Okay, so. My computer badly needs an upgrade! The time has come for me to look up for some parts. Here's what I've currently got (don't laugh):

- CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3000+
- Mobo: MSI K8 Neo4
- 1GB RAM (I think DDR, should check to be sure)
- GPU: ATI Radeon x1950 pro
- A crappy, noisy tower
- Some crappy, slow and small HDDs

I plan on changing most of that stuff. Here's what I've mostly set my mind upon for now:

- CPU: Intel Core i7 920 (Very good performance, good reviews, nicely priced for the performance).
- Mobo: Asus P6T (LGA1366 socket for the CPU, good reviews, supports a truckload of DDR3 RAM).
- 4GB RAM DDR3 (basically whatever will have the best reviews when I buy).
- 2X Hitachi 7K1000.B 1TB (Good price/size ratio, good reviews)

I'm mostly settled for these things unless I find better things somewhere, somehow (open to suggestions)

Now, for the other stuff. First of all, I'm looking for a good tower (hard to find). Here's what I'm looking for:

- Quiet
- Roomy enough for the stuff above
- Not stupidly conceived
- Good cooling capability
- Preferably includes a 700W+ PSU
- Preferably something that doesn't have gamer bling, I don't care about seeing my fans turn
- Reasonably priced, it doesn't need to be in carbon fiber (yes, it exists)!

If you have any suggestions, go ahead please.

Now, the last thing that I'm unsure about is the GPU. The ATI Radeon x1950 pro that I have right now isn't very old (1 year or so) and not bad at all. The only problem that I have with it is that it's not DX10. It's not been a big deal for me so far, as most games that came out in DX10 were still reasonably good looking in DX9, and that anyway most of them didn't interest me much. However, maybe it would be the time to upgrade? I don't really know. I must say more graphical power would be good. However, there's something else I could do that would probably be much cheaper.

Two options:

1. Buy a brand new Dx10 GPU (haven't started looking)
2. Buy another x1950 pro and use two of them in crossfire (which should be much better, and much cheaper)

Again, I'm open to suggestions!

Here a comment from a Danish guy normally who normally knows what he´s talking about. It was in Danish language and I just put his text through an online translator tool. I think it´s understandable:

Went from a Gigabyte P35 board with E8500 Wolf Dale this i920 cpu and a Gigabyte X58 board with SLI setup etc, in total I spent around 13k on a new system. It is the most wasted money I have ever spent.
SLI on X58 running unevenly. Onboard sound is much worse than it was with a P35 board. CPU performance even with the GTX280 SLI setup is not impressive game iforht. my old system with one GTX280 cards. Poor vista 64bit support for X58.
Overall, you're just an E8500 el. a Q9450 cpu and a reasonable graphics card then DROP core i7 getting simply too little of it. I certainly extremely disappointed, and should only be run 1 years even with the old system.
Instead of selling me my core i7 setup and switch to AMD phénomène II X3 720 Black Edition for AM2 + board. It provides balance with a core i7 920 in Crysis anyway (see hwt.dk Testing phénomène II X3 720). Maybe X3 720 max 30% slower in div. other synthetic benchmarks, but such a CPU inc. motherboard etc.. is also 140% cheaper to assemble than the Intel setup.
Do you have an E6200 CPU and want to upgrade so bring either a Q9300 if your motherboard supports it, otherwise take a AMD phénomène II.

Okay, I definitely hadn't looked up for enough information concerning the Phenom II.

From what I've found, the Phenom II 940 Black Edition is doing quite good for its price, but the Core i7 920 is still a better bargain (assuming both processors are stock). This is would be a killer for the 940 BE, for the i7 920 shows better performance, for a price that's not so higher. However, it doesn't end there. The 940 BE is by default running at 3.0Ghz clock speed, but it is apparently very easy to overclock and the clock speed can be increased to 3.7Ghz with a custom heatsink and higher voltage. On benchmarks, the default 940 BE will not do better than the i7 920, but if you clock it to 3.7Ghz, the performances will be better, making it an obviously better deal.

Now, I need to consider a few things. The mobos for the Core i7 processors are quite expensive, because they need the new LGA1366 socket. On the other hand, the Phenom IIs can run on AM2+ socketed mobos, which are much more conventional and cheaper to buy. This, however, could change. The Phenom IIs, while AM2+ compatible, can also run on mobos equipped with the new AM3 socket, which integrates the use of DDR3 memory. In the long run, I could be better off with an AM3 mobo/cpu and stack up DDR3 memory (presumably on Win 7). This would definitely last longer than an AM2+ mobo/cpu combo. The question is, though, would it be better than the Core i7 920?

Let me assume for a minute that the two processors, with the 940 BE overclocked, have pretty much the same performances. To make things as similar as possible, here's what I could do:

With a quick search on tigerdirect, I can easily find parts which are basically equivalent LGA1366 and AM3. Then, the only difference would be the price. Let's see how it adds up. Prices are in Canadian Dollars.

