New rig time...

[Groove]

If you want the fastest CPU which is out there, the Intel EE is your first choice, that's for sure. DCS Games are more CPU limited that Vidcard limited. So basically going for the fastest CPU out there is the best option (if you dont mind the price).

[Kuky]

That's a rather silly and uninformed statement. Is between 50 and 100+ fps not good?

 

please post FRAPS benchmark to show how your framerate is between 50-100fps... post a track you've bench marked with and I will do the same then we can compare... I really dislike when people start talking how they have everything to max and they get superior framerates... just gives misinformation to others

[PoleCat]

In my opinion buy Intel not AMD. At this time I would not even consider AMD. Go with i7 in the 1156 socket (Asus P7P55D line is nice. I went with the Pro). Get the Lynnfield 860 or 870, 4GB of fast DDR3 1600 or 2000 memory. Any GTX-275 or above (or ATI equiv). Full specs on my purchase here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=764381#post764381

Alienware builds great systems but they are over the top in price and fluffed configurations.

 

This recipe will put you in the latest technology P55E chipset so there may be some small teething issues. But this selection for me is about a fast gaming rig with the latest technology and a little future padding built in. Consider the value and performance for the money spent. The P7P55D has DDR3-2200 support, RAID, SLI and Crossfire support, the new 1156 socket, high quality parts and the potential for outstanding over clocking for short money (At least as is compared to a proprietary machine).

 

My current P5Q-Pro and C2D E8600 OC to 4.0Ghz gets me 60FPS in Black shark at 1920x1200 8x AA and AF most all the time. All graphics high except visb rng low. I really think even this rig will be hard to beat and it can be had for even less than my original recommendation. I purchased nothing between the C2D I have now and the new rig I mentioned above and I am still convinced there was no need to.

 

If you want the latest technology, a really fast computer, a little longevity and value for the money my choices here are a result of a couple of days of hard research on the subject.

 

There is a lot of good advice in this thread so far. I would read it well, research yourself, read some reviews and user experiences and you will be rewarded with a great system.

 

Best of luck Matt! I hope you end up with a kick ass gaming rig.:prop:

 

Out

Edited October 12, 2009 by PoleCat

[Wags]

I'm leaning towards taking the plunge and building my own system...

 

Open to suggestions about components from all.

[Wags]

Here's what's on order:

 

• Antec Twelve Hundred ATX 12 Drive Bays 2xUSB 2.0 eSATA Audio Full Tower Case

• Corsair CMPSU-850HX 850-Watt HX Professional Series 80 Plus Certified Power Supply compatible with Core i7 and Core i5

• Asus P6T Core i7 / Intel X58/ DDR3/ CrossFireX & SLI/ A&GbE/ ATX Motherboard

• Intel Core i7 975 Extreme Quad-Core 3.33 GHz Desktop Processor

• Cooler Master V8 Nickel Plated Copper Base Aluminum Fins 8 Heatpipes Core i7 1366 CPU Cooler - (RR-UV8-XBU1-GP)

• Corsair CMG6GX3M3A2000C8 6 GB Dominator GT PC3-16000 2000Mhz 240-pin Triple Channel DDR3 Memory Kit

• Intel X25M 160GB Mainstream Solid State Drive SSDSA2MH160G2C1

• Western Digital Caviar Black 1 TB Bulk/OEM Hard Drive 3.5 Inch, 32 MB Cache, 7200 RPM SATA II WD1001FALS

• BFG NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 1792 MB GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Card

• Creative Labs SB0880 PCI Express Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Sound Card

• Pioneer DVD/CD Writer, DVR2910B, 20x20

Edited October 12, 2009 by Wags

[Kuky]

Very good PSU... I got Corsair not long ago. To me honestly the i7 920 is better choice as it's lot cheaper compared to 975 and if 975 can be o/c to 4GHz (but I doubt it, not on air at least and not for it to be stable for 24/7 overclock) the little extra overclock is not worth the extra cost. To get higher overclock you'd need to go water cooling as I don't think fan wold cut it.

