Gaming Trying something for computer upgrade

[BiscuitCookie]

Well I have been thinking about upgrading my computer. I already came up with some things but wasn't really happy with it
So I'm trying something different (first component is my current component of the computer

CPU: E2140
to
CPU: E8400 € 169,- + Arctic-Cooling Freezer 7 Pro € 19,-
CPU:Intel® Core 2 Quad Q8200 € 169,- + Arctic-Cooling Freezer 7 Pro € 19,-

Getting this GPU: XFX GTX260 Black Edition € 279,- (It performs close to the gtx280 so it's kinda of a bargain, It also seems to have better particle and blur effects)

PSU: ??? 250 watt
to
PSU: Cooler Master Silent Pro M 700W € 109,-
PSU: Zalman ZM600-HP € 99,-

Mobo: Denver-10 with integrated Nvidia geforce 7050, Nforce 610i
to
Mobo: Asus P5QL-CM € 82,- (it has pcie x16 2.0 instead of 1.0 the denver has)

It runs vista(32) and is used for gaming on a 22" hd-ready screen
I have this computer http://support.packardbell.com/nl/item/?pn...5086&g=1400

I'm probably staying at a Asus mobo, also because of the Asus instantboot

So are there any components that can be cheaper for better or equal performence?
Should I also buy new ram?
Are there any bottlenecks?
Or is getting a totally new computer better?

 

[FAST6191]

I consider splashing out on some nice cooling and overclocking the existing processor. I doubt you will get 3Ghz this side of phase change/water cooling but I do not think over 2.4 GHz or so is out of the question at all.

Graphics. I am afraid I am not too clued up on the latest stuff.

PSU: 700w is a bit overkill (I have had monster overclocked SLI rigs quite happily running on less). If you do end up upgrading things then I suggest a better one.

Motherboard: consider a cheaper PSU (although by no means make it a cheap and nasty one) and up this instead. Also after the last few asus incidents (very badly made boards, components are OK but the manufacture not so much) I am going to struggle to suggest them though.

As you asked
ram: I do not see the need for more than 2 gigs (even with vista). Assuming what you have is at least 667 MHz with acceptable timings then leave it. If you do OC the processor then consider unlinked mode with the ram. Anecdotal evidence perhaps but my games, CAD and high end video editing machine has run entirely without swap space or similar since it started without issue. Only large database, scientific/similar and server work really needs more ram.

bottlenecks: hard drive all the way. Consider a solid state (or even a CF adapter) to run the OS from and some extra drives to run things from/use for everything else. RAID or not is up to you.

New machine. Assuming you have a good case then there is no need. New GPU and motherboard should do nicely.

 

[BiscuitCookie]

With the CPU I am going now for the Q8200 same price and is quad, although I don't know how much better/faster this one is but I think that it is better (and I'm gonna overclock this one to 3Ghz of course)
or should i go for Q6600 for overclocking?

I also went for a cheaper "less overkill" PSU the Zalman ZM600-HP (600 watt) although it says on the xfx site it needs 630 watt non-sli
and 680 watt sli http://www.xfxforce.com/en-gb/products/gra...ies/260GTX.aspx

as for the mobo I think i'm staying with this one and hope for the best

I took a quick peek inside the case and took some measurements, (I lost them but still remember them a bit.(it was a while ago)) and as far as i checked, the case it is big enough to fit the stuff

for more info on the case and system I am placing this link: http://support.packardbell.com/nl/item/?pn...5086&g=1400

 

[FAST6191]

Unless you plan on serious database/server work, science stuff (modelling) or encoding video on a regular basis quad core is pointless. A lot of that can be punted to the graphics card nowadays as well. Go with the higher clock speed if you have a choice.

It says you need a 500W PSU on that link you gave under specs. I am not too inclined to trust the last tab though (adding an identical card will not mean an extra 30 watts and if that were the case then we would still be using 300W supplies, not to mention that your board does not support SLI in a meaningful way)

 

[BiscuitCookie]

Well since it was a vore 2 quad for the same price as the core 2 duo I thought it would be relatively cheaper considering it has better performance.
And i am trying to stay as low as possible with the price but still get good components

 

[FAST6191]

(quad core) Q8200 4MB shared L2 @ 2.33 GHz http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/a...ature/index.htm
(dual core) E8400 6MB shared L2 @ 3 GHz http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAPL

The dual core looks better to me.

