I am trying to build a super powerful pc, need advice

M

mikhail007

New Member
For serious graphics/photoshop works, i need something that can handle a file thats at the very least 5gb. I made a rough list of the essentials so far. I know very little about hardware so basically i chose the best reviewed stuff on new egg. Please make suggestions, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Processor:Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Yorkfield 3.2GHz LGA 775 136W Quad-Core Processor

MotherBoard: ASUS P5E LGA 775 Intel X38 ATX Intel Motherboard

VideoCard: MSI NX8800GT 512M OC GeForce 8800 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card

HardDrive: Western Digital Caviar SE WD1600AAJS 160GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive

PowerSupply:OCZ GameXStream OCZ700GXSSLI 700W ATX12V Power Supply

case: COOLER MASTER RC-690-KKA1-GP
 
hackapelite said:
+1

For serious graphics work, I recommend at least 320GB HD, preferrably Seagate (a known high-quality brand). For what I've heard WD's HDs are relatively prone to failure, so I would not recommend one, but I can't say that they're bad as I have a 2'n'half+ years old 80 GB Caviar working fine.

Also, I'm not sure if a QX**** CPU is worth it unless you're OCing.
Click to expand...
What is it with the people in this forum and Western Digital drives? Everyone in this forum rips on WD, yet if you go to other computing sites, you'll find tons of people that swear by Western Digital, myself included. My six raptors are lightning fast, they load programs in a fraction of the time that other drives do, they run flawlessly 24/7/365, and they're backed by a full 5 year warranty. Of the dozens of builds I've personally put together, not once has a WD drive failed me. NOT ONCE.

Seagate drives are great, I run a few of em' myself, but just because you're happy with Seagate DOES NOT mean that Western Digital drives are "prone to failure." I challenge you to provide verifiable documentation proving that statement.

/end rant

To the original poster: The build you posted certainly looks good, however you may wish to consider a lower rated quad core CPU to save some cash and use the money saved to invest in some good drives or a RAID array. For serious graphics work, very fast hard drives and a bunch of memory will definitely help a lot. Your bottleneck is the hard drives and memory, NOT your CPU.
 
What is it with the people in this forum and Western Digital drives? Everyone in this forum rips on WD, yet if you go to other computing sites, you'll find tons of people that swear by Western Digital, myself included. My six raptors are lightning fast, they load programs in a fraction of the time that other drives do, they run flawlessly 24/7/365, and they're backed by a full 5 year warranty. Of the dozens of builds I've personally put together, not once has a WD drive failed me. NOT ONCE.

Seagate drives are great, I run a few of em' myself, but just because you're happy with Seagate DOES NOT mean that Western Digital drives are "prone to failure." I challenge you to provide verifiable documentation proving that statement.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that raptors are great drives. I should have said that, alright. However, I did celarly state that FOR WHAT *I* HAVE HEARD, and by that was referring to WDs mainstream HDs, and right after that mentioned that *I* have a Caviar (you do realise Caviars ARE made by WD?) working just fine. Again, I only said for what I've heard
and that means that according to what I've heard blah blah, it wasn't a "WD sux lolzzzz stfu!" claim. And once more, I said that I have a perfectly working Caviar myself AND I also said that I can't say that they're bad because of tha. Hence I'm not saying that they're bad. And just in case I didn't make it clear enough I said that for what *I* have heard some WDs are relatively prone to failure. Just because I say I've heard something does NOT mean that I actually believe in it.

Sorry if I sound rude, but I really hate it when people reply to me with a "lolz this guyz flaming troll get him loolz11!!11" attitude. I'm not here to flame, and I'm not here to bash brands (apart from Microsoft but thenagain I'm a bit of a Punk ;)) and also I don't speak English as my first language so sometimes I just can't come up with a perfect-for-the-situation wording.
 
Exactly why do we need a high end graphics card for photoshoping? All you're doing is displaying things on a high resolution monitor, not running 3D apps. Just stick with a midrange card with lots of onboard memory and spend the extra money and get a fast, large capacity hard drive a long with a lot of memory (at least 4GB).
 
get a server motherboard, with intel's 5400 chipset, and throw a pair of harpertowns on it, along with 8gb's of ram, and if this is for a workstation, shouldn't you be using quadro graphics cards?
 
That looks like a good setup. The only thing I would change is get a larger hard drive. For what you will be doing the rest sounds fine.
 
Are you doing professional computer graphics or is this like a hobby? lol, its none of my business, I'm just wondering...
 
This is definitely not a hobby, lol. My computer is the center of my business. Thanks everyone for the input, much appreciated.
 
hackapelite said:
Hence I'm not saying that they're bad. And just in case I didn't make it clear enough I said that for what *I* have heard some WDs are relatively prone to failure. Just because I say I've heard something does NOT mean that I actually believe in it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a parrot who mindlessly repeats what they've heard. My problem isn't that *YOU* have heard something, my problem is with you making unsubstantiated recommendations based on heresay. (See below)

hackapelite said:
For what I've heard WD's HDs are relatively prone to failure, so I would not recommend one ...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top