# Noob PC builder, want opinions and criticism



## profound

I have always been extremely interested in computer building and I put together some hardware in an effort to make a PC that can run newer games (MW3, Skyrim, Diablo 3, SWTOR) smoothly and on high settings. I already have a PC with a 600W PSU and plan on transferring it over if I ever rack up the money for these parts.

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=19083146

I also have a few questions. Is the PSU going to be enough? How is the heat dissipation going to be? Is there anything I overlooked?

Thank you.


----------



## claptonman

What make and model of power supply is it?

A couple things that could be changed on your build.

Get an AM3+ motherboard. They're phasing out Phenoms and soon all there will be is the bulldozers, so if you ever want to upgrade, you can.

The one you chose has 3 PCI 2.0 x16 slots, so if you need 3 of those slots, get this motherboard:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157266

If only play on getting 2 graphics cards:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514

And if you only want one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128519

The CPU you chose is overkill. No games will use all those cores, and when they do, your system will already be outdated. Try the 960T. I have it and it is great.

Same thing with your RAM. No games use more than 8GB. Unless you're using memory-intense software like Auto CAD or Maya, go for 8GB of RAM.

That case is not that great. No cable management so airflow would be terrible. Look into coolermaster, NZXT, or Lian Li cases.


----------



## wolfeking

For gaming, there is absolutely no way in the next 10 years that you will need 16GB of RAM. 

No(except FSX) games currently take advantage of 6 cores. I would drop it down to a 970. 

to take advantage of more than 16 GB of ram (your list would have 18GB, windows counts off for vRAM too) you need 7 Pro or better 64 bit. 

what brand is the PSU, and also what model.  The Watts dont tell us much. A Dell 600 watt might only crank 420 on a good day, but a Silverstone 600 watt would be fine.

I would suggest that you get a 990FX chipset AM3+ board for suture compatibility.


----------



## profound

Hello and thank you for the advice. I sort of knew while I was picking out the memory that 16 gigs was a little much, but I thought why not since memory these days is pretty cheap and the motherboard I chose can support it.

I chose the motherboard because of its upgradability (word?) if I ever choose to install more graphics cards for crossfire support, and because of the built in audio chipset. I'll take your word that AM3+ is superior.

The PSU is a Thermaltake, Model TR2-600NL2NH.

Few more questions again. Are AM3 processors compatible with AM3+ motherboards? What exactly are bulldozers? And how far into the future would a build like this last if I changed the motherboard to AM3+ along with a more reasonable CPU?

Is this case better? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119160


----------



## Mishkin

I see nothing wrong with going with 16GB of memory.  It may be overkill right now for gaming, but it is incredibly cheap as well.  If you multitask at all while playing games, there is a chance that 8GB may be close to its limit.  To the person that said something to the tune of "there is no way you will ever need 16GB within the next 10 years)...I seriously recommend you take a little mental jaunt into the past, and see what gamers used 10 years ago.

I also see nothing wrong with a 6-core processor, especially considering the fact that the Phenom 2 versions are being phased out.  However, the 1090T was the great hexacore for the price, which is currently sold out on Newegg.  IMO the 1100T is a little pricey at $200, but I also don't see any reason for a hexacore being overkill.  Games are using more and more cores, and having a 6-core vs a 4-core means much better multitasking while gaming if you do that, and multitasking in general.  It would be a different story if a P2 6-core wasn't fast enough to game with or the fact that virtually every game in existence wasn't incredibly gpu-bound.  Since that's not the case, a P2 6-core would work great at a very reasonable price, especially when you factor in the motherboard cost (vs Intel).  Now if you're going to treat your system like an XBox and do absolutely nothing but game, then yeah -- a quad-core would do very well for the time being, and a quad would do very well anyway.  I guess my point is that while either a quad or a hexacore would work well, a hexacore is definately not overkill, and for some people it's preferred, regardless of whether you do encoding/video processing or not.

I agree that you should definately go with an AM3+ motherboard and make sure you get a solid PSU.


----------



## claptonman

That coolermaster case is a good choice.

And as for RAM being cheap, that is $80 compared to $30:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231428

And I would really go with this board if you are thinking of wanting crossfire support if you need it:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-na&AID=10521304&PID=4169961&SID=k9snbh5h61mx

And while Mishkin's points are fair and valid, the cost is the factor here. Even though there would be better multitasking while in game and the such, a quad will still do that very easily and will have no trouble. It just depends on what you need/want. And to point out: more cores = more power consumed = CPU gets hotter. There's pros and cons in every situation.

Is this the PSU?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153140

If so, its not all that bad for a thermaltake.

Bulldozers are the new CPUs that AMD just came out with. So far, they've been a disappointment, but once they get the design down, get new instruction sets, and other improvements, they will be much better. They are phasing out Phenom II processors so soon you won't be able to buy those anymore, there will only be the bulldozers and their APUs. And yes, AM3 will work in an AM3+ board, since that is what I'm using.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> For gaming, there is absolutely no way in the next 10 years that you will need 16GB of RAM.


