whats better?

[shaffaaf27]

me and a m8 specced a 1K build, what woudl you prefere from these.

mine:


m8s:


and no fanboy shop comments please

[educatedfool]

I'd go with the scan one, looks like you're getting a bit more for your money

[staffsMike]

scan are cheaper for all of your compenents anyway...

The scan build with a slightly less powerful power supply and a graphics downgrade for me.. might as well save the money.

There is no point in an X48 and the case is a bit too much of an embelishment for my liking.

[TAKTAK]

scan one easily

looks fine but i'd ditch the PSU in favour of a Corsair HX620w
i'd also lower the gfx card spec (do you even have a monitor that can harness the power?)

and if it were me personally i'd change the case on the scan one for a lian li or silverstone jobbie (theres talk of scan actually stocking lian li now over in the reccomendations page no doubt it will come to nothing )

[Andy3536]

You spent alot more on a better board that you won't see the benefits from with those specs, his with the GX2 would be a long way better, and he made it under the budget too.

His cheaper case helps aswell, and it's not a bad one to choose either.

[GSte]

The Scan one with a Corsair HX620w and 2x2GB RAM.

[Cistron]

Very bad performance/price ratio, if you ask me.

For gaming I'd also leap for an E8400, which should reach 3.6GHz at much much much lower core temperatures that the Q6600.

The Enermax Modus are an excellent choice.

You could switch the Noctua HSF for a Scythe Ninja and a Thermalright mounting kit, which also comes with a handy Slipstream fan. If you go for the Thermalright HS, you should squeeze out the couple of more quid for the extreme version, which comes with more heatpipes.

The 800rpm versions of the Sharkoons should still give you ample cooling and won't be as loud. Alternatively, a fan controller would add nicely to the mix.

[Blitzen]

depends if you are happy spending more.
I did and went for an X38 and i am very glad i did.

If the money allows, the first system would be my preference as the tech is better although in most cases you would see no difference.

BTW.....that Enermax PSU IS FANTASTIC. The Corsairs are ok but that Enermax modular, imho, is the best unit around at the moment.

For gaming I'd also leap for an E8400, which should reach 3.6GHz at much much much lower core temperatures that the Q6600.

I wouldnt.....
With that set up, you would hit 3.6ghz on the Q6600. The temps wont be that high (look at mine @ 3.2ghz in my sig) with decent cooling and to hit a good overclock you wouldnt have to increase the volts too much.
In gaming, regardless of what you are told, i can guarantee you wouldnt notice a difference between the E8400 and Q6600 (as the performance gap is so tiny). With this in mind, and considering that the Q6600 is better at EVERYTHING else, then the quad is the way to go. It will long outlive any dual core.

Seeing as how they are practically the same price, the quad is definitey the way to go.

[Bugbait]

I wouldnt.....
With that set up, you would hit 3.6ghz on the Q6600. The temps wont be that high (look at mine @ 3.2ghz in my sig) with decent cooling and to hit a good overclock you wouldnt have to increase the volts too much.
In gaming, regardless of what you are told, i can guarantee you wouldnt notice a difference between the E8400 and Q6600 (as the performance gap is so tiny). With this in mind, and considering that the Q6600 is better at EVERYTHING else, then the quad is the way to go. It will long outlive any dual core.

Seeing as how they are practically the same price, the quad is definitey the way to go.

I know you love the Q6600 Blitzen but you shouldn't discount the E8xxx series. I've used both and still own both so I speak from personal experience and not just benchmarks.

For starters the Q6600 can get quite hot at 3.6Ghz. I have the G0 stepping but probably not a great sample. Mine takes 1.48v to be Orthos stable (tested in the recent heat too). With all cores fully loaded it has hit 65C on two cores (other two are about 62-63C). Compare this to my E8200 at 4Ghz which hit about 58C max under the same conditions and ambient temperature. I use a Cuplex Di waterblock with dual Alphacool NexXxos Xtreme II 120. 2radiators (that's 4x120mm fans just for the water). Not the best watercooling set up around but more than adequate and a decent performer. All temps are from the past few days when the ambient was higher.

Considering a Zalman Reserator XT beats a Thermalright Ultra-120 according to this link: X-bit labs - Zalman Reserator XT: Effective, Quiet, Stylish and Expensive Cooling Solution (page 10) and my system creams a Reserator (which I also own) I'm confident my results aren't an example of "worst case scenario".

Your Q6600 might not need much volts to hit 3.6Ghz but others might. What are your temps at 3.6Ghz? It can jump quite a lot in the final 100-200Mhz. I have my CPU stable at 3.8Ghz but the volts were far more than I'd like for 24/7 use.

I can guarantee that for CNC3 and WoW there is a noticeable, in game difference between a Q6600 @3.6hz and a E8xxx @4Ghz. This is from using both in each game extensively.

Now, I agree, for pretty much everything outside of games the Q6600 is clearly the better choice but it's not the winner for all situations.

EDIT: Although I didn't run extensive tests at 3.6Ghz for the E8200 it barely needed any extra volts (was well under 1.3v). That wasn't a sufficient overclock for me. I doubt it would've hit more than 52C under full load, if it even broke 50C.

[GSte]

If the money allows, the first system would be my preference as the tech is better although in most cases you would see no difference.

Exactly, the mobo is a waste of cash really in terms of performance, it depends if you want the extra features and bling factor. Spending extra on the GFX would yield noticeable results however. Though personally I'd never spend that much on a graphics card.

I can guarantee that for CNC3 and WoW there is a noticeable, in game difference between a Q6600 @3.6hz and a E8xxx @4Ghz. This is from using both in each game extensively.

Now, I agree, for pretty much everything outside of games the Q6600 is clearly the better choice but it's not the winner for all situations.

CNC3? How so? The framerate is capped at 30FPS as far as I know.....

And even in WOW, surely it is easily playable without the extra grunt of the E8400? My mate runs it fine on an Athlon XP 2600 .

The Quad is the best choice imo, considering the price difference.

[Bugbait]

CNC3? How so? The framerate is capped at 30FPS as far as I know.....

Not sure if there is a cap but it would definitely be higher than 30FPS, 60FPS would make more sense. The most noticeable is minimum framerates. I'm one of those crap turtle players that likes to prolong matches so I end up with a lot of units on the screen (I set all GFX options to max with 1920x1200 resolution). The Q6600 definitely and routinely "chugs" more often than the E8200 use to.

And even in WOW, surely it is easily playable without the extra grunt of the E8400? My mate runs it fine on an Athlon XP 2600 .

You'd think that . I rarely went under 60FPS @1600x1200. Once I moved to 1920X1200 I noticed regular drops under 60FPS and under 45FPS in crowded areas. The Q6600 drops to sub 40FPS on some raids where the E8200 never went below 45FPS, and rarely 50FPS. Sure, you probably won't notice on lower resolutions, I didn't but you will at higher. I like to run a fairly high AA as well. No point playing a game if it's ugly as hell.

Some of my friends run it on really ancient PC's and GFX's (5700 anyone?) but that's completely unplayable in my books. I would prefer to play my Wii if I wanted to look at crap graphics.

The Quad is the best choice imo, considering the price difference.

Don't get me wrong, I own both and I use a Q6600 because it's the most suitable for my current needs. I originally got a E8200 with the intention of moving the workload (I multitask a lot) to my HTPC and using the desktop for gaming. After a few weeks I realized I couldn't offload the workload and it was a giant pain to manage so I switched it back.

[GSte]

Not sure if there is a cap but it would definitely be higher than 30FPS, 60FPS would make more sense.

It's 30fps mate, it's ludicrous I know, set fraps running while you play and you'll see it in action . EA baffle me at times.

Didn't realise you were playing WOW at such high res's, in which case it might make sense.

[Bugbait]

It's 30fps mate, it's ludicrous I know, set fraps running while you play and you'll see it in action . EA baffle me at times.

Didn't realize you were playing WOW at such high res's, in which case it might make sense.

You're right, CNC3 does have a 30FPS cap. Doesn't help when it's chugging at what looks like 8-10FPS. Then again, I have AA all the way up with full particles.

I have everything in WoW on max except the AA/multisampling which I dropped about 2-3 steps off maximum. Barely discernable decrease in picture quality and notably more FPS. I do stress that this was not an issue at 1600x1200. I was actually quite surprised at the performance drop going from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200.

[Blitzen]

For starters the Q6600 can get quite hot at 3.6Ghz. I have the G0 stepping but probably not a great sample. Mine takes 1.48v to be Orthos stable (tested in the recent heat too). With all cores fully loaded it has hit 65C on two cores

Thats not hot at full load. Thats about average.

Now, I agree, for pretty much everything outside of games the Q6600 is clearly the better choice but it's not the winner for all situations.

Thats my point.
In games the E8400 has a tiny tiny advantage.
In everyhting else the Q6600 has a huge advantage, so its the better buy.

What are your temps at 3.6Ghz?

49 degrees.

[Bugbait]

49 degrees.

That's a very enviable stepping you have then. Any reason you don't run it at 3.6GHz since it's only 3C hotter than 3.2GHz and WELL below the uncomfortable region?