-920 probably doesn't justify the similar cost of an 860/870. Go with the i7-860/870 architecture if you can find it. It has higher clock speeds and more overhead, all it really lacks is the triple-channel, which isn't going to make much of a difference (if at all) in gaming. 860 always has the higher clock speed, it also has a few extra features that the 920 doesn't.

i bought a 920 anyways
because i dont have time to learn how to build computer faces
and dell had some stupid deal on a 920 architecture system

but i did add the 5870 card to it
But at the price you're paying, I wouldn't be able to justify it to myself.

Also here is how chipset numbers work:
8xx, 9xx refers to the generation of the architecture, whereas x60, x80, etc. refers to the "quality" of the product. These differences can be subtle, but this is always how chip creators name their products.

nVidia architecture was quad digits 7xxx, 8xxx, 9xxx before triple digits 2xx, 3xx, 4xx. So, if you're look for an nVidia card of a newer generation start at a three digit card. The last two numbers refer to the performance of the product. So, if you have a card that's labelled 340 isn't going to be better than a card labeled 280. It just means it'll have more "potential features," but if the card isn't fast enough that isn't going to matter to you. For instance, the GeForce 8200 is a turd compared to a 7860 (but the 8200 can support a newer shader model - it just doesn't have the horsepower to run games at that higher shader model). The x200 refers to the fact that its a low end card, the 8xxx refers to the generation run.

so thats just a brief overview of that stuff
videocards are difficult, but they're pretty much the most important part of a computer if you're a gamer
most cpus that are out now can run games, and most games have really low ram requirements
the videocard is where the performance and graphics are at - but its also one of the most costly parts of the unit


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> GDDR3 = Based on DDR2 spec.
> GDDR5 = Based on DDR3 spec.
> 
> There's obviously more to it than that, but generally GDDR5 is faster and will give off less heat while taking less power to run.



That's why I'd prefer taking it.



Bianca said:


> In performance stakes (which is where it matters), the 9800GT/GTS 250 are left behind by the 5770, which is in turn trounced by the GTX 275. Don't pay heed to buzz words, and the individual components of the card - instead focus on what actually matters: _real world performance_. DX11 support is nice, but by the time it's mainstream you'll definitely want a better card than a mid-range card like the 5770 anyway. So take it as a factor, at least, but not a huge one. Weather a card uses GDDR3, GDDR5, 768MB of RAM, 1280MB of RAM, DX10, DX10.1 or DX11 - the important thing is how it performs on today and tomorrows games. Next years games may support DX11, but will you card you buy now be able to play them at high enough settings to notice? I doubt it.


It may be like that, but still - I can't trust nVidia.. as it it the company which recycles products with different names! In www.testfreaks.com , a saphirre ATi 5770HD got a perfect 10 and is rated as the best graphic card there. It costs 170$.

I'm not going to buy a new computer until the far furture, so I want to take something durable that fits FURTURE and not only present. DX10 will be a dull minimum in one year. The graphic card I buy now will not have the high settings as if I would buy it tomorrow, but remember... everything is moving.. and each 1/3 year there is a massive section upgrade! In three years you would barely see DX12. 


Jelly said:


> Just letting you Americanos know what the New Israeli Sheckel means price-wise.
> 
> By the way, I bought a computer with nearly the same specs yesterday, and I've gotta say that the i7-920 probably doesn't justify the similar cost of an 860/870. Go with the i7-860/870 architecture if you can find it. It has higher clock speeds and more overhead, all it really lacks is the triple-channel, which isn't going to make much of a difference (if at all) in gaming. 860 always has the higher clock speed, it also has a few extra features that the 920 doesn't.
> 
> ...



See, you did what the people here urge me to do - remove the TOP NOTCH CPU? I already said twice I aim for the furture, so I need something strong enough even if pricy to hold. I am not into computers hardware so I don't really know. 

Should I pay less?

Also, I wonder if they even sell 860/870 here.

Also I learned to not trust americans - they are a few levels more greedy.

Well, they have only 860 as the low level of i7.
Actually, the i7 920 costs 1250 NIS while the 860 costs 1400 - maybe because the 920 has 2.66GHz CPU speed and the 860 has 2.80 GHz CPU speed.

The 860 gets hotter for less energy while the 920 gets about 4 degrees less with more energy.

860- 72 degrees 95W
920-67.9 130W


Actually about RAM I was hoping to buy myself a motherboard with a 2 X 3 RAM.  Six times bigger than what I have right now.


----------



## Jelly (Apr 10, 2010)

920 isn't a top notch cpu. It's the lowest-end 9xx architecture. A high-end 8xx architecture would have better performance.
I edited my post to explain the naming system for chipsets.

The reason that the 8xx architecture costs more is because it is a higher performance chipset. The 920 is the economy version of the 9xx architecture. Its still good, you've still got 4 cores with hyper-threading, but if you're looking a little extra speed you're going to want to shell down for the 8xx chipset.
Like I said, though, this stuff matters only slightly in gaming. The old quad cores will probably still be mid-range for the next 3 years. An i7 is still only around 2 years old, so, any of the i7 architectures for sale right now will be decent value.

also, about the heat
what you can't invest in a fan?
I mean unless you're overclocking, that temperature is hardly something to worry about. If you _are_ overclocking, you should be going for the chipset with more overhead - which is the i7-870 and just invest in some kind of temperature controlling unit (either a large fan, or a water cooling system or whatever). From what I've read the i7-920 isn't really that great for OC.

