Looking to Build a New Gaming PC

Discussion in 'Building a new PC' started by Mackles, Dec 22, 2008.

  1. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    @Mackles,

    You would want any Vista 64 package. Probably Vista 64 Premium or Business would be best.

    @gera229,

    I've used tons of software on a 700MHz CPU and the editing is smooth as silk on it. You will not put any stress on a CPU by merely editing a video file. Maybe importing will take a few minutes, but nothing crazy.

    When you are finished editing and it is time to encode the project, that is where the CPU matters. The encode time will vary depending on which format you choose and what advanced settings you use. Also, the software is very important. If a software cannot utilize more than 2 threads, than a Quad Core will probably be outperformed by a Dual Core (because of clock speed). Most Commercial software should take advantage of Quad Core CPUs.

    I don't know how Hyperthreading works, and this is what makes the i7 faster than the C2Q. If a software has to support hyperthreading in order to utilize this, then the software would make all the difference. With Cinema4D for example, it will use 8 threads with an i7, so rendering is much faster than a C2Q and even the 920 would outperform the QX9770.

    When SMT is disabled, the i7 will perform about equal to C2Q. For example, in Cinebench, my Q6600 at 3.2GHz scores 13200 and the i7 965 scores a 13600. The render takes 66 seconds for me to complete. This would mean that the score of 13600 of the i7 965 would be roughly a 64.28 second encoding time.

    In single thread (SMT does not matter here), the i7 965 scores a 3700 - 3900 depending on the motherboard and the Q6600 at 3.2GHz scores 3681.

    Based on this, I think that it is SMT that makes the difference and I don't know if that is dependent on the software, or if it is just a way to make the cores more efficient regardless of software...

    i7 965 with SMT:
    3725 * 4 cores = 15000 actual was 15250
    3900 * 4 cores = 15600 actual was 15680

    Q6600 @ 3.2:
    3681 * 3.59 = 13207

    i7 965 @ 3.2 no SMT:
    3815 * 3.57 = 13607
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2008
  2. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    "i7 965 with SMT:
    3725 * 4 cores = 15000 actual was 15250
    3900 * 4 cores = 15600 actual was 15680

    Q6600 @ 3.2:
    3681 * 3.59 = 13207

    i7 965 @ 3.2 no SMT:
    3815 * 3.57 = 13607 "

    I don't understand the above.
    And when you encode you just wait for it to finish right? If yes then to me it really doesn't matter. Oh I want to ask what else is it better for other than video editing?
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2008
  3. Mackles

    Mackles Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
  4. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    @Mackles,

    Yes, that is a 64 bit Vista. I did not list it because of the price, but I see it has a rebate of $50. Ask some questions on Vista though. I read lots saying that Ultimate was crap and a waste of money. I know that it can support more RAM than Premium, but I think that is 128GB vs. 64GB. I don't know what other differences there would be. Personally, I don't even use Vista (I use XP Pro x64).

    If you do not have expensive Microsoft Software, you can give Linux a try. I used Ubuntu before and that was no different than Windows. The benefits of Linux is the price (free) and there is a lot of free software for it.

    @gera229

    Those are benchmark scores based on the time it takes to encode. The faster the time, the higher the score.

    Here is a translation:

    15250 = 56.8 seconds (i7 965 w/SMT)
    15680 = 53.8 seconds (i7 965 w/SMT)
    13207 = 66 seconds (Q6600 @ 3.2GHz)
    13607 = 64.2 seconds (i7 965 no SMT)

    As you can see, the difference is up to 12.8 seconds!

    The way the benchmark works is that a single 800x600x8 image is encoded and the time is recorded and it comes up with a benchmark score.

    Scores of 15000+ would require a C2Q to be overclocked past 3.6GHz. Maybe 3.7 or so. A score of 14750 would be approx a 60 second render time. Since this is a still frame, even though the i7 performs much better than a similarly clocked C2Q, it is still not nearly enough to use for Cinema4D or any other 3D app. You would still require a render farm or some type of Rendering Cluster or Network.

    You can take these figures and translate them to other apps. If the i7 performs 18.5% better in encoding software, this would translate to much more work done in a given amount of time or power savings since the PC will be idle longer.
     