AMD CPU / AM3 Socket Mobo

• Asus M4A79T Deluxe Motherboard: 303.99$
  
• AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition CPU: 309.99$
  
• Zalman CPU Cooler (to overclock): 110.99$
  

Intel CPU / LGA1316 Socket Mobo

So for similar performance combos, the price is basically the same. Well, this isn't really any clearer now

Edit: Actually, the performance for the 940 BE overclocked to 3.7ghz (with custom heatsink) is actually greater than the i7 920's. To make things even more similar performance wise, you'd probably only need to overclock the 940 BE to 3.4ghz or so, at which point it would not require a custom heatsink, the default one being enough (you don't need to increase the voltage either). That would cut the price on the AMD bundle by 110.99. Speaking of the fan, I used the most expensive AM3 compatible fan I could find on tigerdirect. There was actually one available at 52$.

If all of that is true, and the performance of the OC 940 BE are greater or equal to those of the i7 920, then the best bargain is definitely the AMD.

Quote from R.Kolz :

Here a comment from a Danish guy normally who normally knows what he´s talking about.
...

That guy, "who normally knows what he's talking about", spent a lot of money to go from a 3.16GHz E8500 to a 2.66GHz i7 920 and seems mainly for games???
Did he bother to check any of the gazillion of reviews showing that i7 offers no performance over C2D in most games?
Sorry, but any knowledgeable person would not get 'extremely dissapointed', they would know very well beforehand that at stock settings E8500 will beat i7 920 in most games, and will also OC better. Games are not where i7 excels. Also, his experience with SLI contradicts many reports on the net saying that SLI results are better, sometimes significantly, with i7 than with similarly clocked quad Penryns.

I don't have a recommendation for the case, there's a lot of them and it comes to tastes, and most don't come with PSU, something most people appreciate actually. Perhaps Antec P182 is worth looking into.

I would go with a brand new DX10 card, that one is 3 generations behind, even 3850 might beat x1950CF.
OCed Ph2 940 will beat i7 920, but i7 920 OCs at least just as well and probably better in most cases. I think both are fine choices for the money, though not as good as C2D, but lga775 isn't gonna be around for long.
Btw, TRUE is a better cooler than anything Zalman has on air, and costs ~$80-90

OP: "The only problem that I have with it is that it's not DX10"
Autopilot :"Games are not where i7 excels"

Here one would asume he wants an PC upgrade because of his gaming.
He should clearify on this matter. Not sure why the OP comments on a quad core AMD CPU right away eighter. Using Intel setups since 10 about years, I´m looking for an PC upgrade myself and found this Danish comment as well as this:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/h ... icle.php/3261_3801711__11

Power consumption is a factor for me as well.

Give me advise on why NOT to choose a setup like this:
Phenom II X3 720 6 MB incl. standart cooler: 192.697 USD
AM3 motherboards: 120 - 200 USD

Total: 310 -390 USD

EDIT: Realised we´re talking Canadian Dollars here:
Total: 385 -485


That´s about half of the price mentioned in the OP´s posts.

Of course it wouldn´t beat the setup of the OP but a good " Best bang for the buck" it would be right now?

R.Kolz, why Phenom II X3 and not X4?

This one will be very fast.

Little bump.

I've been doing some research. This is a complicated subject. From what I understand, there's no perfect scenario, as:

1. There is no tri-channel motherboards compatible with AM3 sockets yet. This means that while I could very well buy a dual-channel DDR3 motherboard, I would find myself limited at 4 memory sticks once Windows 7 comes. That's hardly a good thing. Besides, I would then need to replace the 4GB memory bundle (2 sticks) to get up to something like 16GB (4 sticks of 4GB? That probably doesn't even exist yet).

2. There are numerous motherboards with tri-channel DDR3 support available with core i7 compatibility. The problem, however, is that buying one of these would obviously require me to get tri-channel DDR3 memory, which either comes in 3GB or 6GB size. 3GB isn't good, as it would last only until Windows 7 is out (I could then buy another set of 3GB, but running Windows 7 along with heavy games on 6GB of ram seems short). 6GB, on the other hand, is too much for my 32 bit Windows. 32 bit XP only supports 4GB of ram, and I do not know what it would do with 6GB of ram. Possibly nothing but recognize only 4, but it could also break the space continuum (:shrug. I could always get a 64bit XP, but I've heard it isn't compatible with some (a lot?) of programs.

I find the new Phenom II 955 from AMD quite interesting. The price is the same as the 940 was only a few weeks ago, and it's performances are much better, sometimes even topping Intel Core i7 920's. That's pretty great for something about 70$ CAD cheaper.

There really doesn't seem to be a perfect solution for the motherboard, though.

@R.Rolz: I'm really skeptical about buying a cheaper system, for instance as you said a phenom III and a cheaper mobo. Obviously being cheap is a good thing, but while such a system might be able to run even today's most power hungry games, it would become outdated rather quickly. This is the exact thing I've experienced with my current layout. It wasn't top of the line when I bought it, and it showed, even in games there weren't new back then. As power for games is my primary concern here, I think that opting for a more expensive, but more durable setup might be a good idea. The cheaper setup would only need to be updated earlier.

Quote from boosterfire :

@R.Rolz: I'm really skeptical about buying a cheaper system, for instance as you said a phenom III and a cheaper mobo. Obviously being cheap is a good thing, but while such a system might be able to run even today's most power hungry games, it would become outdated rather quickly. This is the exact thing I've experienced with my current layout. It wasn't top of the line when I bought it, and it showed, even in games there weren't new back then. As power for games is my primary concern here, I think that opting for a more expensive, but more durable setup might be a good idea. The cheaper setup would only need to be updated earlier.

Thing is with this idea is that, you need to know the market perfectly, as there comes a point where adding the extra $$$ will not upgrade as much anymore, so it becomes really hard to know where the money is being spent most efficiently, and where it becomes wasteful. For example maybe spending an extra 200 now would not be as efficient as waiting until things become cheaper, and upgrading as you go, using the money not spent for uber expensive things now.

- This is probably one of the biggest problems with PC gaming, at the end of the day you will always have to upgrade - and i think that's why alot of people go for consoles nowadays.

Basically on the memory side of things...its the CPU features NOT the motherboard, such as this listed under the AMD 955 Phenom II AM3 AS a feature; "Integrated Dual-Channel Memory Controller with up to DDR3-1333 support" and this under the i7 920 features "Memory Controller: Triple channel DDR3 800/1066/1333 MHz".

On the note of Windows 7, it appears the minimum spec is more of less the same as Vista, and Vista works well on 4GB DDR2 anyway. You could always upgrade with another 4GB dual channel kit anyway, I have 4 sticks of RAM in mine at and its still in dual channel. 8GB will surely be enough.

Look for benchmarks in relation to what you want the computer for...I mean for instance the AMD 955 AM3 CPU is better for most games (not much though), yet it isn't as good for most other tasks, compared to the Intel equivalent i7 920. If it was me in this scenario, I would go for the AMD 955. And I should imagine Crossfire (since you mentioned it before) works better on and AMD chipset board too, since AMD is ATi.

For what your looking at in the motherboard/cpu/ram...I would certainly want a better graphics card, but that would require a big increase in budget...I found this interesting article which to be fair has grabbed my attention too...http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ ... ossfire,review-31570.html

For the motherboard I would recommend Gigabyte/ASUS and if your into overclocking the DFI boards (since they have every BIOS option you could possibly want).

Quote from spacedskunk :

Basically on the memory side of things...its the CPU features NOT the motherboard, such as this listed under the AMD 955 Phenom II AM3 AS a feature; "Integrated Dual-Channel Memory Controller with up to DDR3-1333 support" and this under the i7 920 features "Memory Controller: Triple channel DDR3 800/1066/1333 MHz".

On the note of Windows 7, it appears the minimum spec is more of less the same as Vista, and Vista works well on 4GB DDR2 anyway. You could always upgrade with another 4GB dual channel kit anyway, I have 4 sticks of RAM in mine at and its still in dual channel. 8GB will surely be enough.

Look for benchmarks in relation to what you want the computer for...I mean for instance the AMD 955 AM3 CPU is better for most games (not much though), yet it isn't as good for most other tasks, compared to the Intel equivalent i7 920. If it was me in this scenario, I would go for the AMD 955. And I should imagine Crossfire (since you mentioned it before) works better on and AMD chipset board too, since AMD is ATi.

For what your looking at in the motherboard/cpu/ram...I would certainly want a better graphics card, but that would require a big increase in budget...I found this interesting article which to be fair has grabbed my attention too...http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ ... ossfire,review-31570.html

For the motherboard I would recommend Gigabyte/ASUS and if your into overclocking the DFI boards (since they have every BIOS option you could possibly want).

Very interesting article, this card indeed really looks to be interesting when put in Crossfire. I've been looking it up, and it seems the AIBs (Sapphire, Diamond, etc) have all decided to put a crappy cooler on the thing, so it does look quite awful, but I guess it doesn't matter too much.

I've decided that the processor is going to be the 955, so everything I'm unsure about has to revolved around that. Concerning the mobo, it doesn't seem to make a huge difference what choice I make. It's basically between Asus, Gigabyte and MSI. My current mobo is an MSI and I've never had any trouble with it, so I'm favouring the MSI for the moment (it's also something like 10$ cheaper :P). As for the memory, I think I'm going to buy 4GB DDR3 now and see how much I get out of it. It'll probably get something like 3.25GB or something.

Then as you said, waiting for Windows 7 is probably the thing to do. Then, I'll probably buy another 4GB then. I've been told that 7 itself will use somewhere around 3.5GB, so that increasing to 8GB would definitely not be luxury. Besides, 7 will support more than 4GB of ram, and 4GB RAM sticks will probably come out eventually (if they haven't yet), so I could technically put up to 16GB of memory in those mobos, they support that much.

Ever changing topic, damn you!

Windows 7 (like Vista) will use 30-50% of the memory you give it - I'm running 6GB in Vista, and it's using 24% as I type this - yet when I had 2GB it used 50% - aka 1GB.

Quote from Jakg :

Windows 7 (like Vista) will use 30-50% of the memory you give it - I'm running 6GB in Vista, and it's using 24% as I type this - yet when I had 2GB it used 50% - aka 1GB.

Wouldn't there be a limit, though? Let's say for instance that you have 128GB of RAM. Would it still use 30%-50% of that amount?

Probably not - it will tail off.

What i'm saying is that if I told you Vista was using 24% of my RAM, that would imply Vista permantently uses 1.474 GB of RAM. Which it doesn't.

Having 4 GB of RAM helps in Vista, although from my (limited) experience I found 7 a bit leaner (with the same speed) and so should work well with 4 GB of RAM.

Upgrading from 4 to 6GB of RAM didn't really help me at all tbh.

Oddly I would actually recommend a 7 laptop with 1GB of RAM - whereas a Vista machine would just be too sluggish to recommend.

I used Vista and and Windows 7 last night, both new installs and ran some games off a separate disc. I get more fps on Windows 7, and it generally seems a whole lot faster, and polished compared to compared to Vista.

You can also download Windows 7 free at the moment: http://technet.microsoft.com/e ... 353205.aspx?ITPID=mscomsc

There's one thing I will definitely recommend on the HDDs and thats buying 2 Western Digital 640GB Caviar Black HDDs and putting them in RAID 0. This (if you don't already know) 'stripes' the discs, so it uses them in sync doubling read/write/bandwidth etc without the loss of space. The drives themselves are cheap, very quiet and very fast to start with. And I think 1.28TB of space will be easily enough

You could get 4x2GB DDR3-1333MHz sticks. 8GB will be sure enough.

Quote from Jakg :

Windows 7 (like Vista) will use 30-50% of the memory you give it - I'm running 6GB in Vista, and it's using 24% as I type this - yet when I had 2GB it used 50% - aka 1GB.

that is absolutely disgusting. i can't believe people blindly put up with that... windows 2000 can be made to use 100mb to just boot to the desktop. that's it, 100mb.

when i tried the vista beta, it took over 600mb to boot to the desktop.

and here's the kicker... to boot my linux machine to the desktop takes less than 50mb.

So? Stuff loads faster as it's already in memory.

Why buy lots of RAM and them complain something uses it...

Quote from Jakg :

Why buy lots of RAM and them complain something uses it...

you got the wrong idea... it shouldn't have to use that much memory to begin with... that memory should be for your apps, not your operating system.

Disable the SuperFetch service and it will drop.


Open a RAM hungry app and watch as the memory is released...

Quote from Jakg :

Disable the SuperFetch service and it will drop.


Open a RAM hungry app and watch as the memory is released...

answer me this then... how low can you go without compromising system functions?

Actually, there's a guy in Norway who got Windows 7 to boot with 350mb of RAM.

Quote from Tore Lervik :

At PDC a netbook (Asus eee?) with 1GB of RAM was showcased running Windows 7 just fine.

1GB of RAM isn't much these days, but still I kept wondering how much RAM does Windows 7 really need? A quick comment pointed out that in the night i forgot to take the page file into account!

As I wanted to find the "static" memory usage of Windows 7, the page file had to go.

The new tests showed that with 512MB of RAM the system used about 369MB of it.
With 400MB of RAM the system used 329MB.
And with 300MB of RAM the system got a critical error after booting.

So what is the real "static" memory footprint of Windows 7?
It seems to need about 350MB of RAM to be able to boot successfully.
[*]

This seems pretty good to me. Obviously, once booted, it wouldn't be able to do much with such a small amount of memory left to deal with (probably none), but it shows that it doesn't need as much as Vista to actually work.

boosterfire, mine gentoo with gnome, compiz, conky and much more apps takes ~200mb after boot.

Quote from Shadowww :

boosterfire, mine gentoo with gnome, compiz, conky and much more apps takes ~200mb after boot.

and even that's a lot... but i blame compiz.

(don't ask me why, lol)

Quote from bunder9999 :

and even that's a lot... but i blame compiz.

(don't ask me why, lol)

well, much more apps = cairo-dock, xchat (cause pidgin fails at IRC) and pidgin