Spring RTS Engine

How long am I looking at waiting for a 9600? Are they planning on going above *6**?

From what I hear sounds like DDR3 is a good idea. Remember here guys, I'm not a "duurrrr" level home consumer here. Immediate performance is nice but I really need upgradeability on this box to last as long as possible. Plus I want to have some fun playing with new tech if it's still cost effective. Now if I'm looking at paying like $200 for a gig of DDR3 ram, that removes it as a possibility, but otherwise the sweet sweet aroma of a bright future is really enticing .

http://bp0.blogger.com/_RQy6cQPHSjc/R4Z ... mark06.png

Research rules the day. DDR3 is likely to be 2-4 times more expensive than DDR2 for the system, and all the preliminary benchmarks show no performance advantage at all, which will likely remain the reality until timings drop. While DDR3 has huge potential it's not feasible for this build, I can't wait a year and a half for it to meet the equal value point.

I'll consider getting a multiple compatible mobo if I can find one that doesn't break the bank. The RAM chips themselfs aren't redeemable right now though.

Suit yourself. 9600GT comes out on the 14th supposedly. I'd wait, then make an informed decision between it and the 8800GT. If it's cheap enough, 9600GT SLI might be a nice choice.

I need 2 more paychecks before I can completely buy parts, so I have lots of time to wait for stats. I really haven't made a decision on the video card yet, it's acctually the thing I'm most on the fence about right now.

The only thing I know for sure at this point in time is that I won't be purchasing a DDR3 DIMM. Someone pointed out this case on newegg, and I'm quite fond of it. I can't order from newegg due to being locationally impared, so ncix was the best I could find otherwise. Still, the case rubs me the right way... I probably won't purchase it until I've decided on a mobo, but if nothing else immediately shows up that is nicer I feel good about that one.

Still undecided on pretty much everything else ever. I have read a few good reviews about the Q6600 though. Does anyone know if the next projected intel processor line will be still using the LGA775 socket? What kind of mobo compatibilities am I likely to see in the new AMD lines as well? The processor I consider a trivial part to upgrade, I'd rather not have to buy a new mobo for a long while though.

Good choice with the Nine Hundred, my friend has it and loves it.

Intel next generation platform, codename Nehalem, will finally have the integrated memory controller and something called CSI which is analogous to AMD's Hypertransport. Those processors will uses a new Socket H. If you plan to upgrade, the furthest you can go will the the new Penryn Core 2s.

Also, are you sure 9600 will support Dx 10.1? Everything i've seen suggests that infact, it won't:

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=17443&catid=2

FLOZi wrote:Also, are you sure 9600 will support Dx 10.1? Everything i've seen suggests that infact, it won't:

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=17443&catid=2

Is there a reason I should care? I'm still on the fence about getting vista...

Then get a 8800.

FLOZi wrote:Then get a 8800.

Why 8800? No Vista and best spring compatibility... Get a 7 series. Save tens of thousands of dollars.

Spring isn't the only game I play though... So I want a card that will make my PC more than just a spring machine.

[edit] Also, I said I'm on the fence about vista... Currently I don't see too many advantages in terms of games for vista, and vista ultimate is $500 which is alot to spend for something that doesn't really help at all.

CarRepairer wrote:

FLOZi wrote:Then get a 8800.

Why 8800? No Vista and best spring compatibility... Get a 7 series. Save tens of thousands of dollars.

Since when has an 8800 cost 'tens of thousands' of dollars?

my brand spanking new GTS 512 cost under $400

Phenom 9700 or Core 2 Quad 6600, 8800 GT (NEW MODEL WITH LARGER FAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is currently the best card, 3870 is currently the best-value high-end card. All you need to know.

Get off the Vista fence. Pirate it, hate it, go back to XP. That's... what I heard someone did.

I would wait for the 9600 - then buy the 8800. 9600 is the craziest idea I've ever heard - nothing can even TOUCH the 8800 series and nothing will for at least another year. Then you'll need to reduce detail from Ultra High to merely High in everything. With my lowly 8800 GTS 320, I get 30+ FPS at all times in Crysis with all details on the highest setting with no AA @ 1280x1024. I'm overclocked, but you'd be an idiot not to be. With a GT, which has more RAM and can therefore handle the anti-aliasing more easily, you'd be just fine.

Check video card review charts but don't do the sucker move and look at the highest resolution results. You aren't going to run at that resolution, ever. You're almost certainly going to use an LCD, which means 1280x1024 or 1680x1050, either of which is worlds easier to render than 2048x1536 or 1920x1600.

Helpful charts:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_ ... &chart=277
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_ ... &chart=282
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_ ... &chart=301
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_ ... &chart=310
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_ ... &chart=318

Notice that both cards produce beyond "playable and enjoyable" results, then keep in mind your actual results could be as much as 15-30% better if you do perfectly safe overclocking.

