Alienware vs Falcon Northwest

Status
Not open for further replies.
wow lots of.....how can i say it...."i'm new to building but i'm giving advice to newbies anyways" on this post


Proc: q6600 + watercooling, you won't go below 3.3 with your overclock, it is a very overclockable chip especially when watercooled
i'm not a big WC expert so i'll give that task to somebody else
ino dangerden and swifttech are the best

Video:
first of all which resolution would you like to play at?
i'd say get this
Newegg.com - EVGA 512-P3-N841-A3 GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail
if your at 1920 x 1200 or higher get 2 of them if its in your budget
but one is high performing as well.

RAM
2gb of ram is plenty for gaming on windows xp and linux
but if you go vista you will get a noticable increase in speed with 4gb
just make sure you have 64-bit
Newegg.com - Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail
^^
these are the most overclockable and best RAM around
get 2 sets of them if you want 4gb
Newegg.com - Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail
^^
same thing but with lights

Case
with watercooling and big gfx card your going to want a full tower
here are the popular ones

Newegg.com - COOLER MASTER Stacker RC-832-KKN1-GP Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail
Newegg.com - Thermaltake Armor Series VA8003BWS Black Full Tower Case w/ 25CM Fan - Retail
Newegg.com - XCLIO Windtunnel Fully Black Finish 1.0 mm SECC Chassis ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail (you have to add a couple fans to this one ino

HDD
your going to want a RAID setup

g2g i'll finish later
 
clock speeds matter very little nowadays, I mean a Core 2 Duo e6600 (2.4ghz) beats a AMD Athlon 6000+ (3.0ghz), so

lol does not. I mean the only thing that might make it better is a larger cache size, but the atlon 6000+ has more actual processing power. thats 3 ghz per core buddy, thats 6 ghz processing power. im not dissin the core 2, thats a good processor, but a 2.4 ghz core 2 duo is not better then the 6000+. the core 2 quad at 2.4 ghz certainly beats it, but not the duo. . .
 
clock speeds matter very little nowadays, I mean a Core 2 Duo e6600 (2.4ghz) beats a AMD Athlon 6000+ (3.0ghz), so
lol does not. I mean the only thing that might make it better is a larger cache size, but the atlon 6000+ has more actual processing power. thats 3 ghz per core buddy, thats 6 ghz processing power. im not dissin the core 2, thats a good processor, but a 2.4 ghz core 2 duo is not better then the 6000+. the core 2 quad at 2.4 ghz certainly beats it, but not the duo. . .

You don't add the cores like that...
 
clock speeds matter very little nowadays, I mean a Core 2 Duo e6600 (2.4ghz) beats a AMD Athlon 6000+ (3.0ghz), so

lol does not. I mean the only thing that might make it better is a larger cache size, but the atlon 6000+ has more actual processing power. thats 3 ghz per core buddy, thats 6 ghz processing power. im not dissin the core 2, thats a good processor, but a 2.4 ghz core 2 duo is not better then the 6000+. the core 2 quad at 2.4 ghz certainly beats it, but not the duo. . .

do you even kno what you are talking about? the 6000+ has trouble keeping up with a e6400 let alone a e6600, you do not add up the cpu speed, ghz does not matter as much as your thinking it does, the 2.4ghz e6600 will complete more tasks per clock then the 6000+ will, and even if the e6600 will oc past 3ghz anyway and be even faster, your a noob to our forums its ok, but dont go shooting at the top dogs in our forum when you clearly kno nothing about cpu's.

proof CPU Charts | Tom's Hardware

now oc the e6600 to 3ghz then rebenchmar, then oc the 36600 to the max wich is probably 3.6, and then the 600+ to the max which is like 3.4 and bench, either way the e6600 will beat the 6000+.
 
Was about to mention that guy with the 40Ghz Pc, who likes to add all the cores.

EDIT: did you know the ps3 has a 24Ghz processor? 8SPu's@3Ghz each lol :p

Clock speeds are not all that matter, if you back to the P4/Athalon days u will know what we mean. Intels P4's would need to be running much higher clocks because it takes longer to complete the tasks that the AMD's did back then. but when the core2duos came out Intel lowered the timing(forgot what its called) to about 14 to match AMD, not to mention it is more efficient since it is a completely new architecture.
 
Was about to mention that guy with the 40Ghz Pc, who likes to add all the cores.

EDIT: did you know the ps3 has a 24Ghz processor? 8SPu's@3Ghz each lol :p

Clock speeds are not all that matter, if you back to the P4/Athalon days u will know what we mean. Intels P4's would need to be running much higher clocks because it takes longer to complete the tasks that the AMD's did back then. but when the core2duos came out Intel lowered the timing(forgot what its called) to about 14 to match AMD, not to mention it is more efficient since it is a completely new architecture.
Called pipelines.

Sort of like latency on cpu's.
 
I would say considering you want a 3GHz CPU, get a quad core Q6600 (each core is 2.4GHz which adds up to 9.6GHz and overclock it (very easy) to 3GHz on each core, which is 12GHz, it will go up to that on air.

Mikey.


lol (yes, I know you tried to act like you knew what you were talking to in a later post, but it didn't work). Its amazing the things you can learn when you've built 10 PC's isn't it ? :rolleyes:


clock speeds matter very little nowadays, I mean a Core 2 Duo e6600 (2.4ghz) beats a AMD Athlon 6000+ (3.0ghz), so

lol does not. I mean the only thing that might make it better is a larger cache size, but the atlon 6000+ has more actual processing power. thats 3 ghz per core buddy, thats 6 ghz processing power. im not dissin the core 2, thats a good processor, but a 2.4 ghz core 2 duo is not better then the 6000+. the core 2 quad at 2.4 ghz certainly beats it, but not the duo. . .


hehe, yeah it's not added like that. If it were everything would be much simpler. But we have to be bombarded with tests and benchmarks and blah blah... I suppose it gives us more reasons to play with our toys tho :D
 
clock speeds matter very little nowadays, I mean a Core 2 Duo e6600 (2.4ghz) beats a AMD Athlon 6000+ (3.0ghz), so

lol does not. I mean the only thing that might make it better is a larger cache size, but the atlon 6000+ has more actual processing power. thats 3 ghz per core buddy, thats 6 ghz processing power. im not dissin the core 2, thats a good processor, but a 2.4 ghz core 2 duo is not better then the 6000+. the core 2 quad at 2.4 ghz certainly beats it, but not the duo. . .

the way you quoted makes me look stupid...

when your the one making me look ignorant...

ok First of all.. I know what I'm talking about ok buddy? if you don't believe me go check a benchmark or two... also.. adding up clock speeds is idiotic because that would mean what the guy said about the 40ghz PC would be true.. and we regulars know not to do that...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom