Building my first gaming rig.

[nightkhaos]

Here's my current potential build:

• Samsung F3 1TB HDD
• ATI Radeon HD 5870
• Corsair HX 850W PSU
• ASUS M4A79-T Deluxe
• Phenom X4 965 Black
• Edimax EW-7128G

I'm also looking at the Antec Nine Hundred Two to house all this stuff in - it's not a bad looker either.

Any chance you lovely folk could review the components listed above and let me know if they are definitely, definitely fully compatible before I cough up the cash?

I'm tremendously grateful for all the help so far, chaps!

Edit: Do also please get back to me and fill me in on how RAM latency works (which I queried in the post above).

Okay, first off, is there any reason why you have not considered upgrading to the an i7 Bloomfield or an i5 Lynnfield? I recommend you do as you will get better bang for your buck, even through it may result in higher outlay upfront.

AMD are slightly slower clock for clock at the moment, but they make up for that being cheap. Since you are buying an 5870, very much doubt that cheap is your goal. I recommend something like an i5 750 with an Gigabyte P55-UD3, or a i7 920 with a Gigabyte X58-UD5, both with a Corsair H50 as the cooler, and some MX-3 for TIM.

Overclocked to about 3.6 GHz both of those CPUs should be good to serve you neeed for the next 3 to 7 years.

I have posted various guides on memory latancy over various posts. Use this simple formula.

Clock Speed / CAS Memory Latancy = Number of CAS Memory Operations per second, higher is better.

Thus: 1600 MHz / CAS 8 = 200 million CAS operations per second.
Also: 1333 MHz / CAS 7 = 190.4 million CAS operations per second.

Please note, and this is important, the faster the frequency of RAM, the more heat your CPU will need to dispiate on top of the Core load, because the memory controler is now built into the CPU for most DDR3 based systems, thus you should not need to go above 1600 MHz as any higher will result in excess heat which will reduce your overclocking potentional.

Hope this helps!

[jim]

Should also note (bearing in mind that according to NightKhaos' formula, low latencies and high frequencies are best) that generally speaking the higher the frequency of the RAM the higher the latency will be, so there's always a trade-off.

Generally speaking the best RAM isn't the fastest, but the one with the mix of the two.

Why have you gone off the Intel setup again, out of interest?

[nightkhaos]

Generally speaking the best RAM isn't the fastest, but the one with the mix of the two.

Of course. That's why I also recommend the around 1600MHz point as well. On paper, 2000MHz CL9 (222.2 million CAS operations) should be better than 1600MHz CL8 (200 million CAS operations), but in reality 1600MHz CL8 benchmarks slightly better, not to mention it runs the CPU cooler.

[nightkhaos]

Last quick question before I head off to bed: With regards to RAM; I'm looking through the Corsair/Phenom II compatibility list [edit: unable to post links with under 5 posts - link at the bottom of this post] and I'm coming across a lot of 4-5 digit strings. After performing a quick Google search and reading through a few other threads that discuss the meaning behind latency, I'm still a little cloudy. For instance: If you follow the link above there are latency measurements of:

9-9-9-24
6-6-6-18
7-7-7-20
8-8-8-24

As a general rule, are the higher numbers better performance-wise, or worse? Upon attempting to find the answer myself via a few searches (including Wikipedia of all places) I'm still not quite clued up.

And, once again, thanks for all the help so far chaps. For those of you whom might be interested - I'll be posting a short list of the new components I'm hoping to purchase to put towards building my gaming computer. I would love further comments and critique towards that once I've finalized the list and posted it.

But, yeah, latency; higher numbers - good or bad? Lol.

Edit: Forgt to post the URL I mentioned above. corsair.com/products/phenomii/default.aspx

Ahh didn't see this post, I should add. Each of those numbers represents the time, in clocks, that the RAM module requires to do a certain operation. Lower is better in the general, but higher clocks can have the same result as lower latancies.

Each number, in sequence, is tCAS, tRCD, tRP, tRAS, and finally there is another one called command rate, which is generally only changed if the module is running at non-stock. There are also another twenty or so different timing operations that are automatically adjusted by the BIOS when the 5 "primary" ones have been changed. These can be adjusted in some BIOSs, but generally speaking, you leave them be.

