Case for new build

Status
Not open for further replies.
GuitarFreak1857 said:
i'm gonna go with venice they're more OCable and better for Gaming.
Good choice. I was looking mainly at the San Diego 4000's L2 cache. 1024 vs 512, but the clock speed is the same. It's not like those two elements even the two out, but maybe the extra cash does.
 
GuitarFreak1857 said:
yeah i might go with the San Diego, check my other thread called "Which Gaming Processor"
San Diego 3700? Well worth the money. Two questions though, if you don't mind me asking.
1. You said you were unsure of a hard drive, have you decided or may I be of assisstance?
2. Why XFX for the video card?
 
GuitarFreak1857 said:
1) sure you can be of assistance
2) its the highest clocked model of the video card, its at 490Mhz

1. Two of these babies RAIDed. You've probably seen them already but they really are great.
2. Oh, I see; you chose the overclocked one.
 
Well, when comparing the FX-57 to the X2 4800, you must realize that both these AMD processors are top of the charts in everything. Which ever you decide to go with, is a damn good choice. Actually the X2 4800 has lowered in price to about $880 - $1000 and is now more available. Where the FX-57 is still in the $1100 - $1200 range.

Also, someone mentioned that dual-cores aren't currently supported in games? Well, games aren't designed to utilize dual core CPU's. But, the X2 4800 will provide you with one hell of a gaming experience with any current game. As long as you have a decent GFX card. And I remember reading some where that UNREAL 2007 will support dual core CPU's. So may-be that will be the first game that does. Dual Core support will happen faster then most people think.
 
daRcer said:
1. Two of these babies RAIDed. You've probably seen them already but they really are great.
2. Oh, I see; you chose the overclocked one.

I wouldn't recommend to anyone to RAID 74g WD raptors. I know because i've had them RAID 0 before. The only advantage you get out of that is double the space in 1 drive letter @ 10,000rpm. Also, at double the cost. The performance that you get from a (2) WD raptor in RAID 0 vs. (1) WD raptor isn't noticable "AT ALL". I know this for a fact because I used to have this RAID array and now i only have 1. You can't tell the difference. Only in drive size.

But you could spend that same $180.00 and instead of getting another raptor to RAID, you could get a 300GIG seagate barracuda with NCQ @7200rpm. And you'd get huge storage and great performance out of it.

(1) WD RAPTOR is more then enough @ 74gig. I would recommend only to install (Windows&drivers, Only demanding High-End Games, critical system appz and other major appz) on the WD raptor.

Keep the drive clear and clean and it will perform like a mother for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom