Is it worth all the money?

Gamershack

Gamershack

Gamershack

Associate
Joined
18 May 2008
Posts
15
Location
UK
Getting rid of my current PC and forking out £800 odd for my new one. Im trying to lower the costs without decreasing performance (as most people would). I am set to buy this one soon but need a final check over the specs. I know there are a bunch of new GPU's coming out mid-june but I dont think it will really bother me that much as I wont have the money for top spec (uni doesnt bring a lot of money)... Ive gone for the best of what I can afford and hopefully it will all work out in the end. I might wait alittle while and see if the prices drop because of the new kit coming out but just need a check of components really.

What I need it for:
1. Most importantly - Gaming (1680*1050)
2. Uni stuff (programming, web design and image editing)
3. Watching movies
4. General web surfing
5. Music



- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 SLACR, Kentsfield Core, Socket 775, 2.40 GHz 1066MHz 8MB Cache, Retail

- Antec 900 - Nine Hundred Ultimate Gamer Case with 200m Top Fan w/o PSU

- Abit IP-35 Pro, iP35 Express, S 775, PCI-E (x16), DDR2 667/800, SATA II, SATA RAID, ATX

- 750 GB Samsung HD753LJ Spinpoint F1, SATA 300, 7200 rpm, 32MB Cache, 8.9 ms, NCQ

- ASUS 2014L1T 20xDVD±R, 8x DVD±DL, DVD+RW x8/-RW x6, x14 DVD-RAM, SATA Lightscribe Black/Silv Retail

- ASUS Silent Knight AL Pure Aluminium Quiet CPU Cooler

- 4GB (2x2GB) Corsair XMS2, DDR2 PC2-6400 (800MHz), Unbuffered, CAS 4-4-4-12, DHX

- 512MB PNY 8800GT PCI-E 2.0, Mem 1800 MHz, GDDR3, GPU 600 MHz, Stream 112, 2x DL DVI-I

- 620W Corsair HX Series Modular SLi PSU, ATX, EPS 12V, whisper quiet, 5 year warranty

- Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1* 64Bit 1Pk OEM (DVD)
 
Janesy B said:
at that res id get a 8800GTS and maybe get a E8400 over the Q6600
Click to expand...

I know GTS performs alittle better but only by 4-5 fps in most games but GT is still much cheaper. Getting the cheaper option also means I can then use money I havent spent towards a better card in future upgrades. For the CPU I thought having 4 cores running at a lower Ghz would be better than 2 running at a higher speed... Unless thats just my mis-conception with Ghz's and cores.
 
Last edited:
Yeah thats true, games arent fully running 4 cores yet and overclocking to 4.0Ghz would be quite nice.

So only alterations you would make is to cpu. Wasnt sure about mobo though, just heard good things about it.
 
Get the Q6600, the extra cores rock for creative tasks (I have used both dual core E4300 at 3GHZ and a Q6600 at 3GHZ, to compare the differences at the same speed).

As for gaming, a few games do work with more cores, Alan Wake needs 2 min when it released, Supreme Commander, Unreal and a few others also do. But since you do creative work, for that alone get a quad. Especially if you encode anything, then even more important.

People are giving advice as though all you are doing is gaming, when you are doing far more, and in my oppinion I would say even if only gaming I would prefer quad.

*EDIT* mid next month the new cards are released from both ATI and NV, so it could be worth waiting, or buying the rig now with the cheapest GPU you can get and then simply upgrade (or if you have a PCIE card currently simply use that in your new build till the new cards are out and we know their performance).
 
Gamershack said:
What I need it for:
1. Most importantly - Gaming (1680*1050)
2. Uni stuff (programming, web design and image editing)
3. Watching movies
4. General web surfing
5. Music
Click to expand...

It still has to be the E8400 as he has only one set of eyes and all of the above tasks demand both of them used for single tasking. Except if he is listening to music whilst doing items 2 and 4.;)
 
GunRunner said:
It still has to be the E8400 as he has only one set of eyes and all of the above tasks demand both of them used for single tasking. Except if he is listening to music whilst doing items 2 and 4.;)
Click to expand...

Seriously, please don't give people that type of advice.

Photoshop, and other creative programs have massive improvements in quad core. If he does rendering, works on large images, compiles code, or anything like that then quad makes a massive difference. Even something simply like working on a large image and using something like a heal tool on a large portion will be a lot smoother.

While I admit, I much prefer quads to dual, you can not tell me "he will be better of dual" when he wants to do creative work ??

http://www.techspot.com/review/36-intel-core2-quad-q6600/page6.html just for a small example.