CAS is Column Address Strobe, or the time in clocks it takes the module to provide READ data at the outputs.

RCD is Row Address to Column Address Delay, basicly this is how long it takes the RAM module to do a WRITE operation.

RP is Row Precharge. This is the time between issuing a precharge command and issuing an active command, which as I understand it is part of the writing process. It's the time it takes a row to become "useable".

RAS is Row Active Time. As well as precharing particular rows, the RAM module will also need to prepare particular banks for precharging. This is how long the RAM modules takes to do this.

Command Rate: number of clocks between command issues, generally 2.

Latency times are not unique to each module, they are actually just "guesses" as to how long the transistors take to get to a stable state. When a manufacture gives timings to a module, called binning, they are saying "based upon the quality of the silicon waffer we can be almost certien that this module will achieve these timings". There is a chance the actual module will perform better, or worse, than where it was binned. As demonstrated by my RAM which is running about 6 million more CAS operations per second than what it was binned to do. (205.7 million CAS operations per second, compared to 200 million CAS operations per second).

[Syllopsium]

Without wishing to rain on your geek joy of specing up a new system, have you thought of getting someone else to build it for you?

Seriously - unless you already have a load of parts to use or need a really cheap system you won't pay that much more and you'll get a guarantee on the system.

Neither will you get perfect advice. Few people have experience of building lots of systems - their advice is biased and half of the reviews online are lacking (ever noticed CPU and graphics card tests that aren't conducted inside a case and thus are worthless?). A certain proportion of the product and review arena is designed to separate people from their money - not to provide the best solution.

I have to admit I have, in fact, assembled all my own systems since 1996 or so. However in retrospect I'm not sure it was the wisest idea; if I subtract the time and money I spent faffing around with heatsinks, fans, fan controllers and cases it would have been better to get someone else to build me a system.

Having said that, if you really want advice :

From what I can remember the X4 Black edition is overpriced for what it is.
The 5870 is a lovely card - low power (at idle) and very fast. It does, however, currently have a few driver issues. If you're mostly gaming I suspect you'll be ok. If you're looking at HD terrestrial TV, certain accelerated video and a couple of other things you may have issues. Will probably be sorted out in a few months.

PK

[nightkhaos]

Without wishing to rain on your geek joy of specing up a new system, have you thought of getting someone else to build it for you?

It is worth considering. I am sure a few people here would be interesting in building a machine for you. If you are happy to build it yourself, we of course can't stop you.

[Syllopsium]

It is worth considering. I am sure a few people here would be interesting in building a machine for you. If you are happy to build it yourself, we of course can't stop you.

I was sort of thinking of people like Scan, who you can shout at if it goes wrong. Bob down the street might be a lovely guy, but I'd prefer people where you have a contract to fix it for a defined period of time..

PK

[Biscuit]

i would say this is pretty good ram for the job should you do it yourself.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=8&subcat=1517

[nightkhaos]

I was sort of thinking of people like Scan, who you can shout at if it goes wrong. Bob down the street might be a lovely guy, but I'd prefer people where you have a contract to fix it for a defined period of time..

PK

Hehe. This is true, but I wasn't refering to Bob down the street either.

[Just Browsing]

First off: Some great responses. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my questions, chaps. @nightkhaos: Brilliant explanation put into a context I can actually get my head around. Thank you.

Okay, first off, is there any reason why you have not considered upgrading to the an i7 Bloomfield or an i5 Lynnfield?

I have, and still, take the i7s into consideration. The only two reasons I'm leaning more towards the AMD is because I'm looking at £100-ish less, and also because I can purchase the AMD-based products from online stores I'm familiar with (Amazon, Play.com, etc). I have heard Scan.co.uk come up in a few threads but, having never dealt with them before and reading mostly negative reviews from ciao, reviewcentre, etc... I do however understand that unsatisfied customers are more likely to complain and satisfied customers are less likely to praise.

AMD are slightly slower clock for clock at the moment, but they make up for that being cheap. Since you are buying an 5870, very much doubt that cheap is your goal. I recommend something like an i5 750 with an Gigabyte P55-UD3, or a i7 920 with a Gigabyte X58-UD5, both with a Corsair H50 as the cooler, and some MX-3 for TIM.

