790i Ultra Q6600@3Ghz 4G-DDR3CorsairXMS

NM

haha! you wasted money on ddr3. yay!

New rig? Wow, so very sad.

Wasted money? Sad? seriously though if you got an opinion i want to hear it you wont make me mad i promise.

First off you wasted money on the motherboard. Since it only uses DDR3 you wasted money on that which you gain no performance benefits not worth the price of the RAM. You can get lower latency DDR2 RAM for a significantly cheaper price. Then your graphics card is outdated and hardly worth purchasing. And you're going SLI, which is a HORRIBLE idea seeing how the performance increases are minimal and hardly worth the price.

You could have saved over $200 by swapping out the 790i for a P35 and DDR3 for DDR2 while getting a 9800GTX, which would have given you a MASSIVE performance increase.

People are assholes. You have a 790i you can crank that Q6600 up to 3.7 easy.

I'm running on a P5N-E Sli which has problematic overclocking holes, but i have it stable at 3.4ghz and am leaving it there for now.
Anyway congratulations that's a pretty damn solid computer.

Your motherboard isn't as important as your cooling setup. 3.6 is the highest you can safely go on a nice air setup, any higher you need water at least. The 650i isn't a great overclocking board anyway.

I disagree the 8800GTS is not outdated. Also I'm pretty sure SLI x2 8800GTS will out perform 1 9800GTX. Pretty sure, I did some research a while back but I may have to find that again to back it up.

I have run HGL, Crisis, and Gears of War on this system at 60FPS on high graphics settings. If thats outdated then I don't know?

I have the Q6600 on a Arctic Freezer 7 Pro @ 3GHz. I couldn't get it higher but then again I'm not fluent at OC.

I can't argue about the DDR3 memory but I haven't seen anyone prove it either.

I disagree, the 8800GTS 320MB is outdated, as it was released over a year and a half ago. It has been replaced by the 8800GT, which yields a minimum of 120% performance increase at lower resolutions and up to 170% increase in performance in high resolutions.

There are dozens of reviews on the net that show the performance from DDR3 is currently minimal for its pricetag. Also you will not see a performance boost from it for at least another year, at which Nehalem will be released by Intel and upgrading to DDR3 will be a must.

I don't know what reviews you've been reading, but the performance of the gt over the gts is nowhere near a 170% increase. Did you perhaps mean 20% and 70%?

Alas, Naoza is correct though, the 320 gts is one of the weaker 8800's. Of course, if you ignore price, you shouldn't have bought an 8800 of any kind, as a 9800 is more powerful. As long as you didn't spend the $250 you would have for a gt, he's just being a twit as far as the card goes. The ddr3 he's got you on though. Must have the bandwidth to use it, the current ones don't.

No, I meant what I said. Say the 8800GTS 320MB gets 20FPS in X game at X settings, the 8800GT gets 34FPS in the same game at the same settings, that is a 170% increase in FPS.

I'm not being a twit, you can get the 8800GT for $170 and less from a quality manufacturer. The 8800GTS 320 will cost you around $120 from a quality manufacturer, so the difference in price justifies the boost in performance.

hahaha that is one of the worst setups I've ever seen, especially when Nehalem is coming out in like November. why are you bragging?

even a 8800GT or 512 8800GTS (possibly SLI), E8400, and 6-8GB DDR2 on P35 is not a great buy right now with a whole new socket on the horizon. Naoza is 100% correct.



have you seen any benchmarks comparing the 8800GT/8800GTS to the 9800GTX? the GTX is just marketing hype. it brings nothing new to the table. even two SLI'd 9600GTs ($260) would match up fine.

A 32 bit OS (IE: Windows XP 32bit) can only see 4gb of RAM max. Of that 4gb it can only utilize around 3gb of it. The GPU's on board memory also counts toward the 4gb max. So if I'm doing my math correctly, the posted rig has about 1.3gb of memory doing nothing. Adding an SLI setup will increase this to 1.6gb of memory doing nothing.

I just wanted to point this out for everyone else. It's a not very well known thing hardware/software manufacturers fail to tell you about.

Web link

True. However, DDR2 is so cheap (sometimes $30 for 2GB) that it doesn't hurt to put in at least 4GB, if not upwards of 6GB on a x64 OS. The problem there is with drivers, which seem to be improving as more people go x64.

Dude, nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS isn't too great. It isn't even the best of the 8800 line, and currently 9800 GX2 is king. I believe by the end of summer or so, we will be having the successor to the 9800 GX2 (using some GT200 codename, rumored to be called the 9900 GTX or something of the sort).

The 4 GB RAM is nice, but isn't used completely (by like 800 MB or so) with a 32-bit system.

And there is no way you are getting Crysis settings on EVERYTHING at maximum to be running at 60 frames per second, with that video card, unless you are running at really low resolutions or something. However you said "High," and I do not know what the situation would be with it on those settings - you won't be getting "Very High" settings because you don't have DirectX support (OS-wise), as you are running XP.

The motherboard is completely unnecessary. Why would you get that? I'm also not a fan of SLI. You are wasting your money, power, and more money in needing a more powerful PSU and cooling system for little benefit with SLI. Your monitor is 21.6 inches, so you will not be needing SLI by any means - it's useful for massive resolutions, like 2560 x 1600 and so on.

Also, unless you are an overclocker, you should go with the new Q9300 processor. I intend to, as I do not overclock anything (Q6600 is MUCH better for overclocking, otherwise Q9300 is slightly more advantageous).

If you don't mind my asking, how much did you spend on this setup?