A Q6600 can overclock to 3.5GHZ to 3.8GHZ anyway, and 2 extra cores, ESPECIALLY if you use Video editting software, but even if you have Dreamweaver, Photoshop and a few other programs open, even just 1 is a difference.

At work I have a overclocked dual core, and a Quad at home, and even then there is a large difference.

Next edit:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/248327-10-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_duo_e8400_30ghz_-_wolfdale_arrives/6 another version.

There is barely any difference in gaming at stock, and creative work is far faster on the Quad. The Dual will overclock a little more, but the quad will still pwn it in creative apps, and only be a tiny bit slower in games. Which remember are mostly GPU limited anyway.
 
Last edited:
Dark_Angel said:
Seriously, please don't give people that type of advice.

Photoshop, and other creative programs have massive improvements in quad core. If he does rendering, works on large images, compiles code, or anything like that then quad makes a massive difference. Even something simply like working on a large image and using something like a heal tool on a large portion will be a lot smoother.

While I admit, I much prefer quads to dual, you can not tell me "he will be better of dual" when he wants to do creative work ??

http://www.techspot.com/review/36-intel-core2-quad-q6600/page6.html just for a small example.

A Q6600 can overclock to 3.5GHZ to 3.8GHZ anyway, and 2 extra cores, ESPECIALLY if you use Video editting software, but even if you have Dreamweaver, Photoshop and a few other programs open, even just 1 is a difference.

At work I have a overclocked dual core, and a Quad at home, and even then there is a large difference.

Next edit:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/248327-10-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_duo_e8400_30ghz_-_wolfdale_arrives/6 another version.

There is barely any difference in gaming at stock, and creative work is far faster on the Quad. The Dual will overclock a little more, but the quad will still pwn it in creative apps, and only be a tiny bit slower in games. Which remember are mostly GPU limited anyway.
Click to expand...

Completely Agree.

It has to be a Quad. For the price difference, and the increase in multi tasking , its a no brainer for me.
 
Thanks Dark_Angel and Janesy_B for giving me advice with examples of performance. I like to see examples and actual tests that have been carried out on components so I actually know the outcome and best choice for me. I do a lot of Fireworks work (not everyones cup tea but I prefer it to PSP) and Dreamweaver stuff. I do like to use my PC for gaming but what I meant by *Most important* was that I want a PC than can run at that res, high quality and also be able to do other things such as my Uni work.

I think I will take your advice and go for the full lot I stated in my first post but just keep an eye out for when the new GPU's come out and hopefully upgrade from the GT then.
 
skeeny said:
Completely Agree.

It has to be a Quad. For the price difference, and the increase in multi tasking , its a no brainer for me.
Click to expand...

It really annoys me when someone gives bad advice, the E8400 is ok if all you ever do is game, (I still personally would take a Quad even if gaming was all I did though) but to say the Q6600 was worse in multitasking is just plain silly.

Gamershack said:
Thanks Dark_Angel and Janesy_B for giving me advice with examples of performance. I like to see examples and actual tests that have been carried out on components so I actually know the outcome and best choice for me. I do a lot of Fireworks work (not everyones cup tea but I prefer it to PSP) and Dreamweaver stuff. I do like to use my PC for gaming but what I meant by *Most important* was that I want a PC than can run at that res, high quality and also be able to do other things such as my Uni work.

I think I will take your advice and go for the full lot I stated in my first post but just keep an eye out for when the new GPU's come out and hopefully upgrade from the GT then.
Click to expand...

Glad to help mate, seriously once you used Quad core in creative work 2 cores or wose 1 (shudder) just feels terrible. I am even starting to do video work now because it doesn't feel so painfully slow to render something :)
 
Well I have done video work at college but I never really got into it seems though this machine would NEVER be able to cope... Only issue I might have now is deciding whether I want to keep up with the times and move to Vista (64 bit though) or keep with the reliable and useful XP Pro. I have another PC next to me which has Vista 32bit but I barely use it because Im used to XP. Just dont know whether having an up to date OS would compliment the hardware I get or the software I get.
 
Sgt_Pepper said:
Id, dump the ASUS Silent Knight AL and get an Arctic Freezer 7, nice £15 saving.
Click to expand...

Would be a nice saving but would I see a big difference in temps going for a cheaper one. Also, it doesnt really have the look the ASUS one has... Although, I guess im not exactly going to be sat staring into my case all day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom