OT: $2000 Computer Recommendations -- ASUS, NVIDIA, Intel
William Coleman
six-year-old dual Pentium III system has been giving me problems.
Specifically, when I play on PokerStars, it spontaneously reboots several
times a day. I have read that the most common cause of spontaneous
rebooting is a defective power supply, so I replaced the power supply with
an Enermax Liberty 400-watt unit, more than enough power for this machine.
No joy.
The computer ONLY reboots when running PokerStars. After thinking about
this problem for awhile, I realized that I only use my sound card when
running PokerStars, so I replaced my old sound card with a brand new
Creative X-Fi Soundblaster. It took me four hours to get sound from this
POS, and then only from the front speakers. But that will suffice for
PokerStars. I played about 12 hours yesterday, and no rebooting. I hope
the problem is solved, but I have been researching components for a new
computer build the last few days. Here are my current recommendations for a
$2000 state of the art computer system. Motherboard and video cards by
ASUS, System chipset and GPU by NVIDIA, and CPU by Intel. Monitors,
speakers, keyboard, and mouse are not included. All prices are current
prices at Newegg.
Case -- Thermaltake Armor Series VA8000BWS Black Aluminum / Steel ATX Full
Tower Computer Case -- $149.99
Power Supply -- ENERMAX Liberty ELT620AWT ATX12V 620W Power Supply -- 149.99
Motherboard -- ASUS P5N32-E SLI Plus LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 650i SLI ATX
Intel Motherboard -- 189.99
CPU -- Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 Conroe 2.13GHz LGA 775 Processor -- $222.00
CPU Cooler -- Scythe SCINF-1000 120mm CPU Cooling Fan/Heatsink -- $57.99
Memory -- Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2
6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory -- $273.49
Video Cards -- Two ASUS EN7950GT/HTDP/512M GeForce 7950GT GDDR3 PCI Express
x16 HDCP Splendid Video Cards -- $539.98 ($269.99 each)
Hard Drives -- Four Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA
3.0Gb/s Hard Drives -- $319.96 ($79.99 each)
DVD Burners -- Two SAMSUNG 18X DVDR DVD Burner With 12X DVD-RAM Write,
LightScribe Technology Black SATA Model SH-S183L -- $89.98 (44.99 each)
Grand Total -- $1,993.37, with $65 in mail-in rebates.
You could reduce the price further with cheaper video cards, fewer hard
drives, and only one DVD burner. I wouldn't recommend compromising on any
of the other components.
I picked the Intel E6400 CPU because it has the best performance/price
ratio, and because it is extremely overclockable. People are routinely
overclocking this CPU to 3.2 ghz with the Intel stock cooler and standard
voltage. Slight overvolting and high-end air cooling are yielding
overclocks up to 3.8 ghz.
The Scythe Infinity CPU cooler is definitely high-end. I would recommend a
conservative 3.2 ghz overclock. The E6400 has a 1066 frontside bus (FSB).
But this is misleading. The FSB is quad-pumped, so the true FSB is 266 mhz.
The E6400 has an 8x clock multiplier, and 8 X 266 mhz = 2.13 ghz.
So if you increase the FSB to 400 mhz, you get 8 X 400 mhz = 3.2 ghz. Now,
here is the elegance of this overclock. The memory is DDR2-800, meaning 800
mhz. But that means the actual memory bus speed is 400 mhz. Voila! FSB =
memory bus = 400 mhz. A 1:1 ratio of FSB to memory bus is very desirable,
resulting in the lowest latencies and synchronization delays.
Obviously there are alternatives for all the components. If you want to
know why I chose a particular component, or what alternatives are available,
just ask.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
xyious
> Memory -- Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2
> 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory -- $273.49
latency is key here, imho. but i'm too lazy to check the numbers of that
specific one.
> Video Cards -- Two ASUS EN7950GT/HTDP/512M GeForce 7950GT GDDR3 PCI Express
> x16 HDCP Splendid Video Cards -- $539.98 ($269.99 each)
i have 2 monitors on my one video card so i'm kinda wondering about that
one. 4 monitor system ?
