I'd say get a quick dualcore from intel (e8400 or 8500),
a good board from asus or gigabyte (p45 chipset),
a geforce 280 gtx or radeon hd 4870,
4GB ram (in 2*2GB kits),
a GOOD psu, a cheap case some hdds (i'd recommend Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 * [ST3320613AS]) and like a burner or whatever you need (costs close to nothing currently)
you should get that for around 700€
no idea on prices in the US

I would go for that, it's low latency ram too.
And the Samsgung F1 is one of the fastest drive.
If you add a graphics card on that you'll be laughing.

Hd4850/HD4870 if you go nvidia you might have to spend more.

You'll get all that for under your budget. Mine runs crysis on ultra high (with hd4850) more than playable, and that's without overclocking the CPU. And I got 3 highend programs running in the background. Really fast.
That mobo will also come with an easy desktop overclocker which keeps everything simple. though thre are lots of alternatives. Do some reading, but you don't need to spend more than 70 pounds on a mobo.

i would never sacrifice a decent PSU! that should be one of the main QUALITY components.

Corsair 520W HX Series Modular PSU - about 60 quid

I diagree. my hd4850 is running on a 300 watt oem psu, so I doubt that a 500 watt one will be any worse, even if its a cheapy.
It should have enough amps.

I'm not denying a psu is important, and yeah if he's going for the hd4870 or one of the high end nvidias then maybe<< he should look into a better brand, but theres no need to sped that much.

its not just about having enough amps, im not gonna pretend i know the ins and outs of PSU's but its about steady current and a load of other shit.

You're right. Jamerio is a hardware noob. You don't need high wattage, but you DO want a quality PSU.

Agreed

You'll get all that for under your budget. Mine runs crysis on ultra high (with hd4850)


BOLLOCKS

ive got a better rig then that, but the same cpu clocked at 3.3 gig and when i played the demo, i could not run it on ultra high crysis, i dunno whether the final game was tweaked massively but i find that hard to believe and im using the evga 8800 GTX

g80 at sub 1920x1080 resolutions does not perform as well as g92 and up.

Do not get a Core 2 Quad, or any quad core. C2Qs are just too damn hot and overclock like shit.

Get an E8400 or E8500. Look around to see who sells E0 stepping. If you want to save even more cash, the E7200 is a great CPU. No reason to get anything other than that.

RAM is easy, anything cheap 2x1GB C4 with Micron D9s. Lots to choose from. getting Micron D9s might be a little harder to find now though. :( You do not need 4GB. The only benefit (for gaming and everything else) is faster load times, like loading levels. Very useless, get a good 2x1GB kit instead.

For the mobo, a DFI BloodIron is gonna be your cheapest good overclocking board. If you don't care too much, the Gigabyte P35 DS3L is a decent OCer, and costs a little less. Lots of options but those are what I recommend without knowing more of what you want.

For the video card, you can afford GTX 260 if you choose the right parts and the shipping isn't counted in the budget. If it is, it all depends on the deals you can find and whats the cheapest. If all you want to play is UT3 and Q4, a $100-130 8800 GT/9800 GT is good enough. You can step it up an maybe get a 4850 or 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+. That's purely up to you and what kind of performance you want and how much money you have.

Any quality PSU with no more than 500W is good. I recomend the Corsair VX550W, but that depends on what else is on the market and what the prices are now. If you don't care, its a great PSU and will not let you down.

HDD, the Caviar SE16 640GB is one of the fastest, Spinpoint F1s are also close in performance. Look at prices and deals, see which is best for you.

Case, any standard mid tower ATX case will work fine. If you want a little style and some decent cooling, the CM690 is a great case and offers lots of cooling options. Though choosing a case always seems to be more of a preference thing.

DVD drives are really cheap if you want a new one go for it, but I've had the same one for 5 years.

That pretty much covers it, you can also get some aftermarket cooling for your CPU if you're interested in higher overclocks. Though the E8400 is able to hit 3.6GHz on stock cooling no problem.

Stop talking shit.

