Need second opinion

[Bob The Mercenary]

Recently finished the first PC I've ever built and I just wanted to make sure I didn't make any blunders in the process. Here are the specs:

AMD Phenom 2 X4 975 3.6GHz
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550ti
40GB SSD for the OS
1TB 7200rpm for storage
MSI 870A-G54 motherboard
4GB of RAM to start, might upgrade to 8
Blu-Ray writer

My big question is the fan configuration. I went budget on the case, it's a mid-ATX by PowerSpec. It came with one intake fan on the lower front side, one rear exhaust, and two spots on the left side for additional fans. There I added a 120mm and 80mm set to intake because I've heard any side fans should be intakes and not exhausts. Any case modding to the lid is pretty much out of the question because there is just no space between the PSU and blu-ray for a fan.

I also added a hard drive blower that exhausts air out the front and upwards. I tried a PCI fan for some extra exhaust, but it was interfering with the air flow through the graphics card so I removed it. I'm just wondering if there is anything I could do better to increase cooling. Right now the CPU stays between 28.5C and 30C when idle, about 35-40C when Oregon Trail is running. I hit it with Prime95 and got it to 65C before I stopped it because I heard the max temp for my particular CPU is 60C.

I'm definitely going to swap out the stock heat sink, but I can't decide between one of those dual 120mm performance heat sinks or liquid cooling. I'm leaning towards the fans because I like the idea of air over the entire chipset.

Another question is, did I select the best components for my money? My limit was $200 on the CPU and $250 on the graphics card. I've heard a lot of "meh" reviews of both, though there are youtube videos of the 550ti running Crysis 2 like a champ.

Also, I'd like to break into overclocking by revving my processor up a bit, but how much is recommended? I'd really like to go for 4GHz, but not sure if there would be enough difference in performance to bother.

[synkr0nized]

Why would you bother OC'ing a 3.6GHz quad-core processor, especially if you're just aiming for a 400 MHz increase per core? That's not going to net you much of anything aside from the need to futz with voltage and keep the processor cooler.

Side fans can be either, though making them intakes brings cooler air in over your stuff, as the mounts for them usually place them over the CPU and video cards. Really it depends on how you want the air to flow through your case so you can get as close to an optimal flow -- you don't want to have intake fans fighting one another, so to say, such that the warm air is just being blown around.

If you're idling at ~30 and hitting 40 when playing something, your airflow is fine. Liquid cooling would bring it down a lot, for sure, but it's rather unnecessary. My six-core AMD idles around 32-38 with only three fans on the case (front intake, top exhaust, and back exhaust) and the stock AMD heatsink+fan. But that machine wasn't built to be as good for temperatures like you are aiming for, so it's good that you're below it.

But to be fair that's my Linux box. My main rig is a Sandy Bridge quad-core i7, but its case has two front intakes, one huge top exhaust, and a back exhaust with an aftermarket cooler. I am getting 40 tops playing WoW right now, and it usually sits somewhere around 27-30 unless the room itself is hot (as it often can get with these 90+ degree days -- oops yeah switched to Fahrenheit for that comment).

I've often read that people sit around at ~40 idle and 50-55 on load with their high-end rigs, and I've always thought that was a tad high. You're not up there. I also assume pre-builts are similarly hot.

The only thing I'd wager you "need" is to just get some kind of CPU heatsink assembly you will be comfortable with. The stock'll work -- AMD has a much better rep for theirs than Intel -- but it's pretty great that for 20-50 dollars you can get a separate heatsink+fan assembly and knock some degrees off all of your temperatures. I recommend ones that have plenty of fins that come off copper pipes, as they do a great job of pulling heat away. Oh and make sure you have room -- they can be quite large and don't fit in some cases.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I'll go with that then.

I still want to see how fast I can get it without having to mess with the voltage though. If not for anything but the ability to say I have a 4GHz quad core.

What about my part selection? They're all still inside return policy if anything.

At first I was looking at an i7 because I'd heard about the hyperthreading tech it uses being better than AMD's line. But turboboost only gets it to 3.8 and the chip was almost $100 more for a comparable speed.

[synkr0nized]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

What about my part selection? They're all still inside return policy if anything.

Just giving it a glance and not looking up reviews, seems fine to me. It'll all go together, and the components you've listed will perform.

Moving to 8 GB of RAM is a good idea -- not that 4 isn't enough -- and an easy upgrade for any time (just make sure it's RAM that's the same speeds).

Personally I'd worry about being limited to 40GB on the OS drive. I didn't go with SSD myself, because I wanted more room. So I got a 300 GB, 10k RPM HDD so I had room for the OS and all my games on a faster drive****. However, you can always add another disk, be it solid state or a traditional platter disk, for more app room later or if you want more storage, so it's nothing you need to worry about unless it actually becomes an issue for you. This is more a personal preference thing about where you put apps and the space you want/need for things. With the SSD you might blink and miss your computer starting up! They are pretty rad. Which brand/model did you choose?

Oh, I also see the motherboard supports ATI crossfire only, so you can't get a second nVidia card for SLI. Not that you'd want to -- that motherboard is listed as having the full 16x PCI-express for one card but going to only 4x when two cards are set up. Bummer if you wanted to toss in a second card down the road.

