Help on a build...?

So if you might have read some of my other posts you heard my pc is about 4 years old... and it's not gonna be kicking for long. I've been looking into upgrades but I have such a low level processor that it would be easier in the long run to just build a new computer. I've been looking around on Tigerdirect and came up with this as a new build:

CoolerMaster CM690 ATX Mid-Tower Case

ASUS M4A78T-E Motherboard - AMD 790GX, AM3 128MB DDR2 Side-Port, ATI Hybrid, CrossFire, PCIe 2.0, DDR3 Memory USB2.0, RAID, HDMI/DVI

AMD Phenom II X3 710 Triple Core Processor HDX710WFGIBOX - 2.60GHz, 6MB Cache, 2000MHz (4000 MT/s) FSB, Deneb, Retail, Socket AM3

OCZ Reaper 4096MB PC10666 DDR3 1333MHz Memory (2x2048MB) (What does the PC10666 mean?)

2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TB Hard Drive - 7200RPM, 32MB, SATA-300, OEM (Planning using RAID 0 is this okay?)

I'm not sure about how much power all that will need so I was thinking this:

Cooler Master eXtreme Power Plus 550-Watt ATX Power Supply (just to be on the safe side but is it too much?)

I'm also planning on running Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit

I'm trying to stay relatively cheap (atleast under 1000) so is $830.00 a pretty good price for what I'm getting?

Any Comments or Constructive Criticism?

 

You asked if using RAID-0 was ok. What are your reasons for selecting it? RAID-0 has NO recovery capability, in that, if you lose 1 drive you lose ALL your data.

 

I don't know... If you set up raid can you use different hdd's or do they all have to be the same?

 

If using RAID-0 they should be exactly the same because you are trying to MAXIMIZE performance but sacrificing redundancy. Lose a drive and all data is lost.

RAID-1 (mirroring) gives you the most overhead in drive space, because two drives "act" as one but if you lose a drive you lose no data. Not suggested to be of different sizes. They can be of different sizes BUT the total drive space will be that of the smallest drive of the pair.

RAID-5 you need a minimum of three drives but can have more. Not suggested to be of different sizes. Can have many more drives. The overhead cost is the size of one drive. So, three drives of 80GB each will yield 160GB of useable space. 5 drives of 80GB each will yield 320GB of useable space. You can lose any one of the drives in a RAID-5 and no data is lost.

 

some of the western digital black version drives are very fast., might check them out.rolleyes

 

True I was looking at that but I also read into WD and I heard they don't last very long due to reasons at the factory. I was also looking into SSD but I'm not sure if those would fit in the regular drive bays and everything. Let alone how to set one up. Also they are very very pricey. I'm trying to keep this build less than $850. Another thing I could do is instead of the two Terabyte HDD I could get 3x 320 Gb ones for just $10 more that would be a more efficient RAID setup as well.

 

I have used four or five WD hard drives recently and none of them have failed yet, even when one computer was hit by a power surge and the only component that came out of it undamaged was the HDD. Now, seagate I would avoid like the plague. I have had endless trouble with Seagate drives.

 

i have used many western digital drives,,and they have been very dependable. right now i have 3 blacks,,,one in the notebook,,,2 in desktops,,,,speedy and no problems....i also have 2 seagates,,,they seem to work nicely too... ssd would be the way to go if you have the $.

 

5 year warranty on the WD black drives.

 

That will just be like a code they use to identify it my Kingston Hyper X 1066MHz DDR2 has KHX8500D2/1G.

Excluding the CPU you have the makings of a very powerful machine but you haven't got a GPU, are you not going to use it for gaming? Actually what will you be using it for? Because you may be getting a way over powered PC for you're needs.

:major2-Bit-Geek:major

 

Thank you all on the Advice for the WD Caviar Black Drives. They do seem pretty darn fast! I'm prolly going to go with 2 or 3 of the 640GB ones.

Also 2-Bit what did you mean by excluding my CPU? also the Mobo has a very good internal GPU already so I'm not really looking for one at the moment. I'm not exactly a oc gamer as much as I am for my xbox. I like to watch movies and listen to music and stuff. I just really want it to do everything basically... and do it fast. =]

 

2-bit meant that eveything in your system apart from the CPU and the GPU is powerful.

 

No I understand that just how is that CPU not powerful? Honestly it's about 5 times better then the one I have now seeing as I'm running a Sempron 3100+ 1.8GHz AMD processor lol.

 

The Tri cores from AMD are known to be quite bad performance-wise in comparison with a similar-speed dual core.

 

If you really want basic usage to be faster & relatively cheap you can ditch the performance RAM for a start, I have Kingston Hyper X DDR2 1066MHz in dual channel & they are no faster than the 667MHz cheapo stuff I used to have except while gaming.