The q6600 clocks like a dream on air alone and its cheaper. If you have a preference for dual core because all you do with your pc is play games then fine, but don't lie or belive the shit your dual core dweebs feed you. if it were a better CPU, I would have bought it. Its not bad by any stretch, but to dismiss the q6600 like that when its probably the best value/performace CPU released this century is an amazing statement.

Q6600 is more future proof and can be clocked safely to over 3 ghz on its standard cooler/voltage. Just make sure to get the g0 version. SLACR.

"Do not get a Core 2 Quad, or any quad core. C2Qs are just too damn hot and overclock like shit."

Read all the reviews of unhappy customers. Oh wait...

http://overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?pro...amp;tool=3

mine is on for days at an end, 100% load across all cores, runs in the low 60's with a stock cooller and default fan speed.

Hey, I'm not talking any shit. If you want better performance for your money, you want to get a C2D.

What does a Quad really give you more that a Duo can't? Extra core sure, but is it worth it? It might beat it on a few random photoediting benchmarks, but in pretty much everything else (including some file compression) the speed of say an E8400 or E8500 will destroy it. And then the overclocking...

For a Core 2, "over 3 ghz" is not good. Its a good overclock from 2.4. But you're left in the dust by the new C2Ds that effortlessly get over 4GHz.

Since the thread poster isn't from the UK, he might have a harder time getting a G0 stepping.

In the end, its his computer, not yours or mine. its up to him to choose. We are simply stating our opinions and he should know that. No need to get frustrated.

Edit: btw I don't think low 60s is very good. I think with the G0 you don't want to go over 70C.

you were talking shit. Stating an opinion is fine, stating a mis-informed one means you're talking shit.

Secondly pretty much all the available Q6600's are now the right version. First place I looked. The B3 is an old revision. http://www.ebuyer.com/product/131823

SLACR edition.

thirdly here is a CPU chart that ONLY represents gaming, I.e. in favour of E8500.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts...tml?p=1273

I trust you won't argue the Q6600 is a better multi tasker. Unzips, encodes, decodes better. And has far better long term potential because IF and WHEN applications use the extra cores as some are, you and many other dual core owners will be left with a lot of egg on your face, just as those people were in 2005 asking they should invest in Dualcore CPU's and everyone was saying no.

As you can see the e8500 IS returning better scores, but so it should considering its clocked at 3+ ghz vs 2.4 ghz for quad core.
My little 1400 renault 5 gt turbo went past a lotus elise at 130.?Why cos I wound the boost up, and let the car perfrom at its full potential. POTETIAL is the operative word.

The difference in speed between the q6600 and E8500 at the same clock speed is not even worth talking about considering they're priced similar and you can SAFELY overclock the q6600 through the desktop to 3ghz.

If you run the test, I guarantee you both chips would be almost identical. Except one would multi-task better, be 30 dollars cheaper ans have better long term potetnial. So its a no brainer really.

Lastly, clocking the E8500 to 4 ghz is stupid, that is NOT what most people are going to do and is pretty much irrelevant, but there are also plenty of people running the q6600 at such a speed.

the q6600 will clock nicely at 3.4 GHZ. I would not advise ANYONE to go beyond that and given the Q6600 can hold that clock easily I find it amazing, for the reasons I have pointed out that you would dismiss the q6600 like that.

When it is IN FACT, the best all round chip in the real world.

you run both those chips at 3.4 ghz, and when you realise you're paying 30 dollars more, for a chip that might have immeasurable performance gains in games, at the expense of costing 30 dollars more, having no future support, and not being able to multitask like the q6600 then it will become painfully clear what I am saying.

you can keep your 1 % gain, I'll take my 30 dollars, save time on the multicore apps, AND look forward to at least some games in 2009 being able to use the full potential. Especially considering a q6600 is more than powerful enoug to enjoy most games now anyway.

I didn't realize I could talk shit about a processor. You must be a fanboy. Obviously. I shouldn't even bother replying to you, but you seem to be asking for it. Starting an argument and everything.

The first place you looked? As i stated before, he is American. Get that through your thick skull.

