**EDIT** Sammoris converted me to Intel. Lol. Current Build ** CASE**Thermaltake WingRS 200 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133075 CPU**Intel Pentium E5200 2.5GHz Dual-Core Processor http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116072 MoBo**GIGABYTE GA-EG31M-S2 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128338 RAM**Kingston HyperX 1GBx2 DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134583 PSU**Antec earthwatts EA380 380W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371005 HDD**Western Digital Caviar 7200RPM 250GB SATA 3.0GB/s http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136113 GPU**ASUS HD4670 512MB 128Bit GDDR3 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121274&Tpk=HD 4670 OPTICAL DRIVE**LG DVD BURNER http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136144
The psu you chose will not work. It has a great chance of failing and ruining your computer. I would get this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139008 If you want something cheaper than the 9800gt then a 4670 would be good. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127383 This would work great and be cheaper http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128373
Indeed, Rosewill PSUs are deathtraps. The rest of the build is OK, but krj's motherboard and graphics card would be better choices.
Ok guys, Ive changed the build for better/cheaper/stabiler products. Oppinions? As a side note, where do I get screws to screw in OEM parts? **EDIT** Sammorris changed me from an AMD to Intel man. New build is still further down. Mhm'k?
That's a way inferior graphics card you've chosen. We're talking a third of the power of the 9800GT at best. Get this instead http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121274 Assuming you actually play games of course? If all the graphics card is for is to play HD Video, the HD3650 you chose will be fine.
I appreciate the suggestion but the HD3650 is more then I need. (To be truthful I was wanting a GeForce 7800 but I can't find them anymore) EDIT*** After looking at reviews of the HD3650 I found and seeing that I can't find another GPU as cheap I am going to go with your suggestion. Konichiwa!
See, I haven't been in the scene for a while and when I stopped building computers to do some other "things" the 7800 was the beast for casual gamers. Since its been so long I thought they'd be dirt cheap and would be perfect. (I eventually found one and it was more expensive then the HD4670)
The 7800GT (rivals X1800GTO, X1800XT) hasn't even been made for nearly 3 years, it was superceded by the 7900GT/GTX in 2006 (rivals X1900XT, X1900XT-X, X1950 Pro, X1950XT, X1950XT-X), then the 8800GS (9600GT, 9600GSO) , GT (9800GT), GTS, GTX, Ultra, 9800GTX and 9800GTX+, all of which are beaten by a Radeon HD4850 which is barely much more than 100 dollars. The HD4670 and its older counterparts the HD3870 and HD2900XT sit around equals to the lower end 8800s. The GTX260, revised version of it, GTX280 and GTX295 have since been released too (rivals HD4850, HD4870, HD4850X2, HD4870X2)
I wouldn't waste my money on the AMD "Black" series. It's a marketing gimmick and I don't believe that there is "bang for the buck" there, that having been said, I don't OC anymore because I value reliability over "juice squeezing". AFAIK, the "Black series" are standard CPUs that were pulled off the line that would clock faster (stably) than their batchmates.
@sammorris Thank you for the info. But the last time I did serious hard core PC gaming was 3 years ago when the 7800 was godly. I dont do much gaming on my PC anymore, but would like to have a GFX card that could handle a game at l024x768 with no hang ups. Thats why I was still having 7800 on my head. But I think the 4670 you helped me choose will be fine since you said it equates to the GeForce 8800. @dailun Which of these two are better for "bang for the buck???" AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103272 or AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103210
Well, the 6000+ is better bang for the buck initially, though the amount of power it uses is going to cost a fair bit more over the time you own it. For games, however, I have to say that this is far better than either: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116074 Take it or leave it, but if you're that far behind on the graphics market, you should also know that AMD have been second best for a while now for CPUs.
I know that AMD/ATI have been behind since Intel rolled out with CPUs on the socket 775. But, I like RISC architecture over CISC.
As far as I'm aware they are both CISC and have been for a long time. Besides, what difference does it really make? Knowing the superior real world performance of the E5300 is why I recommended it. Also, only AMD are behind, ATI are still very much a competitive company now.
Has AMD really switched to CISC? Thats a shame. Call me a fool for nostalgia. Looking at the wattage on each the 7750 uses more power but you didn't comment about that... So... Is the 6000 or 7750 best bang for my buck?
That wasn't the original comparison, but the 7750 is the best bang for the buck of all the Athlon X2s. That said, the comment about the Core 2 is still valid.
You're gonna kill an AMD enthusiast! Damn Intel and better products! (Although I have a ThinkPad with a T2390 currently and love it) Ok, So Im gonna rework the build now.
In some environments, the E5200 falls a little behind the X2 7750, but it's never by a level you'd notice, and the E5200 is a 50W processor versus the X2 which is a 90W processor. i.e. if the CPU is at full load for just two hours a day on average, it will save you $10 a year in power alone.