I'd also not bother with RAID if you just want a fast PC get a good HDD like a WD 10K drive, or maybe just a 7,200RPM drive that is SATA II & has 32MB Cache. CPU wise I'd go for an AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ or 6400+ 3.0-3.2GHz is more than enough speed for you're needs, you might want to get a better ISP if you have slow internet, even the fastest performance PC on the planet will have crap web surfing if you have a crappy ISP.

Overpowering you're PC is as bad as underpowering it because it ends up costing more than it needs to.

:major2-Bit-Geek:major

 

Well I have a few games that I would like to play on the PC including:

Warhammmer 40K DOW 2
Spore
Half Life 2

Would I be able to play these with lower level equipment you are recommending?

Also thanks for the info on the Tri-Core. Any special reason why they perform worse than a dual or quad core?

Also about the RAM. The Mobo only supprts DDR3 and it isn't Tri- or Dual-Channel so that was one of the cheaper chipsets I could find

 

As for Half Life 2 I used to play that with an 8600GT 512MB so no problems there, Spore only requires a 2.0GHz P4 so a dual core should be fine also the 8600GT will have no trouble. As for Warhammer 40K DOW 2:

Minimum Requirements
* Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
* P4 3.2 GHz (single core) or any Dual Core processor
* 1 GB RAM (XP), 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
* A 128MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 6600 GT / ATI X1600, or equivalent
* 5.5 GB of Hard Drive space

Recommended
* Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
* AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or any Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2 GB RAM (XP and Vista)
* A 256MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900, or equivalent
* 5.5 GB of Hard Drive space

Easy for the computer I'm proposing. As for the mobo I'd get one with DDR2 RAM, you won't need DDR3 RAM with that setup if it's even compatible but I'm afraid I don't know which Nvidia chipset is the newest so I cannot advise on a mobo that is suitable :confused Maybe someone else can help you with that.

The reason Tri cores suck because per core a 2.4GHz X3 is slower than a 2.4GHz X2 or X4 Phenom. Oh yeah you should be looking at dual channel RAM so 2 X 1GB sticks of 667MHz or 800MHz DRR2, or if you want 3 GB in dual channel you need to 2 X 512MB & 2 X 1GB. You need to make sure for dual channel RAM you must get the same brand & size RAM like Kingston Hyper X, OCZ or Corsair.

I am all over today LOL

If you can make sense of all that you will have exactly what you need for you're needs.

:major2-Bit-Geek:major

 

would love to help you but your against what i would suggest(intel and Nvidia cards) but i can deff say that 550w on a PSU to me seems a little weak, id get a 650w mininium. epcially with graphic cards becomming more and more power hungry these days. best to be on the safe side and thinking about the future

 

As someone recently said to me, what is the point of brand loyalty these days? Just go for the best recognised big-brand name for your situation and ditch the loyalty. ATI and AMD really aren't going to send you a Christmas card or anything.:-D:cool

 

Personal prefference, my friend has a AMD CPU and a ATI gfx card, i got a intel and a geforce, and i just see more performance from mine than his.

 

I'd agree, but with my requirements & budget AMD suit the job. But as for ATI I noticed a large difference in performance between my 9800GTX & my new 4870 1GB plus ATI are far better priced.

I got my card this year "Many thanks for buying an ATI 4800 Series graphics card as this helped save AMD from financial trouble" LOL

@ Borsung, The Wattage of a PSU is not the most important thing regarding the GPU, what you need is a good brand name PSU with good 12V rails. Wattage is 2nd after those.

:major2-Bit-Geek:major

 

Good point in the PSU, didnt really think about that to much, but you are correct.

But i still perfer Intel and Nvidia as i have never had any problems with them in 10yrs and have been satisfied. espcially with my new build, core i7 rocks my world i love this thing.

 

I must admit I was far more impressed with dual core AMD's I had the 4400+ 2.4GHz & 6000+ 3.0GHz compared to my new Phenom 9750 2.4GHz Quad. I can't wait to get rid of it LOL

I will try a Phenom II 940 3.0GHz or the new 955 3.2GHz & if that disappoints I am jumping ship to overpriced Intel :-D

But as for ATI I am much more impressed with price & performance, I was always a nvidia fan right back from the GeForce 4 MX 440 cheapo LOL

:major2-Bit-Geek:major

 

SSDs come in either 2.5" or 3.5" and connect up in the same way as a normal SATA drive. No special software is needed.

If you are thinking about SSDs, then read this review: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-performance-power,review-31565.html

But they are still very expensive for what they are.

 

Clint999 why did you re-post my original post?