Building A New Computer

[SeniorCitizenKane]

Hello, I am building a new computer. It will primarilly be used for gaming - so I've got a few questions I hope you guys can help me out with. First off, I've put together two different computers, a $1300 one and a $2200 one (Currency is in US dollars).

 

 

 

The main differences would be the more expensive one has 2 10,000 RPM HDD's running in a RAID array and 2 8600 video cards running in SLI. So this is where I have a few questions:

 

 

 

A) How hard is it to set up RAID arrays, do I do it before or after installing an O.S. and where do I get the software to do so? Im pretty sure you have to use a floppy to do this for some reason, right? I have a spare floppy drive lying around here somewhere if thats the case.

 

 

 

B) How difficult is it to set up 2 seperate video cards on 1 mobo? Is it as easy as popping each one into their respective PCI-E 16x slots or will I need a SLI cable and if so where would I get that, does it come with?

 

 

 

C) I know there is alot of debate over which anti-virus is the best, I've used nortan, mcaffee, and AVG. I have no beef with one over the other. However, can anyone tell me which one is going to use the least ammount of resourses? Being a gaming computer, I dont want something thats going to hog 30% of my CPU and 500megs of RAM while running in the background.

 

 

 

Lastly, and this is kind of a big assignment, but could someone check and see that everything I've picked out will work with each other? I picked out an AM2 AMD mobo and I have an AMD AM2 processor and a heatsink that should fit on an AM2 processor, DDR2 memory and all that good stuff; but if you guys could just double check and see if all the socket types and pin types match up I that would be amazing! Also, if you see something I posted and think its junk or think there is something better I can get for the same price or off a different site than newegg then feel free to let me know

 

 

 

Stuff Im getting so far:

 

MotherBoard:

Asus Crosshair - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131593	$234.99 



PowerSupply:

Gigabyte 800W - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817233001	$219.00 



CPU:

AMD Athlon 64x2 3.2 Ghz	 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103191	$239.00 



HeatSink:

Zalman 110mm - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118019	$64.99 



VideoCard(s):

8600 GTS - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143113	$219.99 



RAM:

G skill 2x 2Gig - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231122	$174.99 



Computer Case:

Apevia X-Pleasure - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144128	$129.99 



CD/DVD Drive:

Asus - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135146	$35.99 



Total	$1,318.94 

 

 

 

Stuff I might potentially get:

 

HardDrive(s):

WD Rap. 10k RPM 150Gb - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136011	$189.99 



Router:

Linksys Wireless N - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124084	$159.99 



Headset:

Razer Barracuda - http://www.razerzone.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_16&products_id=38	$129.99 



SoundCard:

Razer Barracuda - http://www.razerzone.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_16&products_id=41	$199.99 



Keyboard:

Targus AKB045US - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823173009	$19.99

 

 

 

D) One last question though, I am looking at getting a sound card. The Motherboard I am getting has a soundcard that comes with it rather than onboard sound. It is "SupremeFX Audio Card" can anyone tell me if this is any good? Keep in mind I am an extreme gamer, sound is almost more important to me than being able to see something. (I play FPS)

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/19430 ... sound-good

 

 

 

So Im assume the PCI card that I can buy seperate would be better simply because it wouldn't be drawing power from my CPU? or is this not true since the SupremeFX isn't actually onboard, but takes up the PCI-E x1 slot?

[SeniorCitizenKane]

Oh, I should also add that I do have a fair amount of computer knowledge, so keep that in mind when your answering my first few questions. I know several programming languages, have built multiple websites, and maintained a few servers before. I have also had experience building several computers (but not to this extent) I just like to play it safe and double check with other more experienced people.

 

 

 

And also another question, should I be worried about putting 2 10,000 RPM hard drives and 1 7200 RPM harddrives in that case? Its a full tower, with two 80mm fans that would be right on the hard drives and 2 more 120 mm fans blowing air across the mobo - and also I picked out a reaaally nice heatsink... so what do you guys think? Overheating an issue? And is it true that the vibration of the fans can mess with the 10,000 RPM drives and they need special rubberized stablers? Will those come with?