Then you link me to a retarded Tom's hardware chart, which anyone smart knows those are completely retarded.

Then you assume that a quad cores will perform better in multi threaded apps. This is another failure on your part. Surly one would prefer to have good speeds when needed, like in gaming when it matters, instead of encoding when you're only loosing a few minutes for a 1GB file. In some apps the E8400 and E8500 actually beat it cause they're so damn fast. And that's at stock seeds.

Now you pretend to compare them clock to clock. You make me laugh. Why does an E8400 beat an E6850 at everything? They're both clocked at 3GHz in case you didn't know. it must be because of magic. Maybe you should ask the people at Tom's hardware.

How exactly do you define multi-tasking? I'm not quite sure I get it. Is it running those monster hog program like AIM and Live Messenger at once?! Is it something insane like wathing a youtube video and decompressing files?! That must make it go so much faster.


Lmao, then you say there's plenty of people running a Q6600 at 4GHz? On air I bet. They probably run Crysis at "Ultra High" too.

Also why is running an E8500 at 4GHz stupid? Cause you can't do it? Cause you're trying to win an argument by saying stupid shit? Please enlighten me.

You obviously don't know very much about overclocking if you're telling people to not surpass 3.4GHz. Is there a magical barrier that will greatly diminish its life? Because all CPUs are built identically right?

Shit you just declared the Q6600 to be "the best all round chip in the real world." That's hardcore. Lets all be a 2.4GHz chip guys. Jump on the fanboy bandwagon. "Q6600 for life" T-shirts available as well.

No future support? You mean Windows 7 will not run on it? Or do you mean the Q6600 will magically become faster? Do you mean that a Q9500 is slower? I don't know what to think... Oh wait, yes I do. You're a complete retard. Stop pulling shit out of your ass.

"1% gain" Again with the made up numbers. Please you're accusing me of "stating a mis-informed opinion", and you do it yourself. You're being a hypocrite.

Also did you fail 1st grade math? The E8400 is $10 CHEAPER than the Q6600, and the E8500 is only $10 more on newegg. Once again you prove to be a knowledgeable being.

Have fun with your bottlenecks, and you overheating CPU with the wait for it... Intel stock HSF. Lmfao.

Actually know what you're talking about, then get back to me. And stop being so fucking biased because you have a Q6600.

FUCK YOU JAMERIO YEAH!!

My Q6600 is running at 3.6 on air just fine.

I was stuck between E8400 and Q6600 and I picked the quad core.

Sure, for some things the dual core will perform better, but in other areas the quad core will perform better.

My Q6600 OC'd to same clock speeds as an E8400 performs the same when I tested in games. Sure the E8400 can OC further but when I'm timedemoing at 400fps, who gives a shit. I only really need 125.

"My Q6600 OC'd to same clock speeds as an E8400 performs the same when I tested in games."

So, you tested both CPUs with the same system? If they where both at 3GHz, the E8400 would beat the Q6600 in Q4 and UT3. Its not the same damn chip, its a different architecture, why would you expect the same performance.


"Sure the E8400 can OC further but when I'm timedemoing at 400fps, who gives a shit. I only really need 125."

Rofl skates. Is that your argument on why getting a Q6600 is better? Cause you can get 400FPS in a timedemo?


Also do you mind showing me your CPU-Z validating of your OC with your alias? Shouldn't be a hassle. I'm not saying its not possible, I'd just like to see if you're making shit up to try and win an argument.

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=428954 - Excuse the ram, its on stock voltage at the moment.

And I guess I was being a bit of a moran, but also thought you were hating on the Q6600 too much. You are probably right though, for now E8400 is the better chip if your main focus is playing the latest games (personally I don't understand why, ain't anything worth playing).

a 25% (3000mhz) OC should be possible for anyone with a Q6600 (hell at that fsb I get idle temps of low/mid 20's!) and personally I think that's sodding powerful with the benefits of more cores for when more applications and games utilize them properly.

