Building an ICore System from scratch

sony144 · 23 Dec 2008 at 10:25

Hi all

Thinking of building a new system in the new year. I think I want a spec of Intel ICore cpu, 4 - 6 gb of ram and considering a solid state drive for windows ? I also want to buy dual monitors. With this rough specification what would you recommend ?

Thanks Michael

elpedro · 23 Dec 2008 at 10:50

Out of what you asked for, I'd go for something like this.

As for the other parts (DVD/Blu Ray/CPU Cooler/Graphics/Case/Sound/PSU) you can chose what's best for you. If you say what the purpose of the build is i.e. Gaming, may be able to help you further.

Also, 3GB of triple channel DDR3 RAM should be enough really, 6GB for decent RAM is expensive.

reflux · 23 Dec 2008 at 11:26

Solid state drives are a waste of money until the technology improves, and 6GB of RAM is really a good idea -

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...x2GB) Triple Channel DDR3 (F3-10666CL9T-6GBNQ)

Is the same price as 3GB of Corsair RAM!

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2008 at 11:34

20" monitor far to small. get 24"+..

What's your budget?
SSD drives are good If you get the Intel X25, but I agree bit pointless at the moment due to price.

sony144 · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:07

Cheers

Hi guys huge cheers for all the advice. Think I will just end up leaving the ssd drive and getting a raptor instead for windows. Would you recommend the 2.66ghz icore or the 2.93 is it worth the extra money ? Dont think my desk could fit 2 x 24 inch monitors will prob just end up going up with the samsung 20 inch monitors. Also would you recommend the ATI 4870 X2 over the nvidia cards ?

Thanks again for all the advice guys.

Michael

spitzoid · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:21

Buy the Core i7 920 and a 4870X2.

Be like me. I'm great.

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:25

sony144 said:
Would you recommend the 2.66ghz icore or the 2.93 is it worth the extra money ?

If your going to overclock it's not worth it.

sony144 said:
Dont think my desk could fit 2 x 24 inch monitors will prob just end up going up with the samsung 20 inch monitors.

then get one 24-26" for gaming and a 20" for browsing.
20" is to small for games.

sony144 said:
Also would you recommend the ATI 4870 X2 over the nvidia cards ?
l

no, the gtx280 seems to beet the 4870x2 in the majority of games. It's also single core so doesn't have any problems.

reflux · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:31

AcidHell2 said:
no, the gtx280 seems to beet the 4870x2 in the majority of games.

That is complete carp. I have personally tested both cards in Far Cry 2 and Crysis, and the 4870X2 is noticeably faster. Not to mention the raft of review sites showing the difference.

Chimerical · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:34

reflux said:
That is complete carp. I have personally tested both cards in Far Cry 2 and Crysis, and the 4870X2 is noticeably faster. Not to mention the raft of review sites showing the difference.

But Crysis is a year old game. What about new stuff like GTA4 and Fallout 3?

4870X2 is still pointless if the majority of games don't use Crossfire. Plus, you can't guarantee that future titles will have dual-card implementations.

spitzoid · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:36

AcidHell2 said:
no, the gtx280 seems to beet the 4870x2 in the majority of games. It's also single core so doesn't have any problems.

There is a very angry man roaming these boards who will probably bite your head off for saying that. It being single-core does not make it superior, surely!? The gtx280 does not beat it in the majority of games either. In fact, the opposite is true.

Chimerical · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:37

spitzoid said:
There is a very angry man roaming these boards who will probably bite your head off for saying that. It being single-core does not make it superior, surely!? The gtx280 does not beat it in the majority of games either. In fact, the opposite is true.

See here for angry man & proof:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?

Is he an axe murderer? (Or drunkenmaster?) :eek:

Link doesn't work.

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:38

spitzoid said:
There is a very angry man roaming these boards who will probably bite your head off for saying that. It being single-core does not make it superior, surely!? The gtx280 does not beat it in the majority of games either. In fact, the opposite is true.

The reviews I've seen tested 10 games and showed that the gtx280 was faster on the majority. where the 4870x2 was faster in the others. but also that there are still driver issues with xfire and some glitches in some games.

reflux · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:39

Chimerical said:
But Crysis is a year old game. What about new stuff like GTA4 and Fallout 3?

4870X2 is still pointless if the majority of games don't use Crossfire. Plus, you can't guarantee that future titles will have dual-card implementations.

It depends really whether you're referring to the majority of games ever made, or the majority of current popular titles. Of current titles, only three (Dead Space and BIA: Hell's Highway) don't support CrossFire properly. Even then, forced into single GPU mode, a single HD4870 1GB is approaching the speed of a GTX280.

AcidHell2 said:
The reviews I've seen tested 10 games and showed that the gtx280 was faster on the majority. where the 4870x2 was faster in the others. but also that there are still driver issues with xfire and some glitches in some games.

280 gets mulleted here:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/12/17/xmas-2008-graphics-performance-on-core-i7/1

spitzoid · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:42

Chimerical said:
Is he an axe murderer? (Or drunkenmaster?)

Link doesn't work.

It's drunkenmaster!

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17955620

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:43

reflux said:
It depends really whether you're referring to the majority of games ever made, or the majority of current popular titles. Of current titles, only two (Dead Space and World in Conflict) don't support CrossFire properly. Even then, forced into single GPU mode, a single HD4870 1GB is approaching the speed of a GTX280.

it also depends at what resolution aa and other stuff. The results very a lot even in the same game if you change the resolution.

reflux · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:46

AcidHell2 said:
it also depends at what resolution aa and other stuff. The results very a lot even in the same game if you change the resolution.

Yes, see the link to the Bit-Tech review above. The 280 is sometimes faster at low res, but who buys a 280 for 1280x1024?!

Chimerical · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:46

reflux said:
It depends really whether you're referring to the majority of games ever made, or the majority of current popular titles. Of current titles, only two (Dead Space and World in Conflict) don't support CrossFire properly. Even then, forced into single GPU mode, a single HD4870 1GB is approaching the speed of a GTX280.

Yeah, I mean the majority of current popular titles.

Perosnally, I would always buy a single core card. A 4870X2 in a game that doesn't support Xfire is going to have one core idle, which is a waste of money (considering you're getting 50% of the performance out of a £400 card), power and wasted heat.

The GTX280 is overpriced and the 4870X2 is necessary for 30" screens, but I'd still go for the 280 (or even just a 4870 1GB).

spitzoid said:
It's drunkenmaster!

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17955620

Yes, that guy does have anger issues. He'll probably throttles people in their sleep for getting their GPU facts 'wrong' on a forum.

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:55

Out of interest anyone got a good comparison of the 4870x2 vs gtx260maxicore sli. These are similar priced.

w311zy · 23 Dec 2008 at 12:58

id get a gtx 280