Truth is: Money isn't actually an issue. I'm very fortunate in that regard. However, I'm a bit of a stickler for saving and, according to 50% of what I've been reading, the AMD models may not be as powerful but they do work out to be a fair price when compared to the more expensive i7 models.

However, as you can imagine, I am no expert and have very little to go on other than what I've read in hardware reviews and recommendations for forum members.

Why have you gone off the Intel setup again, out of interest?

Not put off at all - just swayed more towards the AMD set because of price.

Without wishing to rain on your geek joy of specing up a new system, have you thought of getting someone else to build it for you?

Truth be told: I've been eager to get my hands dirty and build my own system since I was very young. I'm 23 now and I've been through about five computers and two notebooks. Before I've purchased each computer I've weighed the pros and cons of whether to actually learn how to do the work myself - mostly because techy stuff interests me. I would like to become familiar with the innards of a computer and start making a hobby -- albeit an expensive hobby -- out of this.

I have a few friends who are familiar with putting together a PC, should I absolutely require the help, but I'm eager to do this myself.

The only real problem I'm having difficulty getting my head around at the moment is which RAM sticks work with which CPU. Almost every single i7-compatible stick of RAM actually states it is compatible on the sales pages (Play.com, eBay, Amazon, eBuyer, etc) but for the life of me I can't find RAM that is absolutely compatible with the AMD setup. According to a few people I've spoken to I need to get the correct voltage RAM, however (perhaps I'm a complete idiot), I cannot find out what level of voltage would be tolerable. I've checked the official ASUS mobo page and, unless I'm missing it, I can't find the specified RAM voltage requirement. I've checked the official AMD website. I've checked the official Corsair website. At the moment I've sending emails back and forth with online stores and asking them which sticks of RAM would be compatible with my desired mobo/CPU.

I'm sort of at the part where I'm still at the first hurdle and getting my head around things, but I'm enjoying learning and asking all the questions that would probably have the more experienced forum members here rolling their eyes and tutting.

Edit: Just a few things I just felt like I should add:

1. I'm looking to get an ASUS mobo because I hear that ASUS is considered the best. Of course, this is just down to opinion, but it seems to be majority opinion. And that's all I've got to go on.

2. RAM - baffling me at the moment. I'll be re-reading through the excellent posts explaining how RAM works again after I've updated this post but I'm having a hard time understanding how RAM works. Until last week, it was my understanding that RAM was the most straight forward way to upgrade your PC (pardon my ignorance) and that you buy some RAM - good or mediocre quality - slot it into your... RAM slots, I guess... and off you go. It's kind of thrown me for a loop that there's much more to take into account now and I could end up spending however much on RAM (I'd ideally like to go for 6GB to start with and cough up for the additional to make it up to 12GB once I know everything is working) and it just not being compatible.

3. Actually, that's pretty much all I can think of. Haha.

[nightkhaos]

@nightkhaos: Brilliant explanation put into a context I can actually get my head around. Thank you.

No problem. It's what I'm here for. I got similar reception on my overclocking guide as well. I don't understand why.

I have, and still, take the i7s into consideration. The only two reasons I'm leaning more towards the AMD is because I'm looking at £100-ish less, and also because I can purchase the AMD-based products from online stores I'm familiar with (Amazon, Play.com, etc). I have heard Scan.co.uk come up in a few threads but, having never dealt with them before and reading mostly negative reviews from ciao, reviewcentre, etc... I do however understand that unsatisfied customers are more likely to complain and satisfied customers are less likely to praise.

That £100-ish can be recovered by downgrading to the equally as good, but just not quite as powerful, 5850.

Truth is: Money isn't actually an issue. I'm very fortunate in that regard. However, I'm a bit of a stickler for saving and, according to 50% of what I've been reading, the AMD models may not be as powerful but they do work out to be a fair price when compared to the more expensive i7 models.

My friend put it this way once: with an AMD Phenom II your computer will run everything you want it too. With an Intel i7 or Intel i5 your computer won't just run it, it will run it and then have something left over. As I said, the only advantage AMD has at the moment is that they are cheap, and since money is no object, go Intel, you'll be better off in the long run.

