n00b wanting a pro PC

[Moohasha]

I love coming to you guys for computer advice, because most of you are both gamers and programmers, and I get fast responses.

Any of you who have seen my Alienware vs. Dell thread know that I'm going to build my own PC here pretty soon. As such, I'm still researching and looking for some good advice and options, and to be honest I'm still pretty ignorant/n00bish when it comes to tweaking out computers. The last time I did anything like it, Intel was about to release the Pentium 4. So I've got some general advice that I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me with.

(I want to keep my new PC under $2,000, but still have something that will run well in a couple of years, so keep that in mind when responding.)

1) Duo core vs. Quad core: Right now I'm looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz which runs $189 on newegg, but the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz is $279. I know that a slower quad core is supposed to out perform a faster duo core in most cases, but what's the turning point, and is that always the case, or is it sorta app specific? And is the trade off worth the extra $90?

2) With a "good" PC (as opposed to bleeding edge), would I see any major benefit to water cooling? As stated above, I'm considering either the E8500 or Q9550 CPU, and probably a GeForce GTX 280 video card. I don't imagine I'll over heat, but again I'm wondering about trade off. Would the benefits of water cooling a system that's not top of the line (OC'ed or not) be worth the expense of doing it?

3) Speaking of OC'ing, does anyone have any good advice on how to do it?! I've always been hesitant about it because I didn't want to screw something up, either in the process or down the road from pushing the hardware beyond its limits, and I've always worried about heat. But I'm still curious about it, I just don't know how.

4) AMD/ATI are usually cheaper, but Intel/NVIDIA, from what I've heard, tend to be more stable and have less issues. Is that the case, or have I just been hearing rumors. I know this can turn into a debate like DirectX vs. OpenGl, or Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux, so let's stick to facts and statistics. I want something stable for playing high-end games, and if I have to pay a little extra for less hastle then that's okay with me.

So as you can see, I'm a still a n00b when it comes to this stuff, but I'd like to learn more. So feedback is much appreciated, and thanks in advanced!

[johnhpus]

I quoted a wildly inaccurate figure in the last conversation, so take a grain of salt with my advice in this area...

1) It's a matter of how many things you need to do at once, or how many things a particular application needs to do. Two quad core processors would dominate a 3DS render, because 3DS could use all of those cores. But it's probably not going to make a difference in Notepad.

2) I don't think people use water cooling on non overclocked systems. Ideally a manufacturer's normal cooling solution would work for standard parts.

3) I don't know what kind of benefits you could expect from overclocking, but personally, I would much rather have a perfectly stable development machine than to have to wonder whether my code was screwing something up or if my fancy, super-modded PC parts are on the fritz. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought overclocking was for uber gamers (consumers) and people who are trying to squeeze more life out of old parts.

[Moohasha]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought overclocking was for uber gamers (consumers) and people who are trying to squeeze more life out of old parts.

That'd be me. I'm not trying to run Crysis at 1000 FPS or anything, but I want to run WoW with all the graphics all the way up and not lag. Not sure if I'll accomplish that with my new system, but I run pretty smoothly on my Dell Latitude laptop atm, so I'm confident.

[joew]

That'd be me. I'm not trying to run Crysis at 1000 FPS or anything, but I want to run WoW with all the graphics all the way up and not lag. Not sure if I'll accomplish that with my new system, but I run pretty smoothly on my Dell Latitude laptop atm, so I'm confident.

You don't need any overclocking or even an extreme system for that. My older PC with an E6600 dualcore, 8800GTS, 4GB DDR could play WoW with all the graphics on the highest setting and at 2560x1600 resolution. With the 9550 quad and any 8800 or higher card you can play max resolution, max settings with zero video lag. And that was a system I built a few years ago...

[xavier]

1) Duo core vs. Quad core: Right now I'm looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz which runs $189 on newegg, but the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz is $279. I know that a slower quad core is supposed to out perform a faster duo core in most cases, but what's the turning point, and is that always the case, or is it sorta app specific? And is the trade off worth the extra $90?

My recommendation is compromise and go with a Q6600 -- yes, I know it's "last year" but how "last year" is a quad core? I get plenty fine performance from mine (it runs F.E.A.R. like a champ on highest settings).

2) With a "good" PC (as opposed to bleeding edge), would I see any major benefit to water cooling? As stated above, I'm considering either the E8500 or Q9550 CPU, and probably a GeForce GTX 280 video card. I don't imagine I'll over heat, but again I'm wondering about trade off. Would the benefits of water cooling a system that's not top of the line (OC'ed or not) be worth the expense of doing it?