  5. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    What power savings? Power lasts long enough. I guess I would go for the C2Q then because I don't think I will be doing those things. I'm just asking, but did you list any other things the i7 would be better for and how much better? If not tell me what else it's better for thanks. Peace.
     
  6. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    It will run everything faster except for games. I don't know how much faster, but some apps up to 60% faster.

    The software that will most likely take advantage of its speed is anything video related. So if you use software to re-encode (compress) DVDs, or if you convert your movies to mpeg4 etc..., it will make a difference.

    You asked for video editing, which would be very CPU intensive. If a software supports multicore encoding, then the i7 will be much faster. Like encoding an mpeg4 video, may take 2 hours on a Q9550, but that same movie would take 1 hour 30 minutes with the i7 920. If you do this a lot every day, then the difference will be that you will get a lot more done in any given amount of time.

    As for power savings, I meant energy bill. A PC under 100% real life load, will consume about need about 250 watts and consume roughly 310 watts. So the longer it runs, the more energy it will use. In that 30 minute difference, the PC would waste an extra 2.2 cents. That seems like nothing, but in 1 year, that could add up to being $127! After factoring in interest rates, that is like spending an extra $122 on the slower PC.

    If you were just wondering about video editing, and are not going to do it, then the i7 will have virtually no benefit. Yes, it will run programs faster, but if you are not going to put your system under full load, then you will not see much difference. For instance, my Q6600 can load firefox instantly. It loads Photoshop CS4 Extended in about 1/4 of a second. After Effects CS4 takes 3 seconds to load. Premier Pro takes about the same... It will seem blazing fast and it puts the CPU under about only a 40% load for a split second...

    So unless you are doing something where the CPU will be running under a high load for a long time, there is no real benefit to an i7. The Q6600 is the entry level C2Q and it is so fast when OC'd to 3.2GHz... Maybe in a few years the i7 will make more sense, but for now, unless you are doing a lot of editing/encoding related work, the i7 is not the best option.

    If you are planning to play games, the Q6600 will do great, but the Q9550 would be the best choice. The C2D may actually outperform them, however, this is until newer games come out that will utilize 4 cores.

    Maybe it would help if you list some examples of what you do with your PC.
     
  7. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Oh I got and on the power did you mean you have to pay for it???? Or is it for the programs?

    I don't think I would do video editing that much so yea.
    basically
    high end gaming
    photoshop
    just anything that's media and gaming but I don't do much editing though. Not that much like everyday in a year at least. And you said u load cs4 very quickly but what kind of cpu do you use? Do you do video editing? do you do it A lot? Thanks. Peace.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2008
  8. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    The power I meant the electric bill :p

    I have a Q6600 overclocked to 3.2GHz. I just finished this build maybe 2 weeks ago and I have just installed Creative Suite 4 Master Collection, so the most I have done is launch the applications included to see what they look like (I previously had CS3 on my old PC).

    As for video editing, I have not done any yet since this PC was just put together. I am still organizing and installing whatever I need. However, like I said, the actual editing will not stress your CPU. It is only the encoding that will do it. I will do a little test some time tonight to see how the PC performs, however, I have never used After Effects, so it may take me a while to figure it out :p

    Media-wise, High Def video files put literally no stress on the CPU. The max I get is 1%. With anti-virus, the start-up scan takes 2 seconds to complete.

    For Photoshop, the CPU will not matter. When they benchmark Photoshop, they are doing tons of pictures rendered in .tiff and high resolution. This is not normal use for Photoshop. I think RAM and GPU would affect it more.

    Gaming, the C2Q perform equal to the i7. The only advantage the i7 has in gaming is the X58 chipset which fixes issues with crossfire and SLI. They tend to scale much better, but that is more for 2500x1600 gaming with all settings max, however, a single HD 4870x2 seems to take care of this resolution.

    Overall, I think the Video Card would be the most important in your system, then the CPU/RAM. So if you have an HD 4870 or higher, any Quad with performance RAM would do the trick.
     
