RapidFireGT

Lol, I thought it did, but I wasn't sure. I just wanted to make sure

And yeah I saw the PSU, but I'd like to keep everything at Newegg, and I have good faith in OCZ and their support/warranties/direct feedback on Newegg.

What makes it better? Although I think I would like to go with the quad-core because I think it would be more future-proof, wouldn't it?

I'm already over budget, so spending more money is out of the question. I've also read good reviews for the 8800GT, and I think it'll handle the games I've listed.

I plan on running Vista Business x64

Robilar

I was suggesting that you get one now and add one later as per an SLI setup.

Do you already own vista?

You can get XP Home for about $90 and 2 GB of really good ram for about $60. That should help your budget a bit.

RapidFireGT

Yeah, I was able to get a legit copy from Microsoft's ImagineCup program.

chessmyantidrug

I don't see how using older technology would make it future-proof. At the end of the day, nothing is future-proof. Penryn's successor debuts later this year.

The vast majority of games today don't utilize four cores. The Q6600 also doesn't overclock as well as the E8400. You should be able to reach 3.6 GHz on stock voltage with the E8400, but that's about the max you'll get from air cooling with the Q6600 if you're lucky. If you push the E8400 a little, you should be able to get close to 4.0 GHz if not surpass it. Wait a year to 18 months and the Q9450 will be around $220. By then, games utilizing quads will be more common and make more sense for a gaming-centric rig.

__________________
There is no such thing as "future-proof."

eBay

KarmaKiller

I think your PSU is solid. I have the same thing, on a OC'd Quad, and I've SLI'd my 9600's before with no problems.

STL! Woot!
(Native STL here. )

__________________

Maytridy

I'll be selling my Zalman CPU cooler soon if you're interested. I've used it on my Q6600 for the past 6 months and it's worked wonderfully.

Dark Volker

I fully agree with chessmyantidrug about getting the E8400.

There are no games to my knowledge that will use 4 cores. I only know of a few that can use 2 cores and only in 64-bit I think. If you multitask a lot you might still consider the Q6600, but it sounds like you'd do better with the E8400. As I understand it ,with that you would get an operating freq. of 3.00GHz on the single shared 6mb L2 cache vs. 2.40GHz on each of 2 sets of 4mb L2 cache, each shared by 2 cores. This would make the E8400 perform better when a game is only utilizing 1 or 2 cores at a time. You have a FSB of 1333MHz(E8400) vs. the 1066Mhz(q6600), although I believe PC8500(1066MHz) RAM is the most widely popular of the DDR2 RAM models. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that the CPU's actual operating FSB freq. runs as stated unless RAM's FSB is lower(in that case, the CPU FSB is lowered to that freq.) There is DDR2 RAM up to PC9136(1142MHz), which might make an overclock of 1200MHz. You would have to pay close to $300 for that RAM though. This wouldn't be worth only gaining 76MHz FSB and I don't know of any boards that support it. The FSB freq. difference of these two CPU's don't seem to affect performance unless you were to run a higher freq. DDR3 RAM.

The price of these CPU's are about the same as well. E8400 retail @ newegg.com=$194.99 and Q6600 OEM @ newegg.com=$189.99, with shipping for both free of charge. I would greatly recommend spending the extra $5 or so to get the much better(for gaming) E8400.

Just to throw in a thought about the thermal compound...I normally remove the compound from the stock HSF's(Heatsink and Fan) and apply AS5. Doing that has lowered my CPU temps by up to 5ºC in the past. Also, the best way isn't to apply it in lines...I have found the best way is to apply small amounts and spread it out as if you were waxing your car to create a thin layer on the entire CPU surface(spread it out with saran wrap on your finger for less waste and mess). I usually then add an additional small drop of compound to the center before installing the HSF. Try to refrain from pulling the HSF away from the CPU after making contact. I've done this in the past to check my application and I actually got slightly higher temps than when I didn't check it.

Hope I helped out some. Good luck with the build!

__________________

dahdout

for ten bucks more you can get an extra 70 gigs. for twenty more you can get an extra 250 gigs.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136074

__________________
95.567% of people make up the stats in their sig. If you are part of the 4.433% who uses real stats, put this in your sig.



http://www.blargkaboom.com/

RapidFireGT

Advice for future posts: separate paragraphs, it's easier on the eyes

Anyways, I've been googling this dual vs. quad core situation for the past hour, and it seems like it's all opinion based at this stage, and there's really no clear winner.

My thoughts: I'm still leaning towards the quad, because I don't really think any of the primary games I'll be playing (Battlefield 2, Half-Life 2, or America's Army), will use more than 2.4 GHz on any core with the rig I'll be running. With that said, going quad core would allow me to run apps in the background while gaming (Firefox, AIM, IRC, and various Vista memory-hog utilities/apps). Also, I plan on making this rig last for at least 4 or 5 years, without making any upgrades. I feel like in 4 years, a 2.4 quad core will be more useful than a 3.0 dual core.

Feel free to criticize my thoughts, all advice is appreciated.

Dark Volker

Sorry, I edited the text for separate paragraphs, but I guess I needed to use code to make it post that way.



I didn't know whether you were planning to multitask or not. The quad would be the way to go if you will be multitasking a lot.

__________________