IME, no.

3) Speaking of OC'ing, does anyone have any good advice on how to do it?!

Don't. You said you want your machine to last a while...

4) AMD/ATI are usually cheaper, but Intel/NVIDIA, from what I've heard, tend to be more stable and have less issues. Is that the case, or have I just been hearing rumors. I know this can turn into a debate like DirectX vs. OpenGl, or Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux, so let's stick to facts and statistics. I want something stable for playing high-end games, and if I have to pay a little extra for less hastle then that's okay with me.

I've always been fine with Intel, but my only real experience with AMD is my side machine, a Phenom x3 (it sounds like much more than it is, trust me -- the on-board 8200 graphics aren't doing anyone any favors with its 16 measly stream processors...) The AMD hasn't given me any problems -- bear in mind, they *invented* x86-64 (at the time Intel nearly buried themselves with their Itanium push), so it's not like they are just Intel knock-offs.

[weshowe]

All I can add is that Maya 2009 1A utilizes all 4 cores on my Quad core when rendering. Not that I render a lot of stuff, but it was blazingly fast. However, things like disk access still choke performance... I get jerky results when I am browsing or starting new programs and Vista shadow backup is running.

Given your emphasis on staying ahead of the curve longer, and your track record on retention (I traded systems from a Pentium 4 less than a year ago myself) I would spend the extra $90 now, and scrimp on something that is easier to upgrade later, like reusing an older case or fewer hard drives. But then, it is your $90, so it is easy for me to spend it.

<* Wes *>

[Kojack]

Quad core is fun for compiling, especially if you stick all your source code in a ram drive.
Although I'm disappointed to discover just now that the awesome MPCL plugin for visual studio (does multicore compiling with cpp file granularity instead of project granularity) is no longer free, the author now wants 39.44 euros for the latest version.

Overclocking is something I'd say shouldn't be done unless you consider the price of the overclocked component to be insignificant. If the cpu is $189, then do you consider that a disposable item that you don't mind replacing if it dies?
My Core i7 cost me $969au, that's a pretty significant chunk of cash so I wouldn't risk overclocking. Last time I overclocked anything was my Celeron 300A system (overclocked from 300MHz to 465MHz, no change to voltage, default intel cooling system, ran stable for years), but I got it specifically for that purpose (and I considered the price to be low enough that it was an acceptable risk for a 1.5x performance gain).

[xavier]

Quad core is fun for compiling, especially if you stick all your source code in a ram drive.
Although I'm disappointed to discover just now that the awesome MPCL plugin for visual studio (does multicore compiling with cpp file granularity instead of project granularity) is no longer free, the author now wants 39.44 euros for the latest version.

Huh? MSBuild has done this for several versions now -- it's only in VC9 that MS officially began supporting it (but VC8 out of the box will compile as many files concurrently as you tell it to, or at least as there are processors available). See the /MP switch (but use with caution! it will happily run 4 projects at a time, each compiling 4 files at a time altho this may have been fixed in VC9).

But I digress -- quad core almost makes me not really care about IncrediBuild any more.

[Kojack]

Huh? MSBuild has done this for several versions now

2005 had the mp flag as an undocumented feature. It was unstable, can cause invalid executables when used with edit and continue builds and also caused ocassional lockups. Not exactly what I'd consider useful.
2008 has the mp flag and it actually works, but there's still no user interface to it, you have to manually add the flag to projects.
MPCL allowed correct file granularity parallel builds in 2005 without the flaws of the microsoft hidden experimental version, with a simple interface for turning it on and off, setting the number of threads, etc.

As a free and simple plugin it was even worth while in 2008 to avoid manually editing command line options to the compiler in project settings instead of using a global interface from the tool menu.
But for 39.44 euros... I'd rather type a little more instead. If I was still on VS2005 it might be worth it, but not for 2008.

[jjp]

It is not a good idea to buy high end hardware so you "have" to upgrade your PC less frequently. Buy high end hardware if you want or need high end performance now. Otherwise it is a waste of money. There is no difference in reliability between AMD/ATI, Intel and NVidia.

An NVidia GPU is the best choice if:

- You are an image quality fetishist (currently their texture filtering is superior), although chances are you won't see any difference if you are not very sensitive.
- You want to write GPGPU applications now - CUDA is available while OpenCL and Compute Shaders are not.
- Your primary OS is Linux. This is debatable, ATI Linux drivers might be on par these days. I have no experience with them.

