Need help getting a new rig.

[Jacobgong]

I'm getting a new rig in a few days or maybe a week later, and I can't decide which graphics card do I use, so my choices are:

GTX 260
cheap 9800GTX SLI
cheap HD 4870 CrossFire
HD 4850 Crossfire

These have about the same price, looks like nothing beats 9800GTX SLI but my budget is there and I had to get like the cheapest 9800GTX there is, would that be a problem to you at all?

I also can't decide if I'll get DDR3 memory, there isn't lots of motherboards that supports DDR3 and looks like DDR3 simply has a faster clock than DDR2 is that so?
I'm planning to use Intel QX9300 or 9450 or Q6600 if the budget gets tight, and I'm planning to get 2X 160GB Hardrive for RAID. and of course, creative X-Fi sound card.

please give some suggestions or point it out if you major problems, thanks.

[=98=]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

4870 Crossfire would be your best bet.

Get DDR2. It's cheap.

Don't touch AMD with a bargepole. Core 2 Quad Q9450 if you can, don't bother with QX models.

[Jacobgong]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

thanks, btw I got no money for QX ones actually, just not as good at CPU models as videocard models
is 4870 faster than 9800GTX? if so, I still think SLI give more increase?
oh, what would be the next best one if 4870 is too expensive?
another edit...
I found 4870 to be sometimes faster than GTX 280 is that possible? or it's just that the tester used a stupid driver for Nvidia cards?

[=)BiT(= Evant3k]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

4870 Crossfire would be your best bet.

Get DDR2. It's cheap.

Don't touch AMD with a bargepole. Core 2 Quad Q9450 if you can, don't bother with QX models.

First u say HD4870 is your best bet and then u say don't touch AMD? So much wrong with that statement ATi is now owned by AMD.

But I know what you mean the AMD CPU's and Motherboards are not the top of the line products, I wouldn't buy a AMD CPU or MB.

thanks, btw I got no money for QX ones actually, just not as good at CPU models as videocard models
is 4870 faster than 9800GTX? if so, I still think SLI give more increase?
oh, what would be the next best one if 4870 is too expensive?
another edit...
I found 4870 to be sometimes faster than GTX 280 is that possible? or it's just that the tester used a stupid driver for Nvidia cards?

HD 4870 is faster on games that are not, optimized specifically for Nvidia (Crysis, Age of Conan), what I mean is Nvidia pays millions of dollars to game developers, so they can buy out part of there code and optimize it specifically for there GPU's. Next time you see the "Nvidia Meant to be played" logo when you load a game, just think how it got there?

ATi has great driver support for their cards and Overclocking is made easy, except changing the fan speed which is an issue I had with my HD4870, but I found how to change the fan speed, by altering one of the profile scripts (send me a PM if you want instructions how to do this). So I went form the default 20% which made my card run at 78 C to 45% which made it run 40 C idle and 50 C full load.

I like my HD4870 so far no problems, I would defiantly recommend it for the price, 280 is just too expensive, it might be faster in some games but its not worth the money, for $600 you might as well get two HD 4870 in Cross Fire.

[=98=]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

First u say HD4870 is your best bet and then u say don't touch AMD? So much wrong with that statement ATi is now owned by AMD.

Don't be stupid. You know what i mean.

AMD = CPU's
ATI = GPU's.

[Eagle101]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

4870 definitely, i would not touch the GTX models right now the 2** series, theyre just too demanding on the moolah right now, newyas ATi has really opened my eyes with their HD4***.

As for the CPU i would go with what Alex has said, same goes to the memory as well.

[Flt. Sgt. Powderhound]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

4850 Crossfire will probably be sufficient for most purposes and be less demanding on the old $$$

HD wise, go for one 500GB+ drive by samsung; larger hard drives are faster due to having higher areal density.

[TheSpark29]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

4870 Crossfire would be your best bet.

Get DDR2. It's cheap.

Don't touch AMD with a bargepole. Core 2 Quad Q9450 if you can, don't bother with QX models.

I agree with everything Alex98uk said.

WHAT'S YOU BUDGET? That's extremely critical for us to give accurate recommendations.

As for the hard drive, I'd advise against the 160GB RAID 0. Get a WD640AAKS or a Samsung 500/750GB F1. Both drives will likely outperform that 160GB Raid 0 array because of the increased areal density.