  9. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Yea I want to build my own pc with q9550, gtx 260 216 core black edition, and corsair ram at 1066 mhz ddr2 not ddr3 u think that would be more than enough? well maybe less than 1066 cuz that's what it says on specs but my mobo and cpu might no support 1066 unless I overclock? Or it will support it? Well someone told me it's only going to be 667mhz ram speed at stock cuz 333x2 is 666. Thanks. Peace.
     
  10. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    The CPU will be stock at 1333FSB, meaning that it will be 333.4 MHz x 4. So RAM will work at a 1:1 ratio at 667.2MHz. If you decide to overclock the CPU using FSB to 1600MHz, then the RAM would have a 1:1 ratio at 800MHz.

    If you leave it at stock, you will have to use a 5:4 ratio with 800MHz RAM in order to get 800MHz. Once you look at the motherboard settings in the BIOS this is easy to figure out.

    The Q9550 is probably the best for your situation. It is a faster chip than what I have. BTW, I tried an editing test and the CPU capped off at 44%. It was going to finish a 100 minute movie in 12 minutes, so I think the software is not able to handle 4 cores. I would have to get an updated version (I used Mainconcept). I wanted to use After Effects, but there is nothing on my HDD that I can import :p

    I am not sure which Motherboard you are using though, so I cannot say how the RAM will clock.

    With Photoshop though, the program does get faster with ATI HD 4000 series cards because it uses GPU acceleration. If ATI is an option for you, the closest to the GTX 260 Black Edition is the HD 4870 1GB.
     
  11. Mackles

    Mackles Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Between these two cases, are both of them compatible for my build, and will they have enough room to hold everything safely?

    Antec p182 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129025&Tpk=Antec P182

    Coolermaster Stacker 830 Evolution RC - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119122

    I'm pretty close to ordering everything, so this is the final step. Here is my final list:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202 i7 920

    http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=24727 heatsink+fan

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128362&Tpk=ud5 ud5 mobo

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136284 1tb western digital hdd

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151173 samsung dvdburner

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139006 corsair 750w 80+ xfire/sli ready psu

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231225 G.Skill 6gb(3x2gb) DDR3 1600

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150330 XFX GTX260 Core 216 896mb Black Edition

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102006 Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer 7.1 Sound Card

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116493 Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2008
  12. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Well the black edition would be better in performance in gaming though. I'm mostly doing this for gaming though. Any my ram says 1066mhz. Well I think the overall performance would be more than enough.
     
  13. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    @Mackles,

    Both cases should fit everything inside. The Coolermaster is a larger case, so there would be more room inside and possibly better airflow. It has a bracket for 4 side fans which would mean that it would be cooler inside than since the fans will suck in cooler air from outside the case. Also, this Case is ATX/BTX, so it can be used for BTX motherboard later on. The Antec seems like it will be more silent. The case seems to have a lot of airflow and looks to be a very good case. I am not too keen on cases, so maybe wait for someone who is or do some searches for reviews of cases.

    @gera229

    The GTX 260 Black Edition is a faster card, but it is still similar in performance. Basically, there would not be a game playable with the GTX 260 that is unplayable with the HD 4870 1GB edition at the same settings and resolution. Each card also has games that it would excel in, so they would trade off victories should they go head to head. Overall though, for the extra $20 or whatever, the GTX 260 Black Edition is definitely a good option. At regular price, it is not as attractive since there is the similar performing HD 4870 1GB at much lower price point and the better performing HD 4850x2 at a similar price point.

    Oh, and I have new results for that same 140 minute video. I installed the software to a newer version (actually H.264 v2.1) and time improved to 9 minutes 23 seconds. That is a 10.676:1 ratio, so it encodes almost 11 seconds of mpeg2 video in 1 second!!!

    This represents a 22% increase in speed. The CPU was loaded to an average of about 62%, so it really used about 2 1/2 cores :( However this is a 43% increase in core usage and 72% scaling efficiency. Predicted time of a 100% load encode is now 6 minutes 52 seconds.

    Theoretical max is 5 minutes 17 seconds
    Theoretical Time is 5 minutes 43 seconds
    Predicted time is 6 minutes 52 seconds

    I think what the Theoretical Max would represent is the difference between C2Q and i7 in encoding. The i7 would probably approach the 5:17 mark. This means that it would be about 23.144% faster. This means that at 3.2GHz a C2Q would be about as fast as an i7 at 2.46GHz.