Why do you say that? It's only a little over 20 years when 640kb was supposed to be enough for everything and 10 years ago 256MB was like 8GB today.



> No(except FSX) games currently take advantage of 6 cores. I would drop it down to a 970.


IIRC BF3 already can scale up to at least 8 threads (I read through a few FX-8x00 gaming benchmarks and there were a couple of games where all threads were used, I might look them up later).

On topic, anyway... for $200, you could get a FX-8120 if you're getting an AM3+ board. Bulldozers (the FX-series CPUs) are, well, AMD's new CPUs and are a bit... controversial. The single-threaded performance is actually somewhat worse than that of P2 in most applications, but the FX-8120 still beats the Phenom in your wishlist in heavily threaded loads so it would be more "future proof". They're decent CPUs but not the best value for the money ATM... have you considered an Intel build?


----------



## profound

hackapelite said:


> ... have you considered an Intel build?



Hi and thank you again for the replies. I did look at intel processors but was attracted to the Phenom because of the amount of cores for the price. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding CPU's, so when I was browsing AMD just seemed like a better choice price wise. I just assumed 6 cores was superior to 4.

Since a lot of people here seem to think 4 cores is plenty, what are your thoughts on Intel instead of AMD?



> Is this the PSU?
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817153140



Yes this is the PSU.


----------



## wolfeking

profound said:


> Hi and thank you again for the replies. I did look at intel processors but was attracted to the Phenom because of the amount of cores for the price. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding CPU's, so when I was browsing AMD just seemed like a better choice price wise. I just assumed 6 cores was superior to 4.
> 
> Since a lot of people here seem to think 4 cores is plenty, what are your thoughts on Intel instead of AMD?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes this is the PSU.


AMD is always better on the performance to price. 
Intel is a more efficient processor. But efficiency comes at a price. 

As far as core count, 4 is enough. 6 cores is fine if you have the extra to spend, but if you don't get a hexcore it will still game fine. 
Multitasking isn't really tied to the core count anyway. It is more based on the efficiency that the threads can be processed. The "Cores = Multitasking" was a marketing sceme back when dual cores were first coming out. Also goes back a bit to the MHz wars.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Hi and thank you again for the replies. I did look at intel processors but was attracted to the Phenom because of the amount of cores for the price. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding CPU's, so when I was browsing AMD just seemed like a better choice price wise. I just assumed 6 cores was superior to 4.


Well, they at least used to be - the new FX series don't quite live up to the standard. That's not to say that they're bad, it's just that given any PhII CPU you could almost always expect it to outperform a similarly priced Intel chip, but the FX CPUs are (overall) on par at best. You might still be able to get a Ph2 for a really good price, but since AMD stopped making them they've been going up at some retailers, and I've found that for heavier gamers Intel might even get the performance/price crown too (however I don't know if newegg is one of these "some retailers"). If you can find a well-priced Phenom II, go for it (I don't really know what's good price in US dollars though).

And yes, a 6-core will be better than a quad when comparing similar chips - however, Intel's architecture is simply so much more efficient that an i5 can outperform a Ph2 x6 even in some really heavily threaded games. For the time being in most games there isn't a noticeable difference when slapping on the extra 2 cores - that, however, will be quite different a year or two from now so if you expect it to last for a while, the X6 would do a better job if you want AMD.



> Since a lot of people here seem to think 4 cores is plenty, what are your thoughts on Intel instead of AMD?


Well i5 quads, especially the 2500(K) are pretty much the undisputed kings of gaming and perform better than Phenoms, but they cost more too. There isn't much more I can say to that. More performance and less power consumption but higher price. 



> AMD is always better on the performance to price.


Questionable. The FX-series are pretty consistently being outperformed by similarly priced i5/i7 CPUs. After factoring in the cost for a reasonably good motherboard, AMD usually does perform better for the dollar, but not always.



> Multitasking isn't really tied to the core count anyway. It is more based on the efficiency that the threads can be processed.


Of course it's tied to the core count, just as much as the single-threaded performance is. If the workloads are heavily threaded (and generally, multitasking implies heavily threaded unless by multitasking you mean having a lot of browser tabs open while editing an office documents and skyping at the same time), it's a lot easier to scale up the performance by throwing more cores at the problem than it is to increase the efficiency at which a single thread can be executed - increasing the core count by 50% isn't that hard, while increasing the speed at which a single thread can be executed by 50% is (and both would yield comparable performance gains if we're talking about reasonable core counts).