 

 

 

*Overheating

 

*Rubberized stablers & will they come with

 

 

 

Thanks again!!

[blade995]

A) How hard is it to set up RAID arrays, do I do it before or after installing an O.S. and where do I get the software to do so? Im pretty sure you have to use a floppy to do this for some reason, right? I have a spare floppy drive lying around here somewhere if thats the case.

 

 

 

 

Installing a raid array isn't really that hard. You would do it before the OS installation. You may need a floppy drive to set it up, all motherboards are different. It also depends if your going to use a software raid or hardware raid. Hardware is recommended if your motherboard supports it (all new ones do).

 

 

 

Although raid arrays don't offer too much performance gain. You would probably be better off with a Western digital 750GB drive.

 

 

 

B) How difficult is it to set up 2 seperate video cards on 1 mobo? Is it as easy as popping each one into their respective PCI-E 16x slots or will I need a SLI cable and if so where would I get that, does it come with?

 

SLI is really simple to set up. You need a SLI capable motherboard (obvious). All you need to do is plug them in then use the SLI bridge to connect the 2 cards together. I also don't recommend SLI-ing 2 midrange cards, it would be cheaper and better to just get one high range card, such as the 8800gts.

 

 

 

C) I know there is alot of debate over which anti-virus is the best, I've used nortan, mcaffee, and AVG. I have no beef with one over the other. However, can anyone tell me which one is going to use the least ammount of resourses? Being a gaming computer, I dont want something thats going to hog 30% of my CPU and 500megs of RAM while running in the background.

 

I don't think there is one anti-virus that could use that much resources :wink: . I have used all 3 you have used and Nortan is a resource hog, the others are good. Most people, including me, would suggest AVG. Another good anti-virus would be NOD32.

 

 

 

Even if you put 3 hard drives in there, nothing should have overheating problems. As long as you have at least 1 120mm fan for intake and 1 120mm fan for outtake. Maybe a fan on the side of the case or the top, but you will not need anything excessive.

[das1330]

well theres a few things i'd like to point out. First is the hard drives. While a pair of Raptors is fast, the newest revision of western digital hard drives, with model numbers ending in AAKS has performance that runs toe-to-toe with the current generation of Raptors, and is faster then the older revision drives. (even with the slower spin speed) Plus, they are a lot cheaper, with a 750 gig drive here going for 40$ less then a Raptor. The only real difference you will notice is that the case of the drive does not look as cool :D

 

 

 

As far as the graphics card goes, believe it or not but a single 8800 GTS 640mb card will easily beat a pair of 8600's in SLI, and compatibility for a single card is much better then when trying to put two together in SLI. This is the card I would recommend. EVGA is known in the graphics business as one of the better companies for customer support, and the warranties are much more lenient then other manufacturers (I.E taking the heatsink off the card does not void the warranty)

 

 

 

Then there is the processor. Unless you already own an AMD processor you are planning on using, I would go with an intel processor. Large hardware sites (like toms hardware) show that the newest intel processors stomp on the AMD ones. I would recommend a core 2 quad q6600 Here. Here is a comparison of the processor you posted, with the one I posted. This is the motherboard I would recommend to go with that processor. Not as much "Bling" as the one you posted, but it is faster. If you really like Asus, This is the equivalent intel motherboard to the one you posted, but it is also VERY expensive.

 

 

 

There you go, a 30% faster computer for the same price!

[SeniorCitizenKane]

Just a quick question, I didn't have a whole lot of time to review what you guys said (work + college = time consuming). Thanks for your advice, but like I said, one question.

 

 

 

How would 1 7200 RPM drive with a 8.9ms seek time 10.9ms write time with a 4.2ms latency be faster than

 

 

 

2 10,000 RPM drives with 4.6ms seek time, 5.2ms write time with an average latency of 2.99ms. One drive alone would be faster than the larger 7200 RPM drive you posted, wouldn't it? Not to mention I would be running these in RAID, and I know there are different arrays but obviously I would set the two 10,000 RPM drives to act as one hard drive, bascially doubling the speed, right?