[AvalancheDiode]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

I say wait until early August to see:

1. wheter Intel would drop price and introduce new Q9400.

2. how well 4870x2 performs.

Go for DDR3 only if you want some extreme overclocking (like 4GHz). Otherwise DDR2 is so cheap....

I personally don't recommend SLI or CF. One-card, two-chip solution is simpler, and one-card solution is always easy.

RAID 0 is always faster. It is good if you don't care about data safety. Hard drive failure happens. If this is only for gaming, then go for 2x160GB, or 2x whatever GB on RAID 0. For serious data storage and personal use other than gaming, it's better be anything but RAID 0.

[Skaggy]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

Get a WD640AAKS or a Samsung 500/750GB F1. Both drives will likely outperform that 160GB Raid 0 array because of the increased areal density.

I'm near 100% certain that only the 320/640/1000GB F1 models have the 334GB platters. The 750GB is still a great drive, but it's still using the smaller density platters.

Just for the record, my F1 640GB is quick. Very quick.

[TheSpark29]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

I'm near 100% certain that only the 320/640/1000GB F1 models have the 334GB platters. The 750GB is still a great drive, but it's still using the smaller density platters.

Just for the record, my F1 640GB is quick. Very quick.

I think you're confusing some companies and models. Western Digital makes 320gb/platter drives. (320GB and 640GB) Samsung makes 334gb/platter drives. (500, 750, 1000) I know the capacity doesn't add up but some of the space is disabled on the drive. Any Samsung F1 drive has 2 platters except the 1TB model which has 3.

A 640GB hard drive is only the Western Digital WD6400AAKS. Samsung's F1 drives come in regular capacities. (ie 500, 750, 1000)

I personally don't recommend SLI or CF. One-card, two-chip solution is simpler, and one-card solution is always easy.

RAID 0 is always faster. It is good if you don't care about data safety. Hard drive failure happens. If this is only for gaming, then go for 2x160GB, or 2x whatever GB on RAID 0. For serious data storage and personal use other than gaming, it's better be anything but RAID 0.

I disagree about the one card, two chip thing. To me they're essentially the same thing. The only difference being the added expandability a one card solution provedes. And of course this extra expandability comes at a higher price. For any budget minded gamer, I'd advise CF/SLI over a dual GPU in most cases.

I also disagree that Raid 0 is faster than a single drive. If Raid 0 is the only variable (eg a single drive vs two of the same drive in Raid 0) than of course Raid 0 will be faster. But you're comparing a Raid 0 array made of 160GB drives vs a single drive with twice the areal capacity. Raid 0 does improve performance, but it doesn't make miracles. For example, I recently replaced my 80GB (x2) Raid 0 array. (had it for ~1.5 years) My new drive is a WD3200AAKS with 320GB all on a single platter. My BF2 load times remain incredible. I'm always one of the first three to spawn. Benchmrks don't mean anything to me. My old array beats my new drive in HD Tune. But in real world stuff (that includes games) they are essentially the same. The latest hard drive generation is really good. I still recommend a WD6400AAKS, or any Samsung F1 (500, 750 or 1000 GB)

Oh and not to mention your data is safer with a single drive. With Raid 0, you double your chances of a hard drive failure.

[AvalancheDiode]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

Oh and not to mention your data is safer with a single drive. With Raid 0, you double your chances of a hard drive failure.

We can debate one-card/two-chip (OCTC) vs SLI/CF day and night without a conclusion. Sure SLI/CF have their own advantage, especially when under alternate frame rendering. Two cards also usually run colder, since each chip has its own cooling. But when it comes to price, things are different. For example, two 9800 GTX cost $400 while a single 9800GX2 still costs about $450, I can still use 9800 GX2 on a single slot PCI-e x16 2.0 board with 85% of performance with 9800 GTX in SLI. My current board cost me $56 (newegg open box). We all know what NVIDIA SLI boards are about, and decent Intel/AMD CF boards cost about $150 minimum. But after all, it's about taste and requirement, and everybody has their own opinion. Mine is that 4 PCI-e 6 pin power cables are ugly, and I don't want a howling power hog in my room. That's just me, and that's just mine opinion and my experience (had an SLI machine running). Some people have big house and deep wallet, and will not set for anything below 42" and THX home theater system. Well, good for them.