 

[Scorpei]

(quad core) Q8200 4MB shared L2 @ 2.33 GHz http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/a...ature/index.htm
(dual core) E8400 6MB shared L2 @ 3 GHz http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAPL

The dual core looks better to me.
myselfCurrently quad core is still relativly less powered for gaming (AFAIK). This because games are written with not all that many threads. Therefor the speed of the cores you have becomes more important (ie 2 faster cores can perform more then 4 slower cores).

Think of it of having 2 factories to produce for example bottles of orange juice. Say you get an order for 1 orange juice bottle (crappy order I know ). That means you have no use of the second factory because you only have on thread (only one bottle to make) (unless one factory of course can make the bottle while the other can make the juice, aka you have 2 threads). Now if you get an order for say 4 bottles, that is something you can handle quicker as you can now use both factories (in theory you can be done 2x fast). If you had 4 factories you could do that order in 4x the speed as when having one factory. The problem however remains, which order are you getting.

Addition: Then you can also see that when you have 2 fast factories (cores), and order of 2 bottles (threads), you are better off then with 4 slower factories (cores). Another factor in this case is that the dual core e8400 suggested has 6mb shared memory (which, although you can't put it in such a way, is 6/2=3mb per core) where the quad core only has 4 (which is 4/4=1 mb per core). You can think of that when keeping to my analogy like how much stock the factory can have in for example oranges. The dual core can place 6 oranges in it's cache (or 3 per core) where as the quad core can only hold 4 (or 1 per core). Thus when it is making orange juice the quad core will have to access the memory (it's supplier) more often (making that the more deciding factor in speed: how fast can the new oranges be provided which tends to be slow).

Now if the order requires only 1 orange per core there is no problem of course as both have such an amount of oranges available. Then the factor of the order size (/amount of threads) and production speed (core speed) come into play again.

 

[BiscuitCookie]

Awesome way of telling Scorpei.
And thanks giving me that info Fast6191.
so I'll prolly go for E8400 and clock it to 4ghz
so I'm pretty sure of the cpu and psu now and also so for the mobo and gpu unless someone comes with something better for less or the same amount of money

so lets say I'd play Crysis on this with high-very high settings on, aa x4 and something around the 1280x1024 how would this perform?

 

[Scorpei]

GPU wise not a clue, check tomshardware or something to help you out. Personally looking at Ati more at the moment, more bang 4 your buck.

As for you happily stating you will OC your processor, do bear in mind that that will require extra voltage most likely and it still might not be achieved. Also, due to the locked multiplier of 9 (max) that means to reach 4 GHz your FSB will have to be at least 445MHz (which might not be possible with your memory / motherboard aside from just the processor). That might require you to increase the fsb voltage which isn't good for the lifespan of your processor and can quite easily fry it if you go too far (and FSB voltage is harder to OC then core voltage). Especially so due to the fact that the e8400 is a 45nm processor which have a sharper voltage limit then the 65nm versions (though still OC beter then quad core chips).

A good thing to mention is that you also shouldn't use the AUTO feature when overclocking for voltages as it is likely to set it too high.

 

[Joe88]

Awesome way of telling Scorpei.
And thanks giving me that info Fast6191.
so I'll prolly go for E8400 and clock it to 4ghz
so I'm pretty sure of the cpu and psu now and also so for the mobo and gpu unless someone comes with something better for less or the same amount of money

so lets say I'd play Crysis on this with high-very high settings on, aa x4 and something around the 1280x1024 how would this perform?

ive seen people hit 4ghz before but not alot
and they have really expensive 3rd party coolers, some have LC

I would just push it to 3.6ghz and leave it (maybe even try to 3.8ghz if its stable and temps are in the safe zone from the 3.6ghz OC)

for the gpu, if your getting the GTX260 then get the Core 216 edition, or the ati 4870 1GB edition respectively

 

[Scorpei]

Every chip is different. Don't assume you are able to hit 4 gigs or even 3.2 GHz. All you are guarenteed to hit is 3 GHz @ 1333 MHz with stock voltages.

 

[BiscuitCookie]

Ok i'll go for the safer 3.6ghz clock
and XFX GTX260 Black Edition is the 216 edition
i'll prolly stay with this one since it has physx

 

[Scorpei]

There is no reason to assume you will hit 3.6GHz, for all I know you can hit 4.5GHz. Point of the matter is if you are going to OC know what you are doing or don't do it (or increase the risc of frying your chip).