 

 

 

Im not worried about space. The 2 raptors would be 300 gigs - I would use that primarilly for my OS and installing games. I already have another WD hard drive that is 500 gigs that I would be using to store music, movies, documents, pictures, ect.

 

 

 

So in all honesty I still think that 2 raptors would easilly out beat that hdd, unless you can convince me other wise, and I am open to any ideas or w/e you might have so don't take this the wrong way.

[cem22lp]

I think he means using 2 WD Caviars in a RAID 0 setup would give similar performances to the raptors, if you want to see the numbers for yourself then try looking at the charts here.

 

If storage space isn't an issue then you can buy 2*320Gb drives like this, or buy another 500GB drive identical to the one you've got and set up a RAID 0 array. but depending on what it is, that may not perform as well and i'd suggest some sort of external drive to back up your data.

 

If you need more convincing that you shouldnt be spending $200+ more on the raptors then just remember that RAID 0 doubles the chance of HD failiure already, drives running at 10k RPM instead of 7.2k RPM make them even more likely to fail.

 

 

 

conclusion - save your money, buy beer or spend it on a better processor/gfx card which will give you a much bigger performance boost

 

 

 

Rest of your system looks fine, but as has previously been suggested get an 8800GTS instead of the 8600 SLI and an intel processor/motherboard.

 

Finally, are you going to be overclocking the processor? If you aren't then the stock cooler should suffice, especialy on an intel processor.

[das1330]

while the raptors will run faster, the performance bonus is negligible, particularly with 4 gigs + of memory. The only improvements you will see will run about 0.05% of actual average computer speed, as you wont be using the page file on the hdd at all. believe me, they are a waste unless you have several thousand dollars to burn (4000+). I own a couple, and aside from a improvement of a few seconds at bootup, I cannot tell the difference between them and a pair of WD regular hard drives. (I have 2 RAID arrays, 2 500 gig drives, and 2 raptors.) The only other difference that would matter between my setup and yours is that I have 8 gigs of memory.

[SeniorCitizenKane]

Okay - for now I will use my 500 gig hard drive. Im not worried about price, as long as its under about $2000.

 

 

 

I will also take the advice on the video card, and maybe in the future drop another $400 to use 8800GTS SLI.

 

 

 

The reason I am being so picky is because this computer I built primarilly for the game Half-Life 2. I wanted a computer that would be able to run the game, and run the game it does, but it was at a time when I had little money and had to build the computer on a budget of $500. So it can run newer games, but on lower settings and its become quite obsolite. This time when I build a computer, I want to do it right and I want to be able to smoke the competition and do it with stunningly realistic graphics and HD lighting, Im sick of games being choppy because of low frame rates so I want to build a beast of a computer and still do it for around $2000 or less, hence why I was [am] debating on getting the raptors (and why is it that using a RAID array lowers the life expetancy of a drive? Ive never heard that before) And yes, part of this is about ego, when Im at a lan party I want to be able to boot up and start a game before people can even press their power buttons.

 

 

 

However, one question I still have....

 

 

 

The processor I was looking at is an AMD x2 3.2 ghz chip. The intel one you posted is quad core, but only 2.4 ghz?? So which one is actually better? I mean, the computer I have now that is 3 years old has a P4 2.8 GHz processor in it, how can something thats only 2.4 Ghz be faster? Is there one with a higher Ghz that I could buy for roughly the same price? I have no preference; intel over AMD, I have intel now but I was told back when I built this computer that AMD was better for gaming, have the tables turned again?

 

 

 

I kind of understand the idea of different cores, like 2 or 4 cores working together in one Processor (rather than having 2 processors working as 1) but can't I only take advantage of the multiple cores if the program is compatable with multi-threading??

 

 

 

I want the computer to be fast when Im playing new games, which are most likely going to support multi-threading, but I also want it to be just as fast when Im playing my old counter-strike games and what not...

 

 

 

Would an Intel dual core with higher GHz be better, or the quad core with lower GHz? If anyone could kind of explain this to me that'd be awesome.