However, as you can imagine, I am no expert and have very little to go on other than what I've read in hardware reviews and recommendations for forum members.

It's how you learn. I learned that way. When putting together helpful information like the RAM stuff, I had to research what all the different RAM timings meant, etc.

Not put off at all - just swayed more towards the AMD set because of price.

It's curious, when you have money, but still are quite skint. You end up spending lots of money, and getting the best system possible, and then not being happy that you spent to much. That is until you go over to your friends place and play on their rig that cost half as much as yours did and you realise just how worth it was to spend that little extra.

Truth be told: I've been eager to get my hands dirty and build my own system since I was very young. I'm 23 now and I've been through about five computers and two notebooks. Before I've purchased each computer I've weighed the pros and cons of whether to actually learn how to do the work myself - mostly because techy stuff interests me. I would like to become familiar with the innards of a computer and start making a hobby -- albeit an expensive hobby -- out of this.

Good thinking, it's how it happened for me too. Of coruse the the first computer I put together I didn't mount the heatsink properly and burned out the CPU after 18 months. But hey, it's a learning experience, and stuff like that happens.

Let me take this moment to say that Intel Push-Pin heatsink mounting system sucks!

I have a few friends who are familiar with putting together a PC, should I absolutely require the help, but I'm eager to do this myself.

Don't be affaird to ask them for help through, or us.

The only real problem I'm having difficulty getting my head around at the moment is which RAM sticks work with which CPU. Almost every single i7-compatible stick of RAM actually states it is compatible on the sales pages (Play.com, eBay, Amazon, eBuyer, etc) but for the life of me I can't find RAM that is absolutely compatible with the AMD setup. According to a few people I've spoken to I need to get the correct voltage RAM, however (perhaps I'm a complete idiot), I cannot find out what level of voltage would be tolerable. I've checked the official ASUS mobo page and, unless I'm missing it, I can't find the specified RAM voltage requirement. I've checked the official AMD website. I've checked the official Corsair website. At the moment I've sending emails back and forth with online stores and asking them which sticks of RAM would be compatible with my desired mobo/CPU.

Assuming you go for the AMD, or a Lynnfield (i.e. P55 based) Intel, the RAM that Biscuit linked will be great. If you go for a Bloomfield (i.e. X58 based) Intel you'll need Triple Channel, i.e. 3x 2GB sticks.

I'm sort of at the part where I'm still at the first hurdle and getting my head around things, but I'm enjoying learning and asking all the questions that would probably have the more experienced forum members here rolling their eyes and tutting.

Alright then, any more questions?

EDIT FOR YOUR EDIT

Edit: Just a few things I just felt like I should add:

1. I'm looking to get an ASUS mobo because I hear that ASUS is considered the best. Of course, this is just down to opinion, but it seems to be majority opinion. And that's all I've got to go on.

2. RAM - baffling me at the moment. I'll be re-reading through the excellent posts explaining how RAM works again after I've updated this post but I'm having a hard time understanding how RAM works. Until last week, it was my understanding that RAM was the most straight forward way to upgrade your PC (pardon my ignorance) and that you buy some RAM - good or mediocre quality - slot it into your... RAM slots, I guess... and off you go. It's kind of thrown me for a loop that there's much more to take into account now and I could end up spending however much on RAM (I'd ideally like to go for 6GB to start with and cough up for the additional to make it up to 12GB once I know everything is working) and it just not being compatible.

3. Actually, that's pretty much all I can think of. Haha.

1. ASUS are good. For X58, their P6T is pretty good. But in all honesty, motherboards are hard choices. All the brands are good and known for different things. Gigabyte have simple and flexiable BIOS, Asus have comprehensive BIOS, lots of features, and are well balanced. MSI make experimental boards with new features that make them Unique, DFI just include every single option that is configable in the BIOS and let you lose.... etc, etc. I recommend doing it on a board by board basis, as sometimes the big companies make a mistake with a particular board.

2. It used to be that simple, but then timings and frequency actually became important. Gone are the days when you can just pick two gigabytes and be on your way. But the advantage is that you understand more of how things work, and you know what you're getting.