> Hard Drives -- Four Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA
> 3.0Gb/s Hard Drives -- $319.96 ($79.99 each)
again kinda confusing me, in favor of upgradability i'd pick two 500 gig
ones at best. going for a raid system ?
> DVD Burners -- Two SAMSUNG 18X DVDR DVD Burner With 12X DVD-RAM Write,
> LightScribe Technology Black SATA Model SH-S183L -- $89.98 (44.99 each)
again, why two ? i wouldn't try burning one dvd at 18x, let alone two at a
time....
> I picked the Intel E6400 CPU because it has the best performance/price
> ratio, and because it is extremely overclockable. People are routinely
> overclocking this CPU to 3.2 ghz with the Intel stock cooler and standard
> voltage. Slight overvolting and high-end air cooling are yielding
> overclocks up to 3.8 ghz.
this is a gamble imho. overclocking ability depends on the specific
processor, buy two at a time and one might do great and one might not last
long. but obviously gradually increasing the speed and just going with the
highest that doesn't let it get too hot should be fine.... might not be
3.2 tho.
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
XaQ Morphy
> know why I chose a particular component, or what alternatives are available,
> just ask.
Do you do heavy gaming? If not, this system, although really nice, is
overkill. You could easily cut the price in half and still have something
that performs infinitely better than your P3.
However, that said, the prices you listed are pretty nice for the
components.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
---
William Coleman
"xyious" <a52...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:ost5b4x...@recgroups.com...
: On Feb 24 2007 12:28 PM, William Coleman wrote:
: > Memory -- Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800
(PC2
: > 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory -- $273.49
:
: latency is key here, imho. but i'm too lazy to check the numbers of that
: specific one.
The memory timings for these Ballistix sticks are 4-4-4-12, considered very
fast for DDR2-800.
: > Video Cards -- Two ASUS EN7950GT/HTDP/512M GeForce 7950GT GDDR3 PCI
Express
: > x16 HDCP Splendid Video Cards -- $539.98 ($269.99 each)
:
: i have 2 monitors on my one video card so i'm kinda wondering about that
: one. 4 monitor system ?
I have four monitors on my current system. This gives you maximum
flexibility and convenience. I like playing poker with full screen poker
tables. Even on a 21" 1600 X 1200 monitor, the 800 X 600 bitmaps are just
too small for me. I keep the PokerStars lobby on one screen, and three full
screen game tables on the other three monitors. Maybe I'm getting old, but
three tables is about the most I can handle, and I find I am more relaxed
and can concentrate on the games better when I only play two tables.
Four monitors are also convenient for other purposes, when you are doing
several things at once. For example, I always keep my Favorites Folder on
one monitor, Internet Explorer on a second, Outlook Express on a third, and
Windows Media Player on a fourth.
: > Hard Drives -- Four Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YS 250GB 7200 RPM
SATA
: > 3.0Gb/s Hard Drives -- $319.96 ($79.99 each)
:
: again kinda confusing me, in favor of upgradability i'd pick two 500 gig
: ones at best. going for a raid system ?
The absolute minimum you want is two hard drives. This gives you the
possibility of two concurrent disk input/output operations, as well as the
ability to keep backup copies of each partition on another disk. The basic
idea is to pull as many files as possible out of the operating system
partition and put them into another partition. This keeps the operating
system partition as small and as easily defragmented as possible. For seven
years I have used the following setup with two hard drives --
C: partition -- Windows.
D: partition -- swap file, Temporary Internet Files, Windows TEMP files,
etc.
E: partition -- Program Files
F: partition -- data files, My Documents, Outlook Express message stores,
Favorites, Cookies, downloaded programs, etc.
C: and E: are on Drive 1. D: and F: are on Drive 2. A hidden backup of F:
is on Drive 1. Hidden backups of C: and E: are on Drive 2.
With four hard drives, you get the possibility of four concurrent
input/output operations and a configuration something like this --
Drive 1 -- C:, hidden backup of E:.
Drive 2 -- D:, hidden backup of F:
Drive 3 -- E:, hidden backup of C:
Drive 4 -- F:, hidden backup of C:
: > DVD Burners -- Two SAMSUNG 18X DVDR DVD Burner With 12X DVD-RAM Write,
: > LightScribe Technology Black SATA Model SH-S183L -- $89.98 (44.99 each)
:
: again, why two ? i wouldn't try burning one dvd at 18x, let alone two at a
: time....