On to CPUs:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007. ... &chart=419

Check out some of the other charts on that page using other benchmarks, now remember the price difference.

Finally, don't buy anything in a store unless you're a millionaire or an idiot.

Core 2 Quad is... shockingly cheap. I am seriously shocked. I had previously thought AMD's Phenom had a pretty good price advantage, but it looks like Intel has undercut them again:
http://www.directcanada.com/products/?s ... ture=INTEL
That is an absolutely fantastic price... My jaw has dropped.

Don't go cheap on the CPU cooler (I recommend Zalman 9500, good price-performance ratio). Use ONLY Arctic Silver as your thermal grease, they're the best. Don't use too much of it, it spreads very fast. You only want to fill the microscopic cracks. When your CPU's in and everything's running, download CPU Burn-in and have it run for as long as you reasonably can, preferably as long as 3 days. Run one instance of it for each CPU core and assign the processes manually to each core to ensure a proper workout. This maximum heat cycle will help settle the grease and give you results that would normally take a month, in a few days. Then you can safely get on to overclocking and know your results won't change any time soon.

Buy PC2-6400 RAM. It is cheap and it's all you could want. Do not buy "Gaming RAM" or "Vista Certified RAM" or "SLI-Approved RAM" unless you're a trendy whore with an iPod.

I'm I likely to see a worthwhile performance jump overclocking with a zalman cooler vs overclocking to as high as I can go with stock cooling? I realise it will be safer to push higher with a zalman, but if I'm spending $100 for a cooler that will only push the clockrate of the chip up .2-.3 more than I'd get with stock than I might as well spend the money elsewhere, like on faster RAM.

BTW, quantify your ram statements. Pushing up RAM clock rate and pushing down timing figures is an incredibly effective performance enhancer on a PC... Arguably as good as a straight up processor overclock. Where have you heard otherwise?

Well, I'm running perfectly stable at 3.2GHz, 50% higher than stock on stock cooling, and I hit about 80C under load.
The advantage of a nice cooler would not be enabling even higher clock speeds (though I do intend to try 3.6 with a ram overvolt to run it at .9), it would be to lower running temperatures and thus elongate the lifetime of the cpu.

Peet wrote:Well, I'm running perfectly stable at 3.2GHz, 50% higher than stock on stock cooling, and I hit about 80C under load.
The advantage of a nice cooler would not be enabling even higher clock speeds (though I do intend to try 3.6 with a ram overvolt to run it at .9), it would be to lower running temperatures and thus elongate the lifetime of the cpu.

Is there any figures available to support this? Even estimations?

5 seconds of googling

It's pretty much common knowledge that lower cycling of CPU temperature = longer life.

Peet wrote:5 seconds of googling

It's pretty much common knowledge that lower cycling of CPU temperature = longer life.

Ok... that all makes sense, I'm not saying it didn't... I was more asking for something relevant to work with though... IE, with the average core2quad, if the lifespan is approximately 10 years, for example, and I over clock it to the point where it is running 15 degrees hotter on average, than how much does that degrade the life expectancy? I need my mobo and HDDs to last 6 years, but a CPU is a trival replacement component. Expensive sure, but chances are if it fails 4 years down the line something nicer will be available to put in the slot for less money anyways. My current CPU with minor over clock has lasted 6 years already with constant uptime (which I'm fairly sure acctually significantly increases PC component lifespan) so I'm not really sure how much I need to worry about the issue... How much am I looking at for after market cooling? And once again, honestly, is it worth it? Or just cool looking?

Ehh... I could find reviews and comparisons but I'm busy tonight.

In my honest non-hyperbole opinion, buying a powerful computer and CPU without investing $80 or so in a proper all-copper high performance cooler is just being cheap. It's like buying a $50 power supply.

Zalman is one of the top 3 cooling manufacturers, and it's basically all they do. They're most famous for high performance, low-noise systems. Do be sure to read reviews and comparisons and such... There ARE better coolers than the 9500 but I like how mine runs almost silent.

My CPU is a Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 ghz. I have it running at 3.15 ghz, stable, an improvement of over 31%, for free. The only reason I can't go even higher is because my RAM is crap and my motherboard can't overvolt it beyond 2.1 volts. (recommended minimum for this particular ram is 2.2 volts when running AT STOCK) If I tried to run that speed with a stock cooler, I'd have an idle temperature of at least 60 degrees c. Instead I get 48.

I'm just speaking from personal experience... but I've seen personally tonnes of power supply failures, 4 in my families PCs in the last 6 years, many friends, and power supplies are the #1 hard ware problem we repair at my workplace. I've never acctually seen a CPU failure before.

Granted I don't hang out with too many overclockers, but the whole concept is just something alien to me...

Does anyone know of some good aftermarket cooler reviews? If cooling is so necessary is it really economical to stay with air cooling?