3. Are you sure, I'm happy to answer more questions.

[Syllopsium]

If you're not sure what's compatible with your chosen motherboard, you need to read the motherboard manual. This will also tell you what the thermal limits etc are so you can check the assembled system remains in spec.

Fortunately in these lovely days of the Internet, all the manuals are available prior to purchase.

The problem is, there's a difference between what is the base standard for memory, and what it is possible to do. For instance, the standard might be (purely as an example) 1.6V, but the motherboard might be capable of running 1.8V and that might be what some fast memory needs to be set at to work.

In that instance the memory is either a) really only suited to overclocking or b) not as good as memory which achieves the stated purpose at the default speed.

The one thing I would say - although others may disagree, is that whilst overclocking the CPU may have appreciable results (personally, I don't overclock), increasing memory speed is one for the benchmarks only. If you're running games 2fps is not going to make much difference, and if you need the memory bandwidth for something important you shouldn't be running an overclocked system..

I still run DDR2-667 ECC memory. I looked at the difference between 667, 800 and 1066 and it was naff all.

PK

[nightkhaos]

The problem is, there's a difference between what is the base standard for memory, and what it is possible to do. For instance, the standard might be (purely as an example) 1.6V, but the motherboard might be capable of running 1.8V and that might be what some fast memory needs to be set at to work.

In that instance the memory is either a) really only suited to overclocking or b) not as good as memory which achieves the stated purpose at the default speed.

Any RAM that needs more than 1.65 Vs to run is out of spec and likely to fry the CPU, so yes, that module is only suited to overclocking as you need to increase the Vcore to reduce the voltage difference between the Vcore and DRAM. It should never exceed 0.7 V for the i7 Bloomfields as I understand it.

The one thing I would say - although others may disagree, is that whilst overclocking the CPU may have appreciable results (personally, I don't overclock), increasing memory speed is one for the benchmarks only. If you're running games 2fps is not going to make much difference, and if you need the memory bandwidth for something important you shouldn't be running an overclocked system..

Pretty much, but some people do actually care about that 2fps, and further more, having better RAM has other advantages apart from gaming. Not that anyone notices... but that's always the way. Still, better RAM is still worth the extra.

I still run DDR2-667 ECC memory. I looked at the difference between 667, 800 and 1066 and it was naff all.

As I said above, with DDR2, it was naff all, now it's slightly significant, but not really important*. Don't worry about it, just get 1600MHz RAM and be on your way.

*DDR3 RAM has such high throughputs that to notice to difference you need to be doing a lot of memory intensive operations, of which gaming is not one.

[Domestic_Ginger]

but for the life of me I can't find RAM that is absolutely compatible with the AMD setup. According to a few people I've spoken to I need to get the correct voltage RAM, however (perhaps I'm a complete idiot), I cannot find out what level of voltage would be tolerable.

AMD chipsets are not picky about RAM. The 6GB multiples are for the i7 triple channel memory; everything else is dual channel so look at multiples of 2 instead of 3.

If you go for the 965 make sure you get the newer C3 stepping; lower heat and higher overclocking headroom.

Price/performance AMD usually wins; the i5's look very tempting if you can find a reasonably priced motherboard with the bells and whistles.

CtV posted ATI 4770s at £60 on ebuyer; if I was building a rig I would seriously conisder two of these in crossfire over the 5870 for less than half the price.

With regards to Scan; I have not had a problem with them but have ever returned anything etc. They offer insurance on parts (scansure) which may give you some extra piece of mind if building a new system. You can also get free postage with 20 posts on hexus.

[nibbler]

But at the moment the i5 only really outperforms phenom II in synthetic benchmarks (i.e. things that make no difference in the real world). Seeing as the 955 BE is now £125 it's the better buy. Also, I would get the MSI GD-70 if you go AMD, it's the best board out there at the moment.

[nightkhaos]

But at the moment the i5 only really outperforms phenom II in synthetic benchmarks (i.e. things that make no difference in the real world). Seeing as the 955 BE is now £125 it's the better buy. Also, I would get the MSI GD-70 if you go AMD, it's the best board out there at the moment.

Real? Hmm... can I see a review or article or anything that actually says this? I find that hard to believe, the reviews I've seen have showing slightly better framerates in games for example.