 

 

 

oh, and I would get 8 gigs of ram, but Im not ready for the switch to vista. However I do plan on switching in the future, hence the motherboard supporting a max of 8 gigs of ram.

[das1330]

well, GHZ isn't everything. All that measures is how many "clocks", or cycles a processor can complete in a given amount of time. Think of it this way: A pentium 4 based on the netburst architecture can run at say, 3.4 GHZ and can run at 2 instructions per clock, well 3.4*2=6.8, right? well the core architecture on current Intel chips, like the core 2 duo's and quads, would run at say 2.4 GHZ but be able to process 4 instructions per clock, so 2.4*4= 9.6, times another 4 for the four cores equals 38.4, right? While instructions per clock is just one factor in determining Processor speed and the numbers I made up were just for demonstration, you get the point. Essentially, while the core based processors run at a lower GHZ rating then the netburst based processors, they are more efficient, with the added bonus that lower clock (GHZ) speed means MUCH less heat output.

 

 

 

About AMD- when you looked up the numbers, AMD was on top. The Athalon processors Ran cooler and faster then their pentium 4 counterparts, but with the release of the core 2 duo's and quads, AMD lost the lead.

 

 

 

As far as programs being compatible with multithreading- Yes, for the most part, programs must be compatible with multithreading to be used in a multi core chip, but pretty much all new games are. off the top of my head bioshock and supreme commander both take advantage of three cores, and call of juarez can use four. Even if you are running a single threaded application, like a game a multithreaded processor can help you. One core handles the game, while another handles background processes and another handles say network applications when you are LAN playing or playing on the internet.

 

 

 

As far as the core 2 duo or quad - when Intel built the core 2 quad, all they did was take a pair of core 2 duos and put them in one processor shell. Nothing else, just that and drivers. While a core 2 quad will overclock slower then a duo due to twice as much heat being produced compared to a duo, the simple fact that you are essentially getting two processors on one chip is a good deal in itself. Even the heat issue shouldn't be too bad, as the core based processors are known for running EXTREMELY cool.

 

 

 

oh and a RAID 0 array does not increase the chances of failure of either drive, but if only one drive, not both fails, then you lose all your data, so the chance of losing data is higher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WOW, long post, time to go to bed now :D

[blade995]

oh, and I would get 8 gigs of ram, but Im not ready for the switch to vista. However I do plan on switching in the future, hence the motherboard supporting a max of 8 gigs of ram.

 

 

 

To get even 4GBs to fully work you will need a 64bit operating system. Which would be XP x64 or Vista x64 and Windows XP x64 isn't too good. I believe 32bit operating systems (standard Windows XP) can only support 3.5GBs of ram max, and sometimes it can't even support that much. This is a hardware limitation and not a software limitation FYI.

[SeniorCitizenKane]

Even if you are running a single threaded application, like a game a multithreaded processor can help you. One core handles the game, while another handles background processes and another handles say network applications when you are LAN playing or playing on the internet.

 

 

 

Can anyone else attest to that? I really don't want to get stuck with longer loading times on older games then what Im already use to (games like far cry and battlefield2 for instance, old enough to not use multi-threading, new enough to hog alot of resources and whatnot)

 

 

 

 

 

To get even 4GBs to fully work you will need a 64bit operating system. Which would be XP x64 or Vista x64 and Windows XP x64 isn't too good. I believe 32bit operating systems (standard Windows XP) can only support 3.5GBs of ram max, and sometimes it can't even support that much. This is a hardware limitation and not a software limitation FYI.

 

 

 

Yes, I understand that. But it would be stupid to put in 3 1Gig sticks, I'd rather put in 4 gigs of RAM and have some of it not show up than put only 3 gigs in - and I may be stubborn but I just really don't want to switch to vista because I am so stuck in my ways with XP, and I know alot of the programs I use wont work in vista, not to mention I like how I can customize my services and whatnot so easilly - and I dont like all the WGA and anti-piracy crap that comes pre-bundled with vista, whereas I can choose not to install that with XP.