Otherwise it depends. Both NVidia and AMD/ATI offer many attractive gfx cards right now. In any case I would not choose a dual GPU card. You could get a GTX275, GTX260, HD4890 or HD4870. Other than Crysis or ultra high resolutions there really is no need for more.

For the CPU I'd go with a Core 2 quad core or a Phenom II x3/x4. AFAIK Phenom II offers better performance/price right now.

[xavier]

It is not a good idea to buy high end hardware so you "have" to upgrade your PC less frequently.

Well, yeah, no one *has* to upgrade anything (I am one of those 3-or-4-year-cycle self-builders -- went from P3 733 in 2000 to P4 3.0 in 2003 to Q6600 in 2007). Doing games development tends to make me want to upgrade once each major "generation" stabilizes, so I'll probably build a Larrabee system once that platform matures. I think what moohasha wants he's well described, and I didn't read "so I don't have to upgrade soon" into any of it (I could have missed it tho).

@moohasha -- I don't recall what amount of RAM you wanted, but IME you will find smoother performance all around from more RAM than from a few more MHz CPU speed. I recall you mentioning 2GB in the original thread? If that is the case I would recommend doubling that, perhaps offsetting that with a less-cost AMD CPU or lesser Intel.

[syedhs]

High end hardware may cost more but the value it offers can be subjective. If it is the C++ programmer's pc, it definitely justify it purchase say.. a high end quad core pc. It is a joy to change a few Cmake options and then recompile the whole Cthutga in VC++2008. It is lightning fast!

[_tommo_]

IMHO buying a new computer, especially if you don't play with it, is pretty much pointless...

I have a nearly-3-year old E6600 with 2gb ram and a crappy 8600GT, and i really see no point in upgrading it even further, even considering i'm on Vista...
given that for the first time Seven is faster than its predecessor, i think that updating a PC like this now is pure nerd auto-erotism.
So, obviously i'm always considering to upgrade

The only thing that i really advice to anyone, (and i blame you for not even considering it in this thread) is a _REALLY_FAST_HARD_DISK_ or better more than one in RAID1, double read speed plus complete security.
It is the main bottleneck of any developing application, and it can speed up your pc more than any octo-core that waits 3 seconds to have data from HD.

Then, but much after, a quad core processor could speedup something.

The GPU for testing really needs only to have the features and not the power, so anything medium price in the last generation can go.

[Moohasha]

Whoa! I go to a few meetings and my thread gets flooded!

@xavier - No, in my original build I had planned to get 4GB but have since decided to spend the whopping $45 to double that to 8GB.

@_tommo_ - First of all, the machine I'm replacing is a 5 year old Dell Inspiron 9300 laptop, which wasn't really that good when it was new and doesn't even run without being plugged in anymore. I think it's time to upgrade. Second, I didn't say anything about hard drives here (even though I plan on getting two and using RAID 0) or anything else I plan on getting because I don't have any questions about that stuff. I'm only asking about things I'm still not sure about, so nyah.

Even though I'm posting on the Ogre forums, where pretty much everyone is a programmer, the #1 purpose of my new PC is going to be gaming. I will definately be developing on it, but that's a secondary concern to me. So when deciding what type of CPU or video card to get, I'm more concerned with game performance.

So I think you guys have convinced me to NOT WC or OC since they're neither necessary or really safe (especially in my hands!). After this PC I plan on moving to a roughly-3-year upgrade cycle (where my wife gets my "old" computer and I get a new one! ), which is why I say I don't need something that will still kick butt years from now. I just want it to get me through the next 3 years and still be usable when my wife gets it, since it will still be used for about 3 years after that.

[nikki]

I'm on my new computer now, fine parts:

Core 2 Quad (Q9550)
GTX 285
4GB DDR2
Dual monitor

[joew]

If you are getting a quadcore I would definitely get the Q9550 over the Q6600 hands down, the price difference between those two is less than 20 bucks in most cases and the Q9550 is faster and has the 12MB cache.

[jjp]

Well, yeah, no one *has* to upgrade anything (I am one of those 3-or-4-year-cycle self-builders -- went from P3 733 in 2000 to P4 3.0 in 2003 to Q6600 in 2007). Doing games development tends to make me want to upgrade once each major "generation" stabilizes, so I'll probably build a Larrabee system once that platform matures. I think what moohasha wants he's well described, and I didn't read "so I don't have to upgrade soon" into any of it (I could have missed it tho).

(I want to keep my new PC under $2,000, but still have something that will run well in a couple of years, so keep that in mind when responding.)