    So here is how the i7's would compare to a 65nm C2Q:

    i7 920 = 3.461 GHz
    i7 940 = 3.812 GHz
    i7 965 = 4.164 GHz

    To 45nm C2Q:

    i7 920 = 3.331 GHz
    i7 940 = 3.647 GHz
    i7 965 = 3.983 GHz

    So, what these numbers mean is that is you have a QX9650 and were wondering how much you would have to overclock to get it to equal a certain i7 CPU, you would look at the 45nm "chart" and look at the equivalent clock speed. This means that to match an i7 940, a QX9650 would have to be overclocked to 3.467 GHz. Of course this is all theoretical. It would be nice to see how this would compare to actual data.

    However, this is NOT gaming performance. This would most likely fit only for very CPU intensive tasks like encoding of audio/video, and rendering of 2D/3D content. It would not make a difference in everyday usage. It is more of a benchmark difference. Actually based on what I have done, there is a very good chance that a C2D at 4GHz would render video faster than a C2Q since the software was not utilizing all 4 cores 100%. H.264 was not cheap. I believe it was $500, so if this software cannot do it, then it is very unlikely that lower end software can.

    I will try something with Mainconcept Reference when I get a chance. Also, I will have to test out Adobe Products with the GPU acceleration. I should have a 2600XT somewhere around and that is not a supported card, so it would be a cool benchmark :p
     
  14. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Thanks. Well yea so what do you think would be best for me a C2Q or i7? Basically I usually don't do any video editing. Or w/e. And what else is i7 better than core 2 quad for and by how much better(you can list in percentage % amount better if so)? And in the future for C2Q software will utilize all 4 cores IMO. Oh So if i7 finishes it in 5 minutes the C2Q would finish it in about 6 minutes 30 seconds? Thanks. Peace.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2008
  15. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    For you, I think the Q9550 is the best option. It will cost $380 less than an i7 920 build and will outperform it in gaming.

    Also, note that the times I listed were for and i7 clocked at 3.2GHz only if it were utilized 100%, which may not happen outside of 3D animation rendering. For the i7 920, you are looking at times around 6:30 at stock speed, so a little bit faster than the Q6600 @ 3.2GHz.

    I think the i7 would be 23% faster at everything clock for clock except for gaming. Now, whatw does 23% mean for everyday computing? Instead of launching FireFox in .1 seconds, .08 seconds? Honestly, you will not see the difference unless you do something where the CPU is utilized at a high percentage over a long period of time.

    Only Encoding/Rendering can do this. The only normal utilities that can stress the CPU over some period of time are Anti-Virus software and Compression utilities (7zip, WinrRAR etc...). Antivirus might be more HDD limited since it will access many files. So maybe if you compress and decompress a lot of DVD sized archives, the i7 will make a difference of 20% or so.

    I have no idea how long each will take as I did not really think to take note of how long it took to decompress this stuff. I think 1GB took 85 seconds. It would take anywhere from 60 - 70 seconds for an i7 I guess... So if you do this a lot, it would make a difference, but again, 65 vs. 85 seconds for 1GB is not something that would be noticed anyways. This would be a 3 minute difference in a DVD9 sized decompression, or 11:46 vs. 9:00. This is not the end of the world :p
     
  16. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Thanks. In the cyberpower website I see some cheap computers, but I'm not sure weather to build one or get it from them. What will be cheaper? They took a $1700 computer and put all the same exact parts on newegg and on newegg it was $2056 all together. I thought it was supposed to be cheaper to build a pc. Or was there like something they did on purpose like making there be no combo deals? Or what is the problem why is it more expensive? WEll in cyberpower they have liquid cooled pcs and the 1700 one was liquid cooled. Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2008
  17. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    List the components you are looking at. If it is cheaper from cyberpower, then it doesn't make sense to spend more and build yourself.

    You have to watch out with the RAM though. The Cyberpower does not guarantee RAM unless you pay extra.

    I don't know much about water cooling. Maybe there is bad/cheap water cooling and good/expensive water cooling.
     
  18. gera229

    gera229 Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26

Share This Page