 

 

 

The only reason I will most likely switch in the future is for the added bonus of 8 gigs of ram, and obviously Dx10 (which there are actually 3rd party versions for XP)

[Nadril]

Can anyone else attest to that? I really don't want to get stuck with longer loading times on older games then what Im already use to (games like far cry and battlefield2 for instance, old enough to not use multi-threading, new enough to hog alot of resources and whatnot)

 

 

 

He is telling the truth, it helps if you are multi tasking.

 

 

 

Now -- sure, you might not get as many frames per second than if it did use multi-threading however pretty much any game on the market now does. The games that don't are so obsolete now that you'll be able to run them easily anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I understand that. But it would be stupid to put in 3 1Gig sticks, I'd rather put in 4 gigs of RAM and have some of it not show up than put only 3 gigs in - and I may be stubborn but I just really don't want to switch to vista because I am so stuck in my ways with XP, and I know alot of the programs I use wont work in vista, not to mention I like how I can customize my services and whatnot so easilly - and I dont like all the WGA and anti-piracy crap that comes pre-bundled with vista, whereas I can choose not to install that with XP.

 

 

 

The only reason I will most likely switch in the future is for the added bonus of 8 gigs of ram, and obviously Dx10 (which there are actually 3rd party versions for XP)

 

 

 

If you're getting a DX10 card I would strongly urge to get Vista. You won't get a performance hit with that kind of machine, trust me. As far as 3rd party versions go I know someone was trying to develop one but I have never heard of them getting anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways my advice is go for an intel quad core processor if you got the cash to burn. Other than that everyone else's advice is great. Sound card wise though I would go with an X-Fi card, they're amazing or so I've heard.

[D. V. Devnull]

C) I know there is alot of debate over which anti-virus is the best, I've used nortan, mcaffee, and AVG. I have no beef with one over the other. However, can anyone tell me which one is going to use the least ammount of resourses? Being a gaming computer, I dont want something thats going to hog 30% of my CPU and 500megs of RAM while running in the background.

 

Best AntiVirus Option? NOD32

 

 

 

RAM Usage Limits under normal conditions? 50 MB

 

CPU Usage Limits under normal conditions? 3% of CPU

 

 

 

The only time this AntiVirus uses a whole CPU is when your system is under attack, you're scanning for viruses, or it is updating itself.

 

 

 

And of note, it has better virus catching capabilities than Norton, McAfee, AVG, and whatever other one you try to compare against it. In my own install-time usage and live usage, I saw it find 200 viruses that Norton MISSED in my dad's mail quarantine, and it has quarantined 2 totally new viruses that tried to hit me during innocent web searches, viruses that I can be sure that Norton would have missed. Now if you really want to know something that knocks the socks off any other, NOD32 packs that viral data up for transfer to Eset, and has totally new definitions ready to go for the world WITHIN 3 HOURS of learning of a threat.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned this yet, but NOD32 has the lowest costs in licensing and renewal for updates, and provides better definition and scanning quality than Norton (and all the others, from my experiences)... Time for a full system scan? 28 minutes @ 305K files, faster than any other antivirus out there.

 

 

 

 

 

Good luck on getting that PC built.

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull

[SeniorCitizenKane]

So in relation, a quadcore 2.4 Ghz processor will actually be running like a 9.6 Ghz processor if its taking advantage of multithreading and at 100% CPU usage? Or am I misinterperiting what your saying? In that case, the processor I was looking at (AMD x2 3.2) would have been like a 6.4 GHz processor?

 

 

 

I know Im asking a lot of questions, but how difficult is it to set up a water cooling system? I know it wouldn't be needed, but it would sure be a cool learning experience.

 

 

 

How about hard drive cooling systems? Ive never even heard of them until now, they look pretty straigh forward, Im assuming they just plug in like anything else to the PSU and then you mount them directly over the hard drive? How well does that work and will that crowd the case (like how would I be able to mount the HDD if theres a big honkin fan ontop it?) OR does it not actually mount to the hard drive, but rather sit above/below it in another drive bay blowing air down/up on it?