You're right that some new hard drives are faster than old hard drives in RAID 0. Doesn't matter. I had too many bad hard drives to trust RAID 0. BTW SATA speed has been enhanced from 1.5Gbps to 3.0Gbps. That's probably why you experienced speed enhancement with new hard drive. I had an old Segate 160GB and a new WD 160GB and I can feel the difference between the two. In the end, bus speed, cache size and seek algorithm matter most, while platter density isn't the thing that matters most.

[Skaggy]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

I think you're confusing some companies and models. Western Digital makes 320gb/platter drives. (320GB and 640GB) Samsung makes 334gb/platter drives. (500, 750, 1000) I know the capacity doesn't add up but some of the space is disabled on the drive. Any Samsung F1 drive has 2 platters except the 1TB model which has 3.

A 640GB hard drive is only the Western Digital WD6400AAKS. Samsung's F1 drives come in regular capacities. (ie 500, 750, 1000)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17871260

The Samsung 320,640,1000 GB F1's use 334GB platters, and the 500,750 GB F1's use 250GB platters. The last too are definitely no slouch, but they're using older tech and are subsequently slower.

I'm not too sure about the WD range apart from knowing that they have both 320 and 640 GB models using >300 GB platters.

However, I agree that one large drive with high density platters would be faster than a RAID array with smaller drives. I'm first to load in most/all of my TF2/BF2 games using a single Samsung F1 640 GB.

[AvalancheDiode]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

I didn't know when Samsung became "regular." I still remember there was a time when Western Digital means IDE hard drive. They're still king in the field.

Just take a look at the chart:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/h...mance,658.html

How funny that a WD 74GB hard drive beats many higher cap HDs in Average Read Transfer (which is the option that matters to games). There are too much Voodoo in assessing HD speed.

[TheSpark29]

Re: Need help getting a new rig.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=17871260

The Samsung 320,640,1000 GB F1's use 334GB platters, and the 500,750 GB F1's use 250GB platters. The last too are definitely no slouch, but they're using older tech and are subsequently slower.

I'm not too sure about the WD range apart from knowing that they have both 320 and 640 GB models using >300 GB platters.

However, I agree that one large drive with high density platters would be faster than a RAID array with smaller drives. I'm first to load in most/all of my TF2/BF2 games using a single Samsung F1 640 GB.

I am mistaken. I was not aware that Samsung had a 640GB drive. I've never seen it here. :hmm: My bad. However, according to Samsung's website the 500, 750 and 1TB F1 drives also use the 334GB/platter.

Just take a look at the chart:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/h...mance,658.html

How funny that a WD 74GB hard drive beats many higher cap HDs in Average Read Transfer (which is the option that matters to games). There are too much Voodoo in assessing HD speed.

This is what I see:

The Samsung F1 drives can match and even beat the 74GB Raptors.

We can debate one-card/two-chip (OCTC) vs SLI/CF day and night without a conclusion.

Agreed.

You're right that some new hard drives are faster than old hard drives in RAID 0. Doesn't matter. I had too many bad hard drives to trust RAID 0. BTW SATA speed has been enhanced from 1.5Gbps to 3.0Gbps. That's probably why you experienced speed enhancement with new hard drive. I had an old Segate 160GB and a new WD 160GB and I can feel the difference between the two. In the end, bus speed, cache size and seek algorithm matter most, while platter density isn't the thing that matters most.

My 80GB drives were Sata 3GBs. AFAIK, spindle speed and platter density are the major factors of performance. Just look at the biggest advancements in hard drives lately. The Raptor introduced 10,000 rpm spindle speed. Boom. Lower access times. Note that the 1st gen Raptor used the Sata 1.5GBs bus. The latest generation of hard drives have only increased the platter density. Same as the generation before that. Besides, most hard drives can barely even saturate the Sata 1.5GBs bus. Sata 3GBs is unnecessary 95% of the time. Cache size has little effect on performance. There is so little difference in performance of a 16MB cache vs a 32MB cache. Sata 3GBs, 32MB caches and PCI-E 2.0 all fall in the same catagory. Unnecessary.