Going to upgrade, thoughts anyone?

[tickleonthetum]

I upgrade my motherboard roughly every 4 years so would like a little advice. I currently have the following parts that I want to upgrade:

Pentium 4 3.06GHz HT, S478 533FSB 512k cache
Epox 4PGAI motherboard, S478 533FSB AGP DDR333
1Gb (2x512mb) memory PCWorld, DDR333, DIMM
nVidia 6800 GT 256Mb Graphics card, AGP 325/1000.
Jeantech 500W PSU.

What I've picked out is:


Core2Duo E6850 3.0GHz, LGA775 1333FSB 4Mb cache
Asus Maximus Extreme motherboard, LGA775 1333FSB PIC-e 2.0 DDR3-1333
2gb (2x1Gb) memory Corsair, DDR3-1333 (CAS 9-9-9-24)
ATi HD3870 512Mb based Graphics Card, PCI-e 2.0, 775/2400
Tagan 900W ForceII PSU. (or maybe a cCoolermaster Realpower Modular1000M 100W)

so what do you think.

NOTES
====
The maximum cost is £900 roughly and the motherboard will not be upgraded for another 4 years so has to be as future proof as possible.
I have had major problems with nVidia cards twice now and so will only get an ATi based card.
I figured that if i get the above parts I can:

Get an intel 45nm quad core CPU later as well as lower latency memory.
The PCI-e 2.0 bus should give me some options later.
The PSU should power anything that comes out in the future. Or do I only need a 750W?

[staffsMike]

DDR3 ..are you mad?

get a quad core.. if you can wait for 45nm then go for it.

Power outputs seem to be going down really. 600w would be fine.

[SiM]

If you want to get DDR3 in the future, get a board that has both DDR2 and DDR3 compatibility (eg asus p5kc) - but use DDR2 now - there is no point getting DDR3 at the extortionate prices...

I think its worth going for the Q6600 quad too...

[ElCapitan]

Yea Q6600 G0 is same price and better value, though mike is right, if you can wait leave it till 45nm processors are out, also swap your PSU for corsair Hx620 and get an 8800GT instead of 3870.

[this_is_gav]

and get an 8800GT instead of 3870.

Depends what he's going to do with it to be honest. If all he'll do is play games, then I'd recommend the same, but if there's any multimedia use, prefers decent drivers and likes to listen to anything other than the fan (OK, the last bit may be a bit OTT), I'd grab the 3870 to be honest. In fact I'm going to.

[LegacyOne]

I would get some XMP DDR3 RAM.

Waste of money for the E6850 get a E6750 or Q6600.

And you will never need more then 650W for a PSU.

like the motherboard.

[tickleonthetum]

If you want to get DDR3 in the future, get a board that has both DDR2 and DDR3 compatibility (eg asus p5kc) - but use DDR2 now - there is no point getting DDR3 at the extortionate prices...

I think its worth going for the Q6600 quad too...

No because I want the X38 chipset as it also has PCI-e 2.0 support, amongst other things.

Yea Q6600 G0 is same price and better value, though mike is right, if you can wait leave it till 45nm processors are out, also swap your PSU for corsair Hx620 and get an 8800GT instead of 3870.

The Q6600 is slower than the E6850 though is it not? I am not overclocking. Also as I explained I have been burn't once to often by nVidia so will not be buying anything from them again.

Depends what he's going to do with it to be honest. If all he'll do is play games, then I'd recommend the same, but if there's any multimedia use, prefers decent drivers and likes to listen to anything other than the fan (OK, the last bit may be a bit OTT), I'd grab the 3870 to be honest. In fact I'm going to.

I will be playing Simulation games like the Sims 2, Sim City Societies & City Life Unlimited, I occasionally play an FPS game. I want to be able to run them with all graphics set to maximum and loads of custom content. I also like editing homemade movies, burning DVDs and music, photo editing and the usual other stuff.

I would get some XMP DDR3 RAM.

Waste of money for the E6850 get a E6750 or Q6600.

And you will never need more then 650W for a PSU.

like the motherboard.

I can't afford anymore money to up the specs., they are the highest I can afford.
Again surely if running at stock speeds the E6850 is faster than the Q6600 in most cases? There is no chance of me overclocking so I figured the E6850 was the best as it is natively 1333 as is the M/B and RAM I've chosen.



I chose the motherboard as it supports DDR3 and PCI-e 2.0 with crossfire. As this board is going to be in the machine for 4 years at least, I felt it needed to have those features so that the graphics card and memory can be upgraded at a later date.

I chose the Graphics card as it is the best ATi based card and I'm not touching an nVidia card due to having major problems with them in the past.

I chose the memory as it is the best/fastest I can afford within my budget that will fit my motherboard. I should be able to upgrade it to 4Gb with lower latency in about 2 years, by which time DDR3 memory should be a lot cheaper.

Thanks for the comments so far!

[rob4001]

No because I want the X38 chipset as it also has PCI-e 2.0 support, amongst other things.



The Q6600 is slower than the E6850 though is it not? I am not overclocking. Also as I explained I have been burn't once to often by nVidia so will not be buying anything from them again.



I will be playing Simulation games like the Sims 2, Sim City Societies & City Life Unlimited, I occasionally play an FPS game. I want to be able to run them with all graphics set to maximum and loads of custom content. I also like editing homemade movies, burning DVDs and music, photo editing and the usual other stuff.



I can't afford anymore money to up the specs., they are the highest I can afford.
Again surely if running at stock speeds the E6850 is faster than the Q6600 in most cases? There is no chance of me overclocking so I figured the E6850 was the best as it is natively 1333 as is the M/B and RAM I've chosen.



I chose the motherboard as it supports DDR3 and PCI-e 2.0 with crossfire. As this board is going to be in the machine for 4 years at least, I felt it needed to have those features so that the graphics card and memory can be upgraded at a later date.

I chose the Graphics card as it is the best ATi based card and I'm not touching an nVidia card due to having major problems with them in the past.

I chose the memory as it is the best/fastest I can afford within my budget that will fit my motherboard. I should be able to upgrade it to 4Gb with lower latency in about 2 years, by which time DDR3 memory should be a lot cheaper.

Thanks for the comments so far!

So why bother asking for advice if your not going to take it.

[staffsMike]

For what you pay for DDR3 now you could get a cheaper motherboard (as you aren't overclocking) 2 - 4gb of DDR2 and then upgrade later when it takes your fancy.

Building a computer now that will be upgradable in 3 years or whatever seems like the best way to do things but it really isn't

Ask yourself why you aren't simply upgrading what you have now..

[this_is_gav]

Ask yourself why you aren't simply upgrading what you have now..

Because only the hard drives can be carried across?

I agree with Rob and yourself though - DDR3 is all fine and good, but it's too expensive for something that gives no speed advantage. If you were to play the upgradability card, then you'd really have to wait until Q4 2008 when the new Intel socket supposedly comes out, and even then I doubt it would be worth it for the reasons already stated. Certainly at the moment it's not worth going DDR3 for any reason I can see. It will become the norm, but with DDR2 prices so stupidly low for the same end result, you'd have to have something wrong in your head to use anything else. That's not an insult, it's just the way things are.

[ed^chigliak]

You risk being the ginuea pig for new technology chasing the holy grail that is 'the future proof PC'

Why not wait for lower prices on DDR3 and some Rev1.1 or Rev2.0 hardware and the 45nm parts? Some of this kit is only just released and I'm not sure if you're the type that likes to follow the forums and flash the bios until all is well and good assuming everything can be fixed in the bios. Your logic is fine but I think you're a little too early to market. Let the enthusiasts iron out the kinks.

People are trying to guide you towards better value for money and trusted hardware. What's not to like about 8GB DDR2 now for the price of 2GB DDR3.

[GSte]

The X48 chipset which will support Intel's 1600FSB CPUs will be DDR3 only, but as others have said, that's hardly a reason to get DDR3 yet. By the time the X48 and mainstream CPUs (i.e. not the top of the range X model) are available then DDR3 will be significantly cheaper, so you'd be better getting some DDR2 as its dirt cheap at the minute, plenty of good 2GB kits around for £35-£60, and a good selection of DDR2 X38s available. I'd also get a quad core personally.... the difference between 2.4GHz and 3.0GHz isn't that great, but the difference between 2 and 4 cores with the advent of multi-threaded games may well be.

[LegacyOne]

I can't afford anymore money to up the specs., they are the highest I can afford.
Again surely if running at stock speeds the E6850 is faster than the Q6600 in most cases? There is no chance of me overclocking so I figured the E6850 was the best as it is natively 1333 as is the M/B and RAM I've chosen.

I chose the memory as it is the best/fastest I can afford within my budget that will fit my motherboard. I should be able to upgrade it to 4Gb with lower latency in about 2 years, by which time DDR3 memory should be a lot cheaper.

Well then don't get that motherboard get a P5E3 if your not overclocking.

As for the RAM I see your point about upgrading to 4Gb with lower latency so get some CorsairTwinX XMS3, DDR3 PC3-8500 (1066).

The whole FSB has to match the RAM speed is wrong the FSB is Quad data rate so 1333MHz is 333MHz and DDR3 is double data rate so 1066MHz is 533MHz so it will run faster then the real FSB clock.

[tickleonthetum]

Is 8Gb of DDR2 going to do in 3 years time? I had assumed that everything would be DDR3 by then?

So would I be better getting:

Asus Maximus Formula and 8Gb of DDR2-1066. Such as 4 lots of this:

2GB (2x1GB) Corsair TwinX XMS2, DDR2 PC2-6400 (800), 240 Pins, Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 4-4-4-12, DHX.

And is 4 cores at a lower speed better than 2 cores at a higher one. If I ended up not upgrading anything for 4 years after this would the Q6700 (2.66), 8Gb DDR2-800, etc, be better than the E6850 (3.0), 2Gb DDR3-1333? Would the extra cores make up for the lower speed? Is DDR2 going to be fast enough in a couple of years.

Am I thinking right if I create this scoring system?:

1 core @ 3GHz = 3 points
2 cores @ 3GHz = 6 points
4 cores @ 2.66GHz = 10.64 points

Is this a good way of looking at it? If so what would be a similar analogy when looking at the difference between DDR2/DDR3, MHz and latencies? Is 800MHz 4-4-4-12 better (faster) than 1333MHz 9-9-9-24?


I really do appreciate all your help, as this could be it for 4 years I want to get it right! I'm also learning a lot from all you wonderful people!

[staffsMike]

DDR2 will be fine.. 8GB is a little overkill again but it's cheap enough for that I suppose.

4 cores will deffinatly be worth having over the next couple of years. You should consider at least a small overclock. The Q6600 can quite easily hit upwards of 3.0GHz without changing very much in the bios.

DDR3 and DDR2 are farily comparable from what i've seen especially when you consider how much more expensive it is. Honestly, the money you save would pay for DDR3 and a motherboard in a couple of years when its worth buying

[GSte]

The RAM speed should make little difference as the faster stuff has far higher latencies. I assume you will be using Vista 64 if you're going for 8GB? 4 cores at a lower speed should be better, because games/applications will be released in the next few years that will make use of all those cores, for example the game 'Alan Wake' that comes out next year is specifically designed to run best on four cores, with each core handling different things, eg one handling physics, etc. And as Mike says, overclocking these Intel CPUs is very very easy, so if you wanted 3GHz anyway......