 

I don't really like the case.. I like simple very straight forward without anything flashy looking... but of good quality and with lot of space... the long video cards like HD4870x2 can be problem to put in in cramped cases (I got Antec P190 case) but case is more of a taste issue I guess :)

 

I'd just change video card to HD5870 and you're looking good... lot cheaper then Alienware $4K

Edited October 11, 2009 by Kuky

[Wags]

Case suggestions?

 

I also changed PSU to:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Corsair-CMPSU-750TX-750-Watt-Certified-compatible/dp/B000X2677A/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1255289696&sr=1-4

 

Yes... this is first time I have attempted to build a system.

[Kuky]

hm... more like this PSU:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Corsair-CMPSU-850HX-Professional-Certified-compatible/dp/B0029F21LA/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1255291963&sr=1-11

 

Those professional series are better, this 850W is fully modular and compared to rest of same power rating it's size is bit smaller, and if there's one thing I've learned over time is not to skimp on the PSU and also it is single 12V rail (better then mutiple 12V rails as if one gets overloaded it leads to instability)

 

anyway, more will chip in surely, I need to go to bed now, I've been up all night :)

Edited October 11, 2009 by Kuky

[Feuerfalke]

Sounds a lot more reasonable, IMHO.

 

Great selection. The Antec Nine Hundred is a nice case, I considered getting one of those myself.

 

P6T is also nice - especially for overclocking ;) - in the Antec-Case, it should have enough airflow to cool down the passive coolers!

 

The CPU-cooler is okay. This is a German benchmark, but the results are international :D

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/gehaeuse_kuehlung/2009/test_prolimatech_megahalems_cpu-kuehler/4/

 

When moving the mouse over the names of the coolers, you get the values calculated in percent relative to the one under the mousecursor ;)

 

A 1000W PSU is pure overkill, though.

Check out this link: http://www.antec.outervision.com/PSUEngine

I roughly entered the data for the best rig possible (i7 975) + 6 fans 120mm

 

Sums up to a total of 575w needed - and I even overclocked it and set all cores to 100% usage all the time (which is really pure theory). But you know your periphery and other used components better than I so, so you should play a bit with the calculator. ;)

 

Even with 2x 295 you would end up below 800w. :D

 

 

And I personally wouldn't go for a professional edition (again...) - Home Premium has all you'll ever need.

[Kuky]

PSU are at about best efficiency at some 1/2 to 2/3 load. But also as you load the power the voltages start to drop and about 1/2 the max load is where normally it gets to average (rated) levels... meaning 12V is actually at about 12V etc... if you calculate your system might use 400W you should be looking at 750-800W PSU. And don't forget PSU are normally about 80% efficient so if you load 400W on it it will draw about 500W from the wall.

 

Oh and if you overclock the power cleaness is even more important as signals going to CPU and other components are more sensitive to voltage variations.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Kuky

[Feuerfalke]

PSU are at about best efficiency at some 1/2 to 2/3 load. But also as you load the power the voltages start to drop and about 1/2 the max load is where normally it gets to average (rated) levels... meaning 12V is actually at about 12V etc... if you calculate your system might use 400W you should be looking at 750-800W PSU. And don't forget PSU are normally about 80% efficient so if you load 400W on it it will draw about 500W from the wall.

 

Oh and if you overclock the power cleaness is even more important as signals going to CPU and other components are more sensitive to voltage variations.

 

That depends a lot on efficiency, quality of the PSU and capacitators and connections, though. The voltage is therefore calculated by worst case.

I'm running my rig with a 500w-PSU (475 output), I have my graphics card and CPU overclocked, 2 HDDs, 2 burners + 6 fans and never had a problem related to low power ;)

 

Of course with this rule of thumb, you're on the save side, especially on the longer run, when capacitators lose efficiency.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[Kuky]

says in your sig you have 650W PSU?