----------



## wolfeking

I always assume they mean running more programs when using the word multitasking. 
When one is running photoshop, autoCAD or other highly threaded applications, one does not usually say "I am multitasking". When one is running Chrome, Itunes, Word, and solitare, one would say "I am multitasking"/ 

Think on it this way. Say your running 4 single threaded applications on a C2D. You get moderate performance, but you want more. Ok, upgrade to a C2Q. Moderate gains. 100% utilization. Upgrading to a SB (more efficient) will give better results. Upgrading to a strait 8 core when they come out*, will not. You will still only use 50% of it at best. 

* bulldozer is at best a threaded quad. They wont perform at the level of a true octocore processor.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Honestly...in a 1000 dollar envelope, you would be better off going with intel. you have the money, spend it on a better cpu/mobo combo. (yes this is coming from someone running an amd chip )

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128498 - mobo

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072 - cpu

-you might go WOAH that costs moar than the amd chip...but for 50 bucks or something, you wont go wrong, you get 4 threads that do 2x the instructions per clock cycle of the amd chip, if not more, you wont be losing anything. go with the intel, if you want to overclock it, pick yourself up a nice heatsink fan or liquid cooling setup else, id say your good, but maybe go with a smaller hdd and add a ssd to it, to improve responsiveness, ssd's are worth the money.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

wolfeking said:


> I always assume they mean running more programs when using the word multitasking.
> When one is running photoshop, autoCAD or other highly threaded applications, one does not usually say "I am multitasking". When one is running Chrome, Itunes, Word, and solitare, one would say "I am multitasking"/
> 
> Think on it this way. Say your running 4 single threaded applications on a C2D. You get moderate performance, but you want more. Ok, upgrade to a C2Q. Moderate gains. 100% utilization. Upgrading to a SB (more efficient) will give better results. Upgrading to a strait 8 core when they come out*, will not. You will still only use 50% of it at best.
> 
> * bulldozer is at best a threaded quad. They wont perform at the level of a true octocore processor.


That's all very well in theory, but you aren't going to hit 100% CPU usage running Chrome, iTunes, Word and Solitaire on even a dual-core CPU, much less a quad. In that kind of multi-tasking scenarios upgrading from a C2D isn't going to make a noticeable difference. As for your example, you're saying that I would get only moderate gains - however, if I upgraded, just as an example, from a E6600 to a Q6600, the performance would essentially double in heavy multitasking (the math doesn't quite work like that but you get the idea), which I think is a little more than "moderate". I would have to be going from a pretty darn good C2D to a lot lower clocked quad core to get even close to only "moderate" performance gains (like E8400 to a Q8200). And no, you won't get better results by just upgrading to SB. Going from E6600 to Q6600 would yield about twice the performance. So would going for a higher-end G600-series pentium (a SB dual-core) - that is, moving to a higher clocked, far more efficient architecture while maintaining the number of cores nets you around the same performance as doubling the cores on a 6 years older architecture. Impressive (and I definitely would take a G620 over a Q6600 simply for the single-threaded performance), but not better. It is only when you move to a more efficient architecture (like SB) _and_ starting throwing in the mix more threads/cores that you start to see actual significant performance improvements in heavy multitasking when compared to simply increasing the number of older, less efficient cores. But even then, it's a pretty unrealistic example. Most CPU-intensive programs are reasonably well threaded; you might run a heavily CPU bound application that can only utilise one thread, maybe even two, but using precisely enough CPU-heavy single-threaded applications to saturate a quad but not benefit from hexa- or octo-core is just unrealistic.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not saying that more cores rule all and single threaded performance is irrelevant (sometimes I ramble on so much one could get the wrong idea). But to say that multi-tasking isn't tied to the core count isn't right - like I sad, they're both as important. It's just that for the kind of multi-tasking you described, even increasing single-threaded performance isn't going to make a difference - that kind of stuff simply isn't CPU bound. It's when you start multitasking with heavier applications that the CPU power matters, and that's where the extra hardware threads are just as good as extra single-threaded performance. Like compiling, just for an example. Everybody likes compiling. I compile, you compile, everyone compiles (OK fine, just me then), and when I compile some really big piece of work I'm not going to stare at the screen for 20 minutes (or 2 minutes, or as hour), I want to get stuff done. Do some work without slow-downs. Perhaps play a game. Usually post on CF nitpicking and derailing threads. That's the kind of multitasking I'm talking about (not really running both AutoCAD and Photoshop at the same time, though I'm sure somewhere _someone_ does even that).


----------



## wolfeking

clarification, I wasn't saying that chrome, Itunes and such were cpu heavy. The first was a example on the multitasking thing and completely separate from the CPU example. 

And the math is extremely complex. To simplify, cores isn't performance any more than architecture is performance. They work together. but that is not a end all either.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> And the math is extremely complex. To simplify, cores isn't performance any more than architecture is performance. They work together. but that is not a end all either.


That's essentially what I said


----------



## wolfeking

i know. reiterating your point i was.


----------