What else does this mean than "so I don't have to upgrade anytime soon" The point with high end hardware is that you pay a lot for that 5% or 10% extra performance. In any case the situation is changing on all fronts right now. CPUs probably aren't gonna get much faster within the next few years, so they age a lot slower than they did in the past. While the same is not true for GPUs the software vendors are not keeping up with hardware development any more. I.e. the times when a high end GPU was required for maximum image quality are over as well (Crysis being the exception).

If you are getting a quadcore I would definitely get the Q9550 over the Q6600 hands down, the price difference between those two is less than 20 bucks in most cases and the Q9550 is faster and has the 12MB cache.

I aggree, especially as Intel CPUs with a reduced cache size also have a reduced cache associativity.

[xavier]

If you are getting a quadcore I would definitely get the Q9550 over the Q6600 hands down, the price difference between those two is less than 20 bucks in most cases and the Q9550 is faster and has the 12MB cache.

I aggree, especially as Intel CPUs with a reduced cache size also have a reduced cache associativity.

You guys would make great U.S. Senators -- you're all awfully loose and fast with others' money.

If the $2,000 mark is hard, then some compromises need to be made. There is going to be nothing wrong with a Q6600 in two years time, if that $20 will buy something else Moohasha finds more valuable for his needs.

Regarding my interpretation of "having to upgrade", I still don't see that in the quotes you provided, jjp, given that all he wants to do is play WoW on Linux with it...

As for cache coherence, if you can tell the difference in performance between a 4MB L2 cache and a 12MB L2 cache, given that it's running a general-purpose operating system that is often running multiple processes simultaneously (thereby blowing out the cache all the time anyway), then you are a better man than I.

[twilight17]

I'm on my new computer now, fine parts: ...

Nikki that's a very nice setup! I was just wondering where you got that desk though

[jjp]

If the $2,000 mark is hard, then some compromises need to be made.

I am pretty sure we're still save away from the 2000$ mark (in fact there is no reason to even spend this much money) Practically the increased cache size/associativity can make a difference anywhere between 0% and 10% for Intel Core 2 cpus, depending on the application or game. In any case, from a performance/price perspective a Phenom II X4 right now is more attractive than any quad core from Intel.

[xavier]

If the $2,000 mark is hard, then some compromises need to be made.

I am pretty sure we're still save away from the 2000$ mark (in fact there is no reason to even spend this much money) Practically the increased cache size/associativity can make a difference anywhere between 0% and 10% for Intel Core 2 cpus, depending on the application or game. In any case, from a performance/price perspective a Phenom II X4 right now is more attractive than any quad core from Intel.

Fair enough. In reviewing the other thread, the budget has since increased from $1000-$1500 to $2000 now, and Moohasha did express flexibility, so in that case, I would agree with going with more of everything if possible.

All that said, I've no experience with the Core i7 stuff -- where does it fall in Intel's lineup? And vs. the Phenom II? And if it's more than a Phenom II or Core 2 (and more than just a tiny incremental step), then why are we talking about Core 2 and Phenom II?

[edit: ah nm, I see: http://gizmodo.com/5099060/giz-explains ... ul-monster -- so that's what Nehalem is...and yeah, it's basically Intel finally catching up with some of AMD's design innovations]

[nikki]

I'm on my new computer now, fine parts: ...

Nikki that's a very nice setup! I was just wondering where you got that desk though

My mom has some office furniture contacts through the company she works at. She fixed the table at a nice price.

[joew]

Actually you can notice the difference between the cache makes in a Q6600 and Q9550, especially in Maya. It was actually the only reason we swapped out the Q6600 to upgrade to the Q9550, since there were a lot of benchmarks and real-world tests showing that the cache actually makes a nice difference. Also I don't think the $20 is going to make or break anything, and it is a much better CPU for the tiny extra cost.

Core i7 I would call a waste right now unless you need the bleeding edge, the performance increase over the Core 2 Quad series isn't actually that big of a deal at all, especially considering the leap between P4 and Core architecture. The core i7 CPUs are roughly the same price, but the boards are super expensive and you have to buy the triple channel DDR3 RAM, so you end up paying a lot more for a small improvement.

[nikki]

I was thinking of Core i7 too, but the motherboards were hard to get hold of, and very costly too. Also, I don't think they really have that much to offer over Quad Cores for current (and near future) applications.

[joew]

I was thinking of Core i7 too, but the motherboards were hard to get hold of, and very costly too. Also, I don't think they really have that much to offer over Quad Cores for current (and near future) applications.

They don't. Sure they are a step forward but I was quite disappointed with the real world performance difference with the i7. It was definitely nothing like the P4 -> core architecture change.