I guess what I'm trying to say is both have their merits, and it comes down to the individual, how long they will wait until they next upgrade, etc.

for the average gamer i'd say a c2d e8400 or 8500 is better
i have a c2q q6600 because its awesome but i'd advise a quicker dualcore to anyone else
i wouldn't want to switch back to dualcore - for cinema 4d and the likes the quadcore is just superior
BUT
there's no games out there to support multicore at all (and if so more like in 2 threads rather than 4 or more) - therefor a quicker dualcore is the way to go for the mainstream gamers
and those CPUs do overclock quite nicely to around 4GHz
my q6600 is running 3.00GHz at less than stock Vcore (1.15V instead of iirc 1.25) and goes up to low 60s °C after a couple of hours at 100% on all cores (rendering)
i don't see any big benefit in quadcores beside rendering, benchmarking (which is pointless anyway) or vpenis enlargement shit such as seti@home etc (which is pointless aswell)

1) There will begames.

2) If you overclock the q660 to 3 ghz, go do a benchmark then come and tell me the differene in scores.

When you realise its neck ans neck ans you've spent an extra 30 dollars on a CPU, which has NO longterm goodies like support Quad Core games (WHICH ARE 1000%) being written and you give away all the multi thread stuff (I use my quad cores for rendering mostly) oh and the fact that the quad core is already good enough to play games at great speed on anything but stupid resolutions you will se the choice comes down to opinion.

And I was not attacking his opinion, i was just pointing out that there are tons of people runnin those q6600's at 3.4 on stock cooller and have been for over a year with no problem.

I stil lsay even if you're agamer the q6600 is the best to have.
It just has more potetial to grow with you. And in 2009 when there is stuff coming out for quadcore, I will be going back to posts like these and bumping them a mother fucker:)

And I aint biased either I have an nvidia flag, but if someone asked me what is the best card to get at the moment for general gaming I would struggle to say anything but a Hd4850.

by the time games are REALLY using all the benefits of more cores the q6600 will be outdated anyway - and overclocking isn't the way to go for the mainstream guys

like i said: its an individual thing
some (like me with rendering) are able to use the more cores but most people just aren't

the difference in rendering for example is tremendous because it really cuts the time in half - if something takes 60 hours to render on a e6600 it'll take only like 30 on a q6600 (both at the same stock speed of 2.40GHz)

im strongly backing you on this point

you talking shit the core2quads are one of the best cpus i have seen for price and performance!

I am f0cus and I approve this message.

[+]

the only advice i will give you is dont listen to jamerio or sudsta.

replicant. I build gaming pc's for enthusiasts and budget gamers all the time. it's my secondary income. i will show you exactly what I'd use if you tell me an exact budget that you're hoping to spend. It'd be easier if you converted to $ for me though. ;)

I build computers and program adtrans and dslams, international exchange rates aren't my bag, baby.

Actually, clownfart is right, though I'd have simply suggested an 8800gt in the first place, based on an assumed budget.

im just curious, but how do you come across this building business? do you have a 'company' for it, or is it just word of mouth etc?

Yet another thread where Jamerio cries about his quad core. Fuck off you moronic cunt.

It's better for what he does, you're the one bawwing here.

well I guess it's a damn shame that the title of the thread specifies that it's to be a gaming pc.
If that weren't the title of the thread and the obvious intent of the OP then you might have a point.

considering my athlon 3000 could nearly achieve stable fps in Q4, i doubt he'll notice the difference between a q6600 and an e8400 ;_; - think he should consider more what he wants from his PC that isn't gaming related since it doesn't sound like he is playing any highend games

In germany we have a magazine called "PC Games Hardware",
if I would to invest some money into a new computer, I'd buy it.
they have also performance tables and prices on various hardware that is currently on the market, they have also tips for a budget system, I recently read it in a mall, they have a budget system for 900 Euro ... I'd buy something like that in your country.
They are still professionals testing the hardware, doing nothing all day then testing hardware, so they know there stuff,
unlike various posters in the net.

€ =/= $

900.00 EUR = 1,150.15 USD


900.00 USD = 704.188 EUR

:D