I'm looking to get a computer with a Q9300, 4 GB RAM (800 MHz), a 500 GB HD, nVidia 9800 GX2 (or whatever the top-of-the-line is at the time), MSI P7N SLI Platinum nVidia nForce 750i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard, 20-inch monitor (1680 x 1050), and the usual DVD burner, etc. for well under $1700 (with very good airflow cooling and a powerful enough PSU).

Your CPU speed will beast mine with overclocking, and you have the newer type of RAM (and your motherboard is unreasonably and unnecessarily beefed up), but I honestly believe I have the better deal, for gaming - the 9800 GX2 owns, well, everything (I think 8800 GT in SLI might be better, but you are comparing one GPU vs. two then, and two 9800 GX2 is pure overkill). Even the nForce 750i I want is not too needed (but I want a PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot for the 9800 GX2).

And this will all change most probably, as technology is an ever-changing entity - better things are coming every month.

- PR-0927

PR: The 9800GX2 is crap, no beans about it (SLI is inefficient, sure, but slamming together two GPUs in one card and getting even less performance is worse!). Having "the best" for the sake of "the best" is a status symbol, not an efficiency marker, as you seem to realize. Your system would be much well suited by a E8[4/5]00 and dual 8800GTS 512s..but it's your call.

I spent $1700 a year ago for dual 19"s, a 8800GTS rig with a E6400, 650i motherboard, 2GB of DDR800, 80GB and 500GB HDD, and two CD burners. How things have changed - you can now get a much better rig for less than $1000.

You are all missing the obvious, but it's not really your fault, it's bad marketing.

There are TWO 8800GTS models, the "old" 320/640MB versions and the "new" G92 based 512MB versions. The G92 8800GTS 512MB is the same core as the 9800 series. Why Nvidia called a new core an old name I don't really know, but they did. Right now the way things stand is you have (G80 core 8800 GTS 320MB) --> (G92 Core 8800GT) --> (G92 Core 9800GT) --> (G92 Core 8800 GTS 512MB) --> (G92 Core 9800GX2). If you bought a 320MB card you should have done your homework - It doesn't suck, but the price/performance/heat is lower than a 512MB or GT (8800 or 9800). HOWEVER, they're ALL still top tier high end cards.

There's nothing wrong with your mobo, proc, or even choice of memory. DDR3 does have a performance improvement over DDR2, it's just expensive. Also, people telling you to wait till november to buy a new socket are idiots. The best, latest, newest is always on the horizon but you need to pull the trigger eventually. Besides, it could even be delayed. You got good prices now because the tech is mature and you will also have less issues with drivers and compatability then if you would have bought it 18 months ago.

So, ignore the naysayers, your system is fine, even if it's not some carbon copy build from forum X. Many people choose different components all the time, these guys are just haters.

That's a 70% increase, 1.7 multiple. 170% increas would be 20+34 = 56fps

And of course no edit button when i made a stupid typo. i meant 54...sigh...

Wow. I saw this EXACT same thing on another forum. Must be a new advanced advertising bot going around.

Or just someone showing off their e-peen.

dont know why people always want the best.
I bought my pc 8months ago and i am still able to outperform most pc's nowadays..
it is all about setup..
I went watercooling, 12fans and 2rads.
I am happily sitting on my Q6600 @ 3.4ghz can push it to 3.8-4.0 but no need.
8800GTX overclocked past a Ultra, 2gb 1150mhz OCZ Memory on watercooling @ 5-5-5-10
I dont even have a good motherboard.. i got a Asus P5K Premium Wi-Fi (Intel P35 - 1333 FSB)
And i get well over 18k on 3dmark.
I get 86fps on Return to Proxycon on a bad day.

And don't start me on DDR3.
unfortunatly, you sir, wasted your money.

It is inefficient. True. However, it still performs better than ALL other gaming cards. It could be better, and should be, but when it comes down to it, it simply is the best at the moment. And, I am not a fan, AT ALL, of SLI, so that's out of the question (and you cannot fairly compare one 9800 GX2 to two 8800s and call the 8800s better - unequal comparison).

While efficiency is good, my goal is performance, without using SLI, and I'm willing to pay for the best on the market. So I'll be getting a 9800 GX2 or whatever is better by then.

And I would go dual-core, but I'm looking to future-proof my computer a bit - quad core would be better suited for that.

And 4 GB of RAM I would get, because I intend to go with a 64-bit OS, and if not that, it'll at least have some, if any, gain over 2 GB on a 32-bit OS (and I am willing to pay for that).

My intent is to get something near top-of-the-line and to get components (GPU-wise at least) that are the newest. The GT200-coded future nVidia GPU is rumored to have support for DirectX 10.1, so obviously I'd want that over an older DirectX-supporting GPU (given that it is still faster or just as fast as the previous generation).

And the motherboard you bought, Edix, IMO, was a bad move - that money could have been spent in a better component.

I'm not hating, just offering advice and constructive criticism. If I was hating, you'd see something like "OMG, U R T3H N00BZ, UR RIG IS T3H SUXX0RZ."

I'm just stating that I believe some of that money could have been used more wisely.

- PR-0927

There is a difference between an entire new processor architecture and say DDR667 vs DDR800. Do you realize socket 775 has been around since 2004? This is not some stupid "one month later there's better" thing.

If you could go back in time to early 04, would you tell someone to buy a Socket 478 motherboard? Of course not.

70% is not a 1.7 multiple, it is a .7 multiple. A 170% increase would be 20+14 = 34FPS, 20 being 100% and 14 being 70%.

NVIDIA has stated that they will skip all of DX10 and wait for DX11, so it is highly unlikely DX10.1 will be included. Although the performance boost AMD cards had with Assassin's Creed may end up changing their minds, however I find that to be bad PR, as they might as well.