[das1330]

essentially with the processor you are right. Water cooling is expensive and difficult to hook up, and without using pipes made for commercial home usage (which is very expensive) you are virtually guaranteed a leak or a failure within a year. Really, water cooling is more trouble then its worth, stay away from it. As far as hdd coolers, the simple fact is that hard drives don't need cooling. They produce very little heat on their own, and even a completely closed case will have no problem with overheating hard drives. Massive cooling for a hard drive does not increase performance anyway, so the coolers are basically just "fluff".

[SeniorCitizenKane]

Fluff that I am interested in getting just for the hell of it.

 

 

 

After asking about water cooling, I did some investigation into it myself and was turned off in about 1/2 a second since it seemed like a ton of work for little benefit (unless your running a server box or overclocking everything in the box)

 

 

 

So I will most likely take your advice and get the intel chipset + 8800gts, but I think I will get a different heatsink rather than the stock one, for such a small price it can easilly drop the temp of a CPU 10 to 15 degrees - which is nice not only if your over clocking but it can potentially increase the life of a CPU and overall keep the rest of the case cooler, which is something I am extremely anal about, especially because my current case can get rediculously hot, even with 3 80mm fans.

 

 

 

I am still wondering though, do those HDD cooling systems just mount in a drive bay above the drive? If so, it sounds pretty simple and I might end up doing that just for the hell of it. (and FYI, I have had 4 HDD's, 2 CD drives, and 1 Floppy in drive in this case, beleive me, the HDD's give off plenty of heat when they are near each other and the extra floppy and cd drives didn't help with the air flow.)

 

 

 

As for the computer, right now I am really just debating on whether or not to get 2 raptors and put them in a RAID array - I would want to do it for the performance gain and equally important would be simply the learning experience and to be able to say "I did this".

 

 

 

However, I did install XP on the 500gig hard drive (without drivers of course, so it wont have problems on the new computer) and already started putting some basic programs on it, like CCleaner, HJT, TuneXP, Window Blinds, ect, all the goodies. While I havn't checked out NOD32, I did install mcaffee 2007 (I had 2005, got 2007 for free since where I work they were being RTV'ed for the new 2008's) and I might stick with that for now. Mcafee has never given me trouble in the past and has always seemed to work well despite public critisizm - it also autoupdates like many other which can be annoying mid-game, but it can also be disabled :-k

 

 

 

So anyway, I will keep you guys updated with what I actually order, it will prolly be a few days of contemplation & looking at my bank account numbers, and also how it comes along putting it together. Wish me luck in that I wont have to RMA anything. \

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: whoa, wait a sec. The mobo(s) you posted have the north bridge with only 580i, if I run cards in SLI wont they only run at 8x rather than 16x? I'd be looking for one with 590, like the ASUS one I origionally picked out in my first post

[das1330]

err no. The 590 is the previous generation of high end NVIDIA chipsets. Its old as it is. The chipset I posted, the 680i, is the current high end chipset put out by NVIDIA. When you are talking about 2 x8 lanes, you are referring to the 650i chipset.

[D. V. Devnull]

While I havn't checked out NOD32, I did install mcaffee 2007 (I had 2005, got 2007 for free since where I work they were being RTV'ed for the new 2008's) and I might stick with that for now. Mcafee has never given me trouble in the past and has always seemed to work well despite public critisizm - it also autoupdates like many other which can be annoying mid-game, but it can also be disabled :-k

 

<*chokes suddenly*> ... McAfee?!?!? That's like having a keg of government-made backdoors into your PC!!! :shock:

 

 

 

So you know, NOD32 can also have its' auto-update temporarily disabled, but thankfully, NOT ever by a virus, unlike McAfee's. :thumbsup:

 

 

 

I have actually had the fate of facing computers running McAfee, and in worst-case situations, SeniorCitizenKane. Sad to say, it took removing McAfee and changing antivirus programs to get rid of the virus on the PCs that I was faced with. Norton is better than McAfee, but by far, NOD32 kicks the [bleep] out of both of those.

 

 

 

Please, before you are hit by something, make it a point to use NOD32.

 

 

 

~Mr. Devnull