[Case for new build] -
Case for new build
Discuss Case for new build
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
anyone with water-cooling can you help me with this?
[url]http://www.frozencpu.com/cas-190.html[/url]
customize that and tell me what chyall put thanks!:o
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
the cpu im getting is the amd athlon 64 x2 socet 939
Posted by: Dark_Sniper*
Shoot i tried,
[url]http://www.frozencpu.com/ord/basket.html?id=FDASuNJ3&mv_pc=34[/url]
Posted by: PoisonPorkchop
What speed X2? And why are you getting one? Theyre utterly useless for gaming.
Posted by: daRcer
It's not compatible with socket 939. You might have read Athlon 64, but remember the Athlon 64 uses both socket 754 and 939.
[QUOTE]For the CPU water block, you can chose from the RBX AMD (Socket A) block, Pentium 4 (Socket 478) block or the Athlon64 ([b]Socket 754[/b]) block.[/QUOTE]
Only 754, sorry.
EDIT:[QUOTE] What speed X2? And why are you getting one? Theyre utterly useless for gaming.[/QUOTE]
He's right, FX-57 all the way.
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
FX-57 is better?
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
yeah shiet look at the price!! why are they so mcuh better? i thought that duel cores would own? i orginally was going to get a AMD Athlon 64 Venice 3200+, would that be better for gaming?? or would a FX-57?
Posted by: daRcer
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]FX-57 is better? [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, sorry after reading PoisonPorkchop's post I assumed you were building a gaming rig. The "best" processor depends on what you're planning on doing most and of course, your budget. If you are in fact building a gaming system, yes, the FX-57 is better than the X2.
Reason 1: No game [b]currently[/b] supports dual core. I havn't looked into when one will. Probably a [i]long[/i] time.
Reason 2: The FX-57 clocks higher than the X2. About 400MHz out of the box. Overclocks [i]much[/i] higher.
Reason 3: You're not going to be playing Battlefield 2 and using Photoshop CS2 at the same time. You don't have two heads, do you?
Gaming: FX-57
Media stuff and future possibilities: X2
If you're on a budget though, you don't have to get the FX-57; I'm just saying it's the best for gaming. 3500-4000 and FX-55 are good too. And if you want an upgrade for the future, the dual core [URL=http://www.newegg.com/OldVersion/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-544&depa=1]4800[/URL] is cheaper than the FX-57.
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
how about an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice?
Posted by: daRcer
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]how about an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice? [/B][/QUOTE]
It's good for its price. You can't get much better other than the [URL=http://www.newegg.com/OldVersion/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-529&depa=1]San Diego 4000[/URL] for $50 more.
Some new information my cousin just told me: it seems the [URL=http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml]Unreal 3 Engine[/URL] will support dual cores. So if you can't wait for UT2k7, get an X2.
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
yes but i play steam games and BF
Posted by: daRcer
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]yes but i play steam games and BF [/B][/QUOTE]
Then Venice 3800 or San Diego 4000 for $50 more.
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
i'm gonna go with venice they're more OCable and better for Gaming.
Posted by: daRcer
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]i'm gonna go with venice they're more OCable and better for Gaming. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good choice. I was looking mainly at the San Diego 4000's L2 cache. 1024 vs 512, but the clock speed is the same. It's not like those two elements even the two out, but maybe the extra cash does.
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
yeah i might go with the San Diego, check my other thread called "Which Gaming Processor"
Posted by: daRcer
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]yeah i might go with the San Diego, check my other thread called "Which Gaming Processor" [/B][/QUOTE]
San Diego 3700? Well worth the money. Two questions though, if you don't mind me asking.
1. You said you were unsure of a hard drive, have you decided or may I be of assisstance?
2. Why XFX for the video card?
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
1) sure you can be of assistance
2) its the highest clocked model of the video card, its at 490Mhz
Posted by: daRcer
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GuitarFreak1857 [/i]
[B]1) sure you can be of assistance
2) its the highest clocked model of the video card, its at 490Mhz [/B][/QUOTE]
1. [URL=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144160]Two of these babies[/URL] RAIDed. You've probably seen them already but they really are great.
2. Oh, I see; you chose the overclocked one.
Posted by: HAVOC
Well, when comparing the FX-57 to the X2 4800, you must realize that both these AMD processors are top of the charts in everything. Which ever you decide to go with, is a **** good choice. Actually the X2 4800 has lowered in price to about $880 - $1000 and is now more available. Where the FX-57 is still in the $1100 - $1200 range.
Also, someone mentioned that dual-cores aren't currently supported in games? Well, games aren't designed to utilize dual core CPU's. But, the X2 4800 will provide you with one **** of a gaming experience with any current game. As long as you have a decent GFX card. And I remember reading some where that UNREAL 2007 will support dual core CPU's. So may-be that will be the first game that does. Dual Core support will happen faster then most people think.
Posted by: HAVOC
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by daRcer [/i]
[B]1. [URL=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144160]Two of these babies[/URL] RAIDed. You've probably seen them already but they really are great.
2. Oh, I see; you chose the overclocked one. [/B][/QUOTE]
I wouldn't recommend to anyone to RAID 74g WD raptors. I know because i've had them RAID 0 before. The only advantage you get out of that is double the space in 1 drive letter @ 10,000rpm. Also, at double the cost. The performance that you get from a (2) WD raptor in RAID 0 vs. (1) WD raptor isn't noticable "AT ALL". I know this for a fact because I used to have this RAID array and now i only have 1. You can't tell the difference. Only in drive size.
But you could spend that same $180.00 and instead of getting another raptor to RAID, you could get a 300GIG seagate barracuda with NCQ @7200rpm. And you'd get huge storage and great performance out of it.
(1) WD RAPTOR is more then enough @ 74gig. I would recommend only to install (Windows&drivers, Only demanding High-End Games, critical system appz and other major appz) on the WD raptor.
Keep the drive clear and clean and it will perform like a mother for you.
Posted by: GuitarFreak1857
so one 74GB 10K RPM, and a 250GB ? both WD. ?
Posted by: daRcer
[quote][b]Also, someone mentioned that dual-cores aren't currently supported in games?[/b][/quote]
Sorry, I should have clarified that the X2 will perform great, but not at its full potential.
[quote][b]I wouldn't recommend to anyone to RAID 74g WD raptors. I know because i've had them RAID 0 before. The only advantage you get out of that is double the space in 1 drive letter @ 10,000rpm. Also, at double the cost. The performance that you get from a (2) WD raptor in RAID 0 vs. (1) WD raptor isn't noticable "AT ALL". I know this for a fact because I used to have this RAID array and now i only have 1. You can't tell the difference. Only in drive size.[/b][/quote]
Must have just been me then. I thought there was a huge performance increase, though I did come from a single 40GB 7200.
[QUOTE][b]so one 74GB 10K RPM, and a 250GB ? both WD. ?[/b][/QUOTE]
[URL=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144160]The Western Digital 74GB 10k RPM Raptor[/URL] plus [URL=http://www.newegg.com/OldVersion/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-148-064&depa=1]the Seagate 300GB 7.2k RPM NCQ[/URL]: $180 and $165
EDIT: HAVOC2k5, thanks for the tip on the Seagate; I could use more storage and that looks great.