I mean, I have a P4 3GHz machine, and I've been playing every game that's come out - all I've had to do over the past 5 years is replace my video card. I can't play Bad Company 2 or MW 2, my computer's limitations are mostly in the fact that my power supply sucks and I really don't care enough about gaming to upgrade my power supply, change out my chassis, and add a new video card.

Anyways, if you're just looking for a gaming rig, you should invest more money into the video card and away from the processor. So, a 920 is fine, and you could probably do with even less than that. But if you're looking for the top of line that your money can buy, the 8xx Intel architecture is the best processing unit you can get at cost from Intel.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Jelly said:


> 920 isn't a top notch cpu. It's the lowest-end 9xx architecture. A high-end 8xx architecture would have better performance.
> I edited my post to explain the naming system for chipsets.
> 
> The reason that the 8xx architecture costs more is because it is a higher performance chipset. The 920 is the economy version of the 9xx architecture. Its still good, you've still got 4 cores with hyper-threading, but if you're looking a little extra speed you're going to want to shell down for the 8xx chipset.
> ...


Now after the chipsets I can understand. and I believe it's true.
I want to perfect out a computer without having to buy a 2200+ NIS procressor. So the 860 is a really good deal then. It is 1400. The 920 is 1250. It wouldn't be hard.

Also I am not that of gamer, just that I love FPS and with all the games coming out I have to try that with a proper computer.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 10, 2010)

The 860 is a more powerful processor than the 920, yes, but it would require you to rethink which motherboard you'll end up needing, since it uses the LGA-1156 socket instead of LGA-1366 (which is insane, Intel, seriously). By using the LGA-1156 socket, you lose triple channel memory in favour of dual channel, but increase the memory bandwidth from DDR3-1066 to DDR3-1333 (if I understand this correctly; I haven't actually had hands on the i7's). The 860 should draw less power while having a higher clock speed and otherwise much the same or better.

One thing you do end up losing in addition to triple channel memory (which probably isn't a big deal anyway but one of those "nice to have" things) is QPI, Intel's new replacement for the Front Side Bus. In terms of speed, QPI yields a theoretical 25.6GB/sec transfer rate among components inside the computer, which is double the fastest traditional FSB and much faster than DMI (used on non-QPI i7's), which has a transfer rate of 1.25GB/sec (the PCI-E bus is handled separately, however). I don't have any figures as to how much of an impact that might have, and obviously non-QPI machines aren't exactly crawling, but it may be something to take into consideration, especially with the coming of USB3.0 and the SATA 6gb/s standards, which depending on how they end up getting used could (along with all other system traffic) possibly saturate non-QPI systems, though that particular motherboard has support for neither. For informational purposes, AMD's HyperTransport, as I understand it, works pretty much the same way as QPI does (and came first).

*With all that said, you might be able to find the i7 930* for in around the same price as the 920~860, which would give you the same kind of raw performance as the 860, and decidedly better if you consider QPI/3-channel memory/etc. The 930 was released just this year (February), and is I believe intended to replace the 920 in the retail market. Better still, you wouldn't have to reconsider your motherboard choice.

Intel's comparison page for the 920/860/930

EDIT: One other thing I noticed - Your hard drive has SATA 6gb/s support, but your motherboard does not. You might want to think about going up a notch or two on the motherboard so that you'll be able to fully appreciate the hard drive's performance. While it certainly wouldn't be saturating that link (nor SATA 3gb/s), its large 64MB cache, I hear, can and will dip into it (again, haven't had one in my hands so I can't say for sure on that - I'm reading that the gain is negligible, but your mileage may vary. Future-proofing is as always a good idea anyway, however). If you don't want to do that, you can downgrade the hard drive to a WD1001FALS, which is the SATA 3gb/s version of the 1TB Caviar Black drives. It's a little less expensive, too, and still really quick.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> The 860 is a more powerful processor than the 920, yes, but it would require you to rethink which motherboard you'll end up needing, since it uses the LGA-1156 socket instead of LGA-1366 (which is insane, Intel, seriously). By using the LGA-1156 socket, you lose triple channel memory in favour of dual channel, but increase the memory bandwidth from DDR3-1066 to DDR3-1333 (if I understand this correctly; I haven't actually had hands on the i7's). The 860 should draw less power while having a higher clock speed and otherwise much the same or better.
> 
> One thing you do end up losing in addition to triple channel memory (which probably isn't a big deal anyway but one of those "nice to have" things) is QPI, Intel's new replacement for the Front Side Bus. In terms of speed, QPI yields a theoretical 25.6GB/sec transfer rate among components inside the computer, which is double the fastest traditional FSB and much faster than DMI (used on non-QPI i7's), which has a transfer rate of 1.25GB/sec (the PCI-E bus is handled separately, however). I don't have any figures as to how much of an impact that might have, and obviously non-QPI machines aren't exactly crawling, but it may be something to take into consideration, especially with the coming of USB3.0 and the SATA 6gb/s standards, which depending on how they end up getting used could (along with all other system traffic) possibly saturate non-QPI systems, though that particular motherboard has support for neither. For informational purposes, AMD's HyperTransport, as I understand it, works pretty much the same way as QPI does (and came first).
> 
> ...


The 930 is about the same price as the 860 - 1495. The 975 is a bit higher, not by a lot. Only 4990 NIS. That's way beyond my capabillities.

The hard drive I consider buying is either the 1002 or the 1001. The price for the 1001 is 470 and for the 1002 it's 560. Not too much difference. I don't want about the SATA support and the 64mb cache and the things they do. I am just looking for 1Terrabyte 7200RPM hard drive with some speed and capabillities for the time.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 11, 2010)

In that case, go for the WD1001FALS instead.


----------

