Overclock.net banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a budget of about 2000 and that was with the core 2 duo as the cpu choice... Could i build a system with the quad core for around 2000? along with the new gfx card?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,372 Posts
My take:

CPU: QX6700 $1,000
MoBo: GIGABYTE GA-965P-S3 Socket T (LGA 775) Intel P965 Express $115.99
RAM: Crucial Technology 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) $229.99
Video: 8800GTS $450 (according to the Inquirer)
HDD: Western Digital Caviar SE WD800JD 80GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s $43.99
DVD: LITE-ON 16X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE $27.99
CPU Cooler: Scythe SCINF-1000 120mm $57.99
Case: COOLER MASTER Centurion 5 CAC-T05-UW Black Aluminum Bezel $44.99
PSU: OCZ GameXStream OCZ600GXSSLI ATX12V 600W $119.99

Total: $2,090.93

Thus, yes you could for a bit over budget. But I think you'd have to make too many offers on the other components. Personally I would get an E6700 (same clock speed) and get DDR2 800 RAM and a larger hard drive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Quad core is great for people who *need* it (or can at least use it). 99% of the population right now has no use for it. There's no reason to buy it just because you can afford it


Like Chozart said, get a 6700 or something for now. You can always upgrade to a quad core later and still use the same motherboard.

Oh, the 8800GTS will likely be >$475, if my one supplier listing it now is any indication.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
An e6600 will do too. Just OC it and you're good to go!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,580 Posts
I agree with the E6600 recommendation. You're really not going to get any more out of the E6700 than you will the E6600 unless you have it under phase or very good water cooling. If you've got the $$$ for the good cooling, then great, if not, you're wasting the extra scratch on the E6700.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
953 Posts
Ya, depending on your chip and how well it OC's, the 6600, 6700, and x6800 will all have about the same performance. My 6600 can hit 3.6ghz+ on air, they're no slouch of a cpu. Along with same amount of cache, they are all 3 about the same cpu except small differences like multiplier and stock speed. Again depending on how well each one OC's you could have the same performance. You'll love any of them, I'd get either 6700 or 6600. 6600 is a better bang/buck ratio. 6700 does have a higher multiplier, and of course x6800 is all unlocked up and down, if either of those features really matter to you. OC'ing can often make the higher multies and stock speeds a moot point, so keep that in mind. I may get a 6700 once I sell my 6400 to my cousin, or another 6600, can't decide yet. Good luck with your build.


I completely agree with Chozart on this, buy a 3-500 dollar cpu instead of a thousand dollar one. With the extra money, you can get better ram/mobo/hdd/case, or whatever you want better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by pbasil1
View Post

E6600 is for sure the best bang for buck!

Ah, that's kind of a toughy. Many would argue the 6300/6400's are the best value. From evidence I've seen, a lot of 6400 users actually OC farther than the 6600's. The advantage of the 6600's, of course, is the extra cache - but when you factor in the overclocking point (which is important for anyone here, naturally
) then it seems to point at the 6400 as the best bang for the buck.

In most cases anyway, any CPU over the mid-range quickly starts to trade value for performance. Consider there isn't a huge margin in speed between the 6600/6400 compared to the ~80% price increase.

In the case of the OP, they seem intent on putting together a top end system though, which is why the 6600 or better would be good. It's not the best value per se, but they'd get great performance, while not significantly over spending for 2 extra cores that likely wouldn't be utilized very often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
953 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by tankguys
View Post

Ah, that's kind of a toughy. Many would argue the 6300/6400's are the best value. From evidence I've seen, a lot of 6400 users actually OC farther than the 6600's. The advantage of the 6600's, of course, is the extra cache - but when you factor in the overclocking point (which is important for anyone here, naturally
) then it seems to point at the 6400 as the best bang for the buck.

In most cases anyway, any CPU over the mid-range quickly starts to trade value for performance. Consider there isn't a huge margin in speed between the 6600/6400 compared to the ~80% price increase.

In the case of the OP, they seem intent on putting together a top end system though, which is why the 6600 or better would be good. It's not the best value per se, but they'd get great performance, while not significantly over spending for 2 extra cores that likely wouldn't be utilized very often.

Yes, many would say the 6400 is the best bang for the buck. I kind of agree, cause ya it's great, mine is extemely fast and rivals my 6600.... almost. Fact is though, at the same clock, 6600 is faster for many things. Also, I see the extra cache of 6600 as more futureproof than the 6400. Some will say the extra cache doesn't matter, I disagree.
If it were me, I'd chose a 6600, I think it's worth every penny. I do honestly see the 6400 as a better deal, cause it's so cheap for what it is. But unless you don't have the cash for it, 6600 is a hell of a cpu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
well I'm goin to be buyin parts one by one .. case is done.. next paycheck I will probably buy a psu or something pending on how much money I make.

When you oc the E6400 or any other c2d chip do u notice a big difference at all in performace ? The chip is fast already...
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top