Looking to get a new gaming pc

[Aus_Snow]

The Q6600 is nice, but I would probably recommend the E8400 (or Xeon e3110 - they are essentially the same chip) before it. These are built using a 45nm process, with more cache than the previous generation (which includes the Q6600.) Uses quite a bit less power, and is going to be just as good at almost anything you're likely to be doing with it. There are a few niche areas wherein quad-core CPUs really shine, but that's about it. And gaming ain't one of them.

Here is the first game I checked, by way of comparison at Tomshardware. Not sure how the others pan out.

A single 8800GT or 8800GTS should be sufficient for most purposes, too. But then, I don't have direct experience with SLI or Crossfire. Maybe it is indeed worth the money.

The Corsair HX-620 is a great PSU, IMO. But if the Seasonic's a good one too, then cool.

Anyway, your build looks pretty solid, regardless of my own preferences and views on these things.

 

[Thanee]

GFX - In my (non-personal) experience, SLI isn't a perfect solution and sometimes causes problems, some games do not really support it, and so on. Go with a single, powerful card. The 2nd generation 8800GTS is a good choice. Or go for the 9x generation.

CPU - I also see no reason for going quad. A solid DualCore is what I would recommend.

RAM - more than 4GB is only even usable if you buy a 64bit OS. And 4GB is more than enough these days, and for a lot to come, anyways.

Bye
Thanee

 

[drothgery]

The mobo should allow for easy cpu upgrade in a few years

It's very, very rare that CPU upgrades are cost-effective. Sockets rarely last much more than three years in the mainstream (and even if they do, other changes can render upgrades to newer CPUs impossible), and the same goes for memory standards. So unless you're buying a really cheap placeholder to upgrade to something upper-midrange or better within a year, there's not much chance of a practical upgrade. Certainly both AMD and Intel will be on new sockets next year, as the transition to DDR3 moves into the mainstream.

And while an 'email and web browsing' PC can go 5-6 years without essentially being replaced (i.e. replacing the motherboard), a gaming PC can't. Few games are CPU limitted today, but that doesn't mean they're playable with a single-core P4 (even if you managed to pair it with a GF9800GTX for some crazy reason).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

GFX - In my (non-personal) experience, SLI isn't a perfect solution and sometimes causes problems, some games do not really support it, and so on. Go with a single, powerful card. The 2nd generation 8800GTS is a good choice. Or go for the 9x generation.

My PC is SLI capable, but I don't actually have a second card. If you can get this cheap, there might be hope for some upgrade. Though I wouldn't count on it.

CPU - I also see no reason for going quad. A solid DualCore is what I would recommend.

I was tempted to QuadCore, but I decided against it. I think with multi-tasking OS can notably benefit from DualCore, but to really utilize QuadCore, each individual software needs to benefit from the 4 processors. This is especially important for games. And so far, they simply don't seem to do it.

With time, the software development tools will support multi-threading/multi-processor use better. But they don't do it yet, and you might as well plan for your next PC being a QuadCore.

RAM - more than 4GB is only even usable if you buy a 64bit OS. And 4GB is more than enough these days, and for a lot to come, anyways.

If you can be rest assured that all your computer drivers are 64-bit capable, a 64Bit OS is fine.But 4 Gigs should really be enough.

 

[drothgery]

With time, the software development tools will support multi-threading/multi-processor use better.

Wake me up when this actually happens. Non-programmers have been promising it will since the 1970s, and there hasn't been much progress beyond providing native constructs for some synchronization structures, and greater availability of multi-threading aware libraries.

Without radical changes in programming -- and I have yet to see any evidence that this will happen -- four general purpose cores will be of limitted use for desktops, and more than four essentially useless. Amdahl's Law is real.

 

[Thanee]

Wake me up when this actually happens. Non-programmers have been promising it will since the 1970s, and there hasn't been much progress beyond providing native constructs for some synchronization structures, and greater availability of multi-threading aware libraries.

Without radical changes in programming -- and I have yet to see any evidence that this will happen -- four general purpose cores will be of limitted use for desktops, and more than four essentially useless. Amdahl's Law is real.

The big difference now is, that the CPUs are actually there.

Yes, I know there are multi-CPU boards available since decades, but only now they start to really become a common sight in homes.

Bye
Thanee

 

[drothgery]

The big difference now is, that the CPUs are actually there.

Chicken and egg. They'd've been there (in the form of BH6-style inexpensive multi-socket motherboards) a decade earlier if there were any real use for them.

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

I would buy the quad core in hopes that some games might begin to support 4 cores over the next 3-4 years. Having said that, the E8400 is a better deal than the Q6600, upon reflection. We're going to have to see some better parallel frameworks for the >2 core cpus to shine...and thats many years away. Where's academia when you need it? I think that Google is putting some serious work in developing better approaches and frameworks..trying to get the community involved. There is an summit-type event this summer I think.

And I think the CPU socket, LGA 775 will last for 4-6 years given the architecture path of intel. I could be wrong, but I think it will last. But wouldn't I just want to get a new one sooner to add in DDR3...? ...yes, yes I would.

I would think that installing a 64bit OS shouldn't be a problem, but there are issues along side of that, I know. 4GB is plenty, yes, and hella cheap.

I agree that the G92 8800GTS would be a better chip than the G92 8800GT. Just would be about $50 more...small potatoes. I would also argue against SLI simply for cost reasons. I have only one gpu, my buddy has two. Some games benefit more than others, but one solid card is better bang for your buck. ..and of course G92 core or later (assuming nvidia).

I'm looking forward to the cpu/gpu on same die. I hope that really works out. I'm guessing (hoping) 5 years for it to be stable. ...??

I wasn't very familiar with the Corsair HX-620, but it appears to be rock solid and quiet. Two features I like a lot.

Thanks for all the feedback. Informative.

 

[Thanee]

Chicken and egg. They'd've been there (in the form of BH6-style inexpensive multi-socket motherboards) a decade earlier if there were any real use for them.

I don't think that's the same... developing software in the hopes that the hardware will be available/affordable or developing software for hardware that is actually there and common.

Bye
Thanee

 

[drothgery]

I don't think that's the same... developing software in the hopes that the hardware will be available/affordable or developing software for hardware that is actually there and common.

Multi-socket workstations have been available, common, and affordable in the enthusiast / professional space for a long time. If the benefits weren't extremely limitted (dual cores are only generally useful now because most people have anti-virus and various other more intensive background tasks running at all times now; this wasn't the case ten years ago), they would have trickled down into the mainstream like most new hardware tech does.