Speaking of cards, within your budget of $250 there are definitely better cards. For example, the 460 (Fermi) cards are usually benchmarked as like twice as high or a little more than your card and are all ~200 dollars or less these days. But you can replace the card later if you find that one lacking or if you see good sales.

The raw clock speed isn't the only thing to consider with processors. Recall when AMD started attaching numbers to their processors (e.g. my previous main desktop was an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ but its clock speed was 2.4 GHz; the numbering was meant to indicate its performance was similar to, at the time, fast Pentium 4s in the 3.5 GHz range or some nonsense; I don't remember the benchmarks but when I got it and the socket 939 board for it I recall saving money compared to Intel but not compromising on performance) that didn't match their actual clock speeds in an attempt to make them look similar to the high speeds of Intel's chips at the time. The AMD chips still performed quite well and comparably regardless of being "slower". But that's not the case with AMD these days -- heck, I am pretty sure Intel hasn't been in danger of dropping from the top ever since somewhere in the middle of the Core Duo releases.

AMD can be a GREAT deal in terms of computing power per dollar, for sure. But there's a reason there are at least fifty Intel CPUs at the top of this list before the first AMD (though it's not nearly as many if you don't consider the Xeons, of course). Intel's processors are just technically superior. AMD still has yet to release their new architecture, I believe, so it is possible that they have something cool in the works. Regardless, their chips just don't have the hyperthreading and performance of Intel's. You can read any review of an i7, be it the previous gen ones or the current ones, and see how much better they score than any AMD chip. Some i5s do quite well, also.

However it's worth noting that the benchmarks you should care about are the ones performed with actual games in a real-world usage scenario. Here you consider your RAM, graphics card(s), and processor together [and, as a result, the mobo is a factor, too]. As long as you're able to play the games and things you want at the high settings you are aiming for, it doesn't matter if your components are the top of any chart or not. Especially if you met a great budget while purchasing them all.


**** edit for a random aside: As a result of not going with a SSD drive, the Windows performance evaluation score for my computer took a hit. Currently 7.9 is the highest rating you can get in each area, but your score reflects the lowest rating of any component. While I am 7.9 or 7.8 in all the other sections, not using a SSD drive for my OS/boot device keeps my overall score at 5.9. Oh man, my computer is terrible!

[Bob The Mercenary]

I grabbed an intel SSD, and the boot time is ridiculous. 20 seconds last time I checked. 7.4 total Windows rating.

Are there any specific cards you would recommend? I'm thinking of keeping the CPU and board, because I did get great deals on each, but increasing RAM and switching cards I can afford. Feeling kind of meh on my decisions, but the thing runs every game I've tried like butter. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 and Half-Life 2 at full res with no jumps.

[synkr0nized]

I am a big fan of EVGA, and their 560 ti (Fermi) cards are currently on sale on Newegg for ~250 with a rebate. According to that PassMark site, the 560 gets 2,955 while the 550 gets 1,856. I'd also highly recommend the 460/480 cards if you were looking. I have not kept up with which ATI cards are the better performers currently; having really embraced EVGA's build quality and customer service has kept me using nVidia cards lately.


HOWEVER.
If you're currently knockin' 3D rendering out the park already, it's probably smarter to keep what you have and just look at a replacement card in a couple years or something. I did that with my previous rig; I got a decent mid-price card when I built it and then replaced it two or three years later with a more high-end card when I felt I could get a nice FPS and performance increase.



It would be kind of nice if someone else reading this thread posted. I'd like to know if I am making sense through others' eyes and not just babbling.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Might return the 550ti and order a 460. Been hearing all around it's the better choice.

[Eltargrim]

Synk, you're making sense.

I recently picked up an i7 2600k, and wowwwwwwwwwww. Loving it so far.

About 6 months ago I grabbed an ATI HD6850, and it's serving me well. Nothing against nVidia, just the way prices played out at the time. The 460 has an awesome recommendation, and I'll second eVGA; both of my previous GPUs were from them, and I never had any troubles.

EDIT: Regarding temps; you're right in that the specified max for your cpu is 62C, but that seems conservative. Your temperatures seem fine; liquid cooling would be overkill.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I'm wondering whether I should just return the board and CPU and swap out for an i7 and better mobo for about $200 more. But, for a budget PC the performance is stellar. The only gripes I have about the board are that it's missing FireWire (but has a pair of SATA 3 ports) and the Crossfire dropoff that synk mentioned. Other than that, I hear that overclocking the AMD puts it's performance on par with a good i5, also I'm way too lazy to go ripping the thing apart again.

One more thing, I bought a higher power exhaust fan, but instead of plugging it into the 3-pin I used a molex plug. I'm just wondering if it's better to use the 3-pin so the speed varies with temperature or the molex for constant speed.

[Azisien]

I dunno about your fan question but good choice on getting an OS boot SSD. To me that's the biggest difference in performance I've seen in computing in like 5 or 10 years. I mean I can predict processors and graphics improving at X rate, but when I plugged in my SSDs it was like...whoa.