decided to build, what do you think of this rig?

I

ikonone

New Member
hi everyone,

well, at first i was not thinking that i wanted to take the time to build a computer but it has just been too entertaining even doing the research. i think i have put together all of the parts that i want and i was hoping to get a critique on them.

i am going for a CHEAP desktop without sacrificing quality. it will handle little to no gaming but plenty of multitasking, video watching, downloading, etc.

another aspect that i was going for was the ability to upgrade in the future without too mutch hassle (mobo can handle faster FSB, better CPU, and more RAM, case is cheap but functional, graphics card is sufficient but not top notch, etc.)

finally, i wanted a somewhat easy install with reliable parts. i do not need the best of everything but just good parts that work well. all this being said, here is what i am looking at (p.s. i am planing on just using my TV as a monitor for now)

Intel Pentium D 945 Presler 3.4GHz 2 x 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116255

BIOSTAR 945P-A7A (8.0) LGA 775 Intel 945P ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813138034

CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Desktop Memory
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820146580

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3160811AS 160GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148149

LITE-ON Black 2M Cache SATA DVD Burner
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16827106046

XFX PVT72GWANG GeForce 7300GS 256MB Onboard (512MB TurboCache Supported) 64-bit GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Low Profile Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150128

Thermaltake TR2 W0070RUC ATX 430W Power Supply 115/230 V
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817153023

COOLMAX CS-480-Black W/O PSU Black Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811212033

ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro CPU Cooler
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16835186134

Logitech Cordless Desktop Keyboard Mouse Included
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16823126150

Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16835100007

any thoughts or suggestions would be very much appriciated :)

chris
 
lb562high said:
core 2 duo!
Click to expand...

core 2 expensive, came on man did you even read my post? i am on a budget here and i really do not need that kind of performance anyway.

anyone have any ideas on the system overall? please any suggestions (with reasons behind them) would be most appriciated.
 
liquidshadow said:
First off, the Core 2 e6300 is only $13 more than that CPU and it's cooler so you won't need the Freezer which is $30.
You won't really need the Arctic Silver unless you're looking to overclock.
Then upgrade to this mobo with the extra money:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813128017

What's your complete budget?
Click to expand...
I agree, the difference in price between the C2D and PD is not much, however the C2D would perform much, much better.
 
sweet. thanks for all the input everyone.

i have a few questions though. as far as the e6300 goes, i know that core 2 duo is the new great thing but it seems like it is not as good. they are both dual core, the core 2 has a faster FSB and better L1 cache but worse L2 cash and a lot slower frequency. i know that frequency is not everything but 1.86 to 3.4 is a big difference. also, the reviewers say that they have overclocked the 945 to 4.4GHz. i would like to do a little overclocking just to experiment more than anything else, but i would like to try it. what am i missing here that makes the core 2 so much better? also some were saying that the e6300 runs a bit hot as well, ideas?

budget... well as low as possible with still having quality parts, preferably upgradeable.

the mobo you pointed out seems to have better specs all the way around but the reviews are not as good and then i would have to go up to DDR2 800 memory which will tack on a bit more money.

thanks a ton for the help! any further elaboration or suggestions would also be greatly appriciated.

chris
 
yes, it seems that they all seem to think core 2 as well so sorry. what i was refering to though is that by simply stating the name of the top of the line brand (some of which are hundreds and hundreds more than the chip i was looking at) without and reason or information was not really all that helpful.

they are all now suggestion the cheapest of the c2d's that is not in the frequency range that i was looking at so when you simply said, core 2 duo it seemed like you were suggesting anything in that range of processors (which is a lot) and i can not come nearly close to affording most of them. sorry if it came off bad, i mostly just wanted more info, not just the name of another chip with no explination.

chris
 
damn, so i have gotten a lot of views on this thread. a lot of people have recommended c2d. why? why go for the super low end c2d with a much lower freq. when i can go with a much much higher freq dual processor that is not c2d? i think that i have seen that c2d's send different tasks to different cpu's but that could not possibly make up the difference in speed could it?!?!? does someone have an explinatory answer other than simply saying that it is better with no reason? i am not trying to say that i know more than anyone here (much less would be the acctual case) but why can such a slow processor be better?
 
The architecture has changed with the Core 2 Duo's which means they are generally more effecient. The Pentium D's have an old architecture which makes them inneffiecient in heat and power. The Core 2 Duo's Dual Core ability is also greater than the old D's, which were really a bit of a stop-gap.
 
GCR said:
The architecture has changed with the Core 2 Duo's which means they are generally more effecient. The Pentium D's have an old architecture which makes them inneffiecient in heat and power. The Core 2 Duo's Dual Core ability is also greater than the old D's, which were really a bit of a stop-gap.
Click to expand...

isn't most of that difference coming from the 65nm process type, compared to the older 90nm type?
 
No, the smaller process type only allows them to put more stuff on the chip. The architecture of the chip is what determines its performance. Even though the frequency difference is big, that doesn't matter. The e6300 will still win performance-wise

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=8

Although, I don't like Anand too much, there are many benchmarks there. Also, it's not like the C2D can't be overclocked. Even with the stock cooler, many go up to 2.8GHZ or higher.
 
Last edited:
thanks everyone:) especially liquid shadow, i have been looking for a comparison like that, it is exactly what i wanted to see.

well, now i am not sure. it looks like the C2D is better overall but not by a whole lot. with what i will need it for i am not sure if i really need the extra power but it is not that much more expensive. but i am poor as hell:( . well guess i got some thinking to do. thanks again everyone for your input:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top