As I said, you can get by with one DVD burner. Two are convenient if, for
example, you want to burn DVDs or CDs while watching a DVD or listening to a
CD.
: > I picked the Intel E6400 CPU because it has the best performance/price
: > ratio, and because it is extremely overclockable. People are routinely
: > overclocking this CPU to 3.2 ghz with the Intel stock cooler and
standard
: > voltage. Slight overvolting and high-end air cooling are yielding
: > overclocks up to 3.8 ghz.
:
: this is a gamble imho. overclocking ability depends on the specific
: processor, buy two at a time and one might do great and one might not last
: long. but obviously gradually increasing the speed and just going with the
: highest that doesn't let it get too hot should be fine.... might not be
: 3.2 tho.
If you read the overclocking websites, you will find that this particular
dual-core CPU is EXTREMELY overclockable. 3.2 ghz is a very conservative
overclock for this chip. Many people are getting much higher completely
stable overclocks. You are right, though. There are no guarantees for
overclocking. A particular CPU might not be able to reach a stable 3.2 ghz
overclock.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
xyious
> I have four monitors on my current system. This gives you maximum
> flexibility and convenience. I like playing poker with full screen poker
> tables. Even on a 21" 1600 X 1200 monitor, the 800 X 600 bitmaps are just
> too small for me. I keep the PokerStars lobby on one screen, and three full
> screen game tables on the other three monitors. Maybe I'm getting old, but
> three tables is about the most I can handle, and I find I am more relaxed
> and can concentrate on the games better when I only play two tables.
>
> Four monitors are also convenient for other purposes, when you are doing
> several things at once. For example, I always keep my Favorites Folder on
> one monitor, Internet Explorer on a second, Outlook Express on a third, and
> Windows Media Player on a fourth.
yeah i switched to 2 monitors before stars started the resizable tables....
now i can't imagine going back to a single monitor system.... i imagine it
would be the same if i added another (two).
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
William Coleman
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:t236b4x...@recgroups.com...
:> Obviously there are alternatives for all the components. If you want to
: > know why I chose a particular component, or what alternatives are
available,
: > just ask.
:
: Do you do heavy gaming? If not, this system, although really nice, is
: overkill. You could easily cut the price in half and still have something
: that performs infinitely better than your P3.
Not really. Dual 1 ghz Pentium IIIs. One gigabye registered ECC SDRAM.
$600 ASUS CUR-DLS server motherboard. Dual 256-megabyte video cards. Dual
Maxtor Atlas V 10K 74-gigabyte Ultra 320 SCSI hard drives. One of the
reasons my current system is still usable is that I built it from state of
the art, industrial strength premium components from top manufacturers to
begin with. Six years ago, this system blew the doors off just about
everything. Of course, I have upgraded the video cards and hard drives
since then. Because I have this system hooked up to a 5-megabit DSL
connection, and I have tweaked both the hardware and software to the max,
this system is still quite responsive and would not be noticably slower than
a $1000 desktop system for the applications I run.
I know you can build a respectable $1000 computer. But you couldn't come
close to the performance, functionality, and industrial strength quality of
the specified system for $1000.
Here is what you could cut without sacrificing performance, functionality,
quality, or reliability.
Two hard drives instead of four. Savings -- $160.
Cheaper video cards -- NVIDIA 7900 GT with 256-megabytes video memory.
Price -- $200 each. Savings -- $140.
One DVD burner instead of two. Savings -- $45.
So the price comes down from ~$2000 to ~$1650. I really don't think you can
get the price much lower than that without sacrificing some performance,
functionality, quality, or reliability.
: However, that said, the prices you listed are pretty nice for the
: components.
I just like to do this exercise periodically to determine the best system
you can build at a particular price point. Right now, $2000 seems to be
about right for a no compromise, high performance, industrial strength
system.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
:
: Morphy
:
Bother@forgedpostsanonymous.unorg Cymbal Man Freq.
blows away most everything else on the market today, but it might cost an extra
$100-$200 until next quarter when the price might come down a bit. Maybe the
E6400 IS more economical now. Hmm. Gotta check and compare the specs on those
two. I'm still favoring the E6600 for some reason. Ebay or Amazon.com user
reviews probably has the answer.