 

Anyway, it's not like its not gonna run on 650W PSU, it sure will...

Edited October 11, 2009 by Kuky

[Feuerfalke]

says in your sig you have 650W PSU?

 

Anyway, it's not like its not gonna run on 650W PSU, it sure will...

 

The smaller PSU is from my second PC and installed for testing. As my current gfx-card values it's not in the sig, because I don't know if I will keep either. ;)

[S77th-konkussion]

Wags- If you want a $4k computer- you know where to get one that's actually worth it. Just don't buy Alienware with it.

 

I don't know if Alienware was EVER anything more than really dumb looking cases-- but being owned by DULL is a 100% guarantee that every corner has been cut, every shortcut taken, and every penny pinched out of that machine.

 

One quick example- DULL has proprietary cases, that typically house ultra cheap and specially-made-for-DULL components. Making simple upgrades can quickly become a huge chore, because not everything is as universal as you expect it to be. Many moons ago- I tried to replace my tired radeon 9800 with a "smokin hot" :smilewink: X800 XT Platinum. When the X800 sucked eggs- I discovered that a DULL tech lied to me about having a 400 watt- in fact I had a GROSSLY inadequate 250w no name crap PSU from Taiwan. Got a suitable 400w, but when I went to install it- I found that the case featured a unique PSU opening that did not account for the switch on the new PSU. (the old one had no switch!) Ended up having to take apart the PSU, remove the switch, splice the wires together- all so it could fit the stupid case that dell saved themselves 50 cents on.

Edited October 12, 2009 by S77th-konkussion

[Wags]

Have already ordered the parts to make my own rig ;) Total cost less than 2.8k.

[S77th-konkussion]

Hee hee damn.. well I needed the typing practice. Nice work- and good luck.

[Feuerfalke]

Have already ordered the parts to make my own rig ;) Total cost less than 2.8k.

 

Cool :)

 

I'd love to see some BlackShark-benchmarks of your new rig. ;)

[jctrnacty]

Hi Wags, i am building new computer too. Best bang for bucks is:

 

case: Coolermaster higher class or any kind of your taste

 

motherboard: MSI P55-GD80 - Intel P55 i always had asus but this is hell of a motherboard-very quality piece

 

CPU: Intel Core i7-860 it easy to overclock to 3.8 GHz on air just buy a good cooler

 

CPU cooler:Noctua NH-U12P SE2 anything from noctua and you cant miss- best coolers but expensive

 

RAm : any DDR3 6-8 Gb on 1600Mhz

 

grafic card:i always had nvidia, but i tried ati 4870 and must say i liked it more than nvidia, the best choice is ATi 5870 , nvidia will get new card in q1 2010 if everything goes well

 

psu :Enermax PRO82+ 525W cable managment , enough for this set to power, very silent PSU

 

TV card: if you watch TV and work with mediacenter Leadtek WinFast PXDVR3200 Hybrid, PCIe x1 best card for TV but this is for europe not sure if it works in US

 

sound card: auzentech, asus or x-fi best choice - care about drivers, pcie version

 

OS: of course Win7 64x - best os yet

[AussieFX]

please post FRAPS benchmark to show how your framerate is between 50-100fps... post a track you've bench marked with and I will do the same then we can compare... I really dislike when people start talking how they have everything to max and they get superior framerates... just gives misinformation to others

I don't know how to post a track but I will give it a go. The FPS are in the top left corner using the inbuilt system.

 

Do you seriously think that a processor that is fundamentally the same as what powers the worlds fastest supercomputers can't run flight simulation games?

I don't care what you want to buy but do not start spreading FUD and outright untruths that AMD processors cannot play games/flight sims.

 

Have you ever tried running one of these processors or are you just guessing?

 

BTW I don't appreciate you insinuating I'm a liar.

Don't bother posting your track because I actually believe and trust you if you say you're getting playable framerates.

 

You know some people can't afford $1500 processors/systems and by you spreading this kind of FUD hurts BlackShark sales because they then believe their system isn't up to it, so they go and buy another game or worse go and buy a console.

 

@ everyone else the flight controller I'm using is a Logitech G940 that hasn't been setup so the wild pitching you see is what happens when you take your hand off the stick. There is a light sensor there that needs to be covered. Otherwise it's a great stick and walks all over my old MSFFB2.

Sorry for taking this off topic.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=32202&stc=1&d=1255344261

proof.trk

Edited October 12, 2009 by AussieFX

[Kuky]

I didn't say a liar, there's a difference between a liar and someone who simply doesn't know what they are saying, or better said, they believe in what they are saying. Saying 50-100fps without proper testing is a guess only and normally not the right one. Fact is Intel CPU (current) are faster to what AMD has to offer. To day AMD CPU's cannot run a flight sim is not right as they will, matter is with lower framerate... and talking about supercomputers... well super computers are nothing like desktop PC and they don't run on 1-2 CPU :)

 

To do this benchmark on the track properly we need to be on the same page (settings). This means no mods of any kind.. fresh install of BackShark and we run exact same default settings and resolution, AA and AF...

 

You can download FRAPS, its free.. and benchmark with that.. I will do one tomorrow... if I don't forget.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Kuky

[EtherealN]

Do you seriously think that a processor that is fundamentally the same as what powers the worlds fastest supercomputers can't run flight simulation games?

 

Come on. He didn't say they "can't run flight simulation games". Don't go hyperboling his argument. His argument was that they're "not good". That means exactly what it says: they are not good. Not that they are "incapable".

 

As for world's fastest supercomputers, it should be noted that supercomputing just doesn't compare. Supercomputers work in a very different way than your own system even if they use the same processors. F.ex, the current leader, Roadrunner, has 129000 cores. And it should be noted that it runs on two types of cores - Opteron (AMD) and Cell (IBM). It has 6562 chips of the former, 12240 of the latter. #2 (the Jaguar) uses Opterons and #3 (Jugene) runs on PowerPC.

 

But what does all that mean? That those processors happened to be seen as good for the computations that were expected to be run on those machines and/or that they were easier to scale up in processor count. It has absolutely nothing to do with home PC performance. For example, it is common to run the processors in supercomputers at lower clock speeds than you would your home computer.

 

Also, the one big variable that they care about when designing supercomputers isn't actually "how powerful is this processor?" It is "how many FLOP do I get per watt?" The electricity bills of those machines are atrocious and through their lifespan will typically exceed the acquisition cost by a good margin.

 

You don't select home systems based on their impact on your electricity bill, however.

 

BTW I don't appreciate you insinuating I'm a liar.

 

Now I can't speak for him, but a good thing generally on the internet is to always assume benevolence. Tone doesn't translate to text and I don't think there is any reason to think that he is saying that you are a liar. I just think he's saying that your information is erroneous and based on incomplete data.

 

Should note though that your TRK file will not prove anything, since it will not inform us of which FPS you had. Your TRK file will be run by the simulation engine on the person that runs it. What is needed is an application that records the FPS as you run the TRK, which FRAPS can do and then output in office format. I can see about running yours on my vastly inferior system as a comparison. :)

 

EDIT: Bah, Kuky was online and posted while I was typing. Grr! I'm still open to running the test on my machine as a comparison though. Would be an interesting dataset to assemble if more people ran it as well.

Edited October 12, 2009 by EtherealN

[Wags]

Added today:

 

Intel X25M 160GB Mainstream Solid State Drive SSDSA2MH160G2C1

[diveplane]

Added today:

 

Intel X25M 160GB Mainstream Solid State Drive SSDSA2MH160G2C1

 

wow 700 notes for a drive .. you win the lotto matt?

[Wags]

more like 400

 

Total cost of rig is about $3.2k. Not bad.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Wags

[Pilotasso]

Felt the temptation do get SSD too, but their too small and too expensive just yet to justify an upgrade.