Bother@forgedpostsanonymous.unorg Cymbal Man Freq.
64-bit, you might want 4-8, or even 16 GB of RAM, check your mobo specs.
William Coleman
"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bot...@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
message news:45e09e19$0$28126$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
: I was gonna go with the E6600 chip @ 2.4Ghz. Same overclocking ability and
Both the E6600 and E6400 are fine chips. The E6600 has a 9X clock
multiplier, compared to the E6400 8X multiplier. The E6600 has 4 megabytes
of unified level 2 cache per dual-core processor, compared to 2 megabytes
for the E6400 and E6300. This makes little difference for most
applications. Here is a good comparison of an E6300 and E6600 run with the
same clock multiplier and FSB. This isolates the effect of the larger
cache.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4
The E6600 is not as overclockable as the E6400, because of the larger cache.
By overclockable, I mean both the percentage increase over the base speed
and the absolute highest CPU speed attainable. 3.2 ghz is a full 50%
overclock for the E6400, and pretty much a gimme with high-end air cooling
and modest overvolting. To get a 50% overclock with the E6600 and get the
coveted 1:1 ratio between FSB and memory bus, you would have to overclock
the E6600 to 9 X 400 mhz = 3.6 ghz. That is doable, but not a gimme. Or
you could drop the clock multiplier to 8X on the E6600 and get the same
overclock to 3.2 ghz as the E6400.
Moreover, if you read some of the overclocking forums, some of the E6600
chips won't even reach 3 ghz. Right now, the E6400 is the darling of
overclockers, together with the less expensive E6300 and E4300.
Newegg currently has the E6600 listed for $314, the E6400 for $222, the
E6300 for $184, and the E4300 for $169. In my opinion, the E6400 represents
the overclocking sweet spot right now because of the 8X multiplier, which
unlocks most of the overclocking potential of these chips while giving a 1:1
ratio between FSB and memory bus. Keep in mind that if you overclock the
E6600 at 9X and the E6400 at 8X to the same CPU speed, the higher FSB and
memory bus speed of the E6400 will easily compensate for the smaller cache.
For example, if you overclock the E6600 to 9 X 400 mhz = 3.6 ghz, and the
E6400 to 8 X 450 mhz = 3.6 ghz, the FSB and memory bus are running more
than 10% faster on the E6400. The Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 memory I
specified will easily overclock beyond a 500 mhz memory bus, or DDR2-1000,
with somewhat slower memory timings.
The difference in price between the E6600 and E6400 is only $90, which
really doesn't mean much in a $2000 system. Also bear in mind, as xyious
pointed out, none of these overclocks are guaranteed. You might get a dud
with very limited overclocking capability. But I would say your chances of
reaching 3.2 ghz are definitely better with the E6400.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bot...@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
: If you get Vista 32 bit, you might want 3 GB of RAM max; if you get Vista
: 64-bit, you might want 4-8, or even 16 GB of RAM, check your mobo specs.
The ASUS motherboard I specified will support up to 8 gb of memory, but you
are correct. If you install 4 gigabytes of memory with Windows XP or Vista
32-bit, only about 3 to 3.5 gigabytes will be usable. Windows XP 64-bit and
Vista 64-bit support much more. I think up to 128 gigabytes.
This raises an interesting question concerning which version of Vista to
purchase. Assuming you want Vista Ultimate, your choices are --
Ultimate OEM -- $200
Ultimate upgrade -- $270
Ultimate full retail -- $380
Seems like the OEM version is a nobrainer, right? But the OEM version
cannot easily be installed on one computer, then later moved to a different
computer. Also, with the OEM version, you get EITHER the 32-bit or 64-bit
version. If you want both, your cost is $400.
The upgrade version comes with the 32-bit version, with a coupon for the
64-bit version. You are supposed to have a legitimate copy of XP to use the
upgrade, and the XP CD will no longer be usable after the upgrade, because
Microsoft zaps the product authentication code in their database. There is
a workaround for this, which has been widely discussed on the internet. You
just install an upgrade version of Vista and leave the product
authentication code blank. This installs Vista as a trial version. You
then install your upgrade version on top of the trial version and enter the
product authentication code. Apparently this works flawlessly, but it
violates the Microsoft terms of use, because you are supposed to have a
legitimate copy of XP to use an upgrade version of Vista. Microsoft could
close this loophole at any time, preventing future clean installs.
The only Vista version which avoids all these problems is the full retail
version, which comes with DVDs for both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. If
you are interested in the Vista 64-bit version, I would recommend a dual
boot installation with the 32-bit version, because Vista 64-bit still isn't
quite ready for prime time. There are compatibility problems with certain
hardware devices and software applications. Plus certain vital utilities,
like firewalls and antivirus programs, must be 64-bit.
Here is a good website for all things 64-bit --
Another alternative is to buy an OEM or retail version of Windows XP, which
are currently being sold with coupons for free upgrades to Vista.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
XaQ Morphy
> possibility of two concurrent disk input/output operations, as well as the
> ability to keep backup copies of each partition on another disk. The basic
> idea is to pull as many files as possible out of the operating system
> partition and put them into another partition. This keeps the operating
> system partition as small and as easily defragmented as possible. For seven
> years I have used the following setup with two hard drives --
Have you considered solid state drives? Much more expensive than standard
hard drives because there are no moving parts and it's essentially a big
RAM drive with a backup, but they are perfect for page files.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
William Coleman
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
:> The absolute minimum you want is two hard drives. This gives you the
: > possibility of two concurrent disk input/output operations, as well as
the
: > ability to keep backup copies of each partition on another disk. The
basic
: > idea is to pull as many files as possible out of the operating system
: > partition and put them into another partition. This keeps the operating
: > system partition as small and as easily defragmented as possible. For
seven
: > years I have used the following setup with two hard drives --
:
: Have you considered solid state drives? Much more expensive than standard
: hard drives because there are no moving parts and it's essentially a big
: RAM drive with a backup, but they are perfect for page files.
Yeah, I think that is the future, but regular old hard drives work fine for
me now. You could try this pretty inexpensively right now with a fast USB
flash drive. The USB drive would have much lower latency, but also a much
slower transfer rate.
Are you aware of solid state drives commercially available right now? This
is a subject I haven't investigated.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
XaQ Morphy
> me now. You could try this pretty inexpensively right now with a fast USB
> flash drive. The USB drive would have much lower latency, but also a much
> slower transfer rate.
Vista basically does this. If you insert a USB drive one of the auto-play
options is something like "help make my computer perform better" or
something. It uses about 512Mb of the USB drive as an extra level of
cache. Downside is you can't use it for anything else, but they are so
cheap these days I can't imagine it being a problem.
> Are you aware of solid state drives commercially available right now? This
> is a subject I haven't investigated.
I started to look into them a few years ago, but didn't get very far. I
keep reading things like "if you want to speed up your page file access
you can use solid state drives, but they are still very expensive." Back
about 10 years ago some online site decided to piece together a system
without a consideration to any cost, just to see what the best system they
could put together would be. They found 1Gb SCSI solid state drives for
about $70k a piece. You have to think they are much much cheaper than
that now, but I'm not sure exactly how much.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
Von Fourche
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HjVDh.3396$PL....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Here are my current recommendations for a
> $2000 state of the art computer system.
Uh, I thought there was no such thing as a state of the art computer.
William Coleman
:
: "Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bot...@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
Here are two pages of real world benchmarks which confirm what I am saying.
The comparison is between an E6700 with a 10X multiplier and an E6400 with
an 8X multiplier. The E6700 is clocked at 10 X 333 mhz = 3.33 ghz. The
E6400 is clocked at 8 X 417 mhz = 3.33 ghz. Notice the E6400, despite the
smaller cache, goes toe to toe with the E6700 and even beats it in some
benchmarks.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/page4.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/page5.html
The SisSoft Sandra memory bandwidth scores are particularly telling.
Integer/Floating memory bandwidth scores in megabytes/second are 7496/7494
for the E6400 and 6010/5996 for the E6700.
William Coleman (ramashiva)