Building a New Rig

Well i'm gonna bite the bullet and build a new system my does ok but the main cities kill me I have to take each char in seperatly just too learn new spells or train professions.


http://c1.neweggimages.com/WebResour...o_full_175.jpg
Qty. Product Description Savings Price
1 http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...130-136-03.jpgMSI K9A2 Platinum ATX AMD Motherboard Item #:N82E16813130136 $159.99
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...166-005-16.jpgSunbeam Transformer IC-TR-B Blue Computer Case With Side Panel Window -$8.00 Instant $77.99
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...128-008-01.jpgHIPER HPU-4M730-SS 730W Power Supply -$20.00 Instant $99.98
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...106-072-02.jpg LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black SATA Model LH-20A1L-06 -$5.00 Instant $32.99
2 http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...148-309-01.jpgSeagate Barracuda ES.2 250GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive $159.98($79.99 each)
2http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...104-008-03.jpgKingston HyperX 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory $129.98($64.99 each)
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...103-244-02.jpgAMD Phenom 9600 2.3GHz Socket AM2+ 95W Processor $219.00
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...113-007-01.jpgALTEC LANSING VS3251 5.1 Powered Audio System -$15.00 Instant $45.99
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...130-318-02.jpgEVGA GeForce 8800GT 512-P3-N801-AR Video Card-$25.00 Instant $204.99
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...009-094-02.jpgAcer AL2216Wbd Black 22" 5ms Widescreen LCD Monitor with HDCP support-$20.00 Instant $229.99
1http://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductIm...116-215-02.jpgMicrosoft Windows Vista 64-Bit Ultimate for System Builders Single Pack DVD -$20.00 Instant $169.99 Grand Total:$1,530.87

Seems like an awesome setup to me. Should work fine. I will say EWWWWWWW at that case though, but thats just my opinion.

Anyways how many instances of wow are you planning on running?

Unless you're partial to AMD; I go with a Intel based Motherboard and Intel CPU due to overall better performance. Also; for the $$$ you're spending on RAM, Why not spend the same and get 2GB x 2 = 4GB ie:
OCZ Reaper HPC Edition 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ2RPR800C44GK - Retail $109.00 w/ $25 MIR from newegg.com

Just suggestions 8)

AMD's tend to be cheaper and give the same performance as Intel.

Lies.

They don't give anything like the performance of intel.

Not sure how many clients you're planning on running, but 2GB of RAM is barely enough for 4, and definitely not enough for 5.

If you take a closer look you'll see that I have a number next to each item indicating how many. So it would be 4gb of ram. The reason i chose that ram is its 1066mhz. I'm not sure how much of a performance boost that will give my over the 800 mhz though. I am particular to the AMD brand though :whistling: . I've seen some of the test done on both processors I think the AMD chip since its still fairly new compared to the Intel has some room to grow. Plus its an actual quad core chip not Intels 2 + 2 = 4 chip setup.

I'm still up on the fence about the case, I mean it looks alright but some of the reviews are just ehhhh.

Theres debates going both ways over intel and amd and my stance is this:

AMD gives about the same performance as intel for loads cheaper. Its much easier for me to upgrade an AMD chip. Reason being, amds are around 200 at most. Intel is upwards of 200 usually around 500 all the way up to 1k. So packing away a 200 chip is much easier then feeling like i blew way too much money, and then go out and spend the same amount. So in my opinion ill go with damn near close performance for cheaper, then go with the barely better for $300 more.

And if your referencing the Intel Extremes, the only thing that makes them different from any other processor is the size of the L1/L2 Cache. Everything else is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Shigan5',index.php?page=Thread&postID=48469#post4 8469

Theres debates going both ways over intel and amd and my stance is this:

AMD gives about the same performance as intel for loads cheaper. Its much easier for me to upgrade an AMD chip. Reason being, amds are around 200 at most. Intel is upwards of 200 usually around 500 all the way up to 1k. So packing away a 200 chip is much easier then feeling like i blew way too much money, and then go out and spend the same amount. So in my opinion ill go with damn near close performance for cheaper, then go with the barely better for $300 more.

And if your referencing the Intel Extremes, the only thing that makes them different from any other processor is the size of the L1/L2 Cache. Everything else is the same.

---

So if AMD gives close to the same difference as Intel; Why 1) most have gone to Intel (including hell-bound amd lovers) & 2) Benchmarks clearly state the benefit and difference in performance on AMD vs Intel. The only reason to stay one versus the other is because you are use to it, but that doesn't mean they are both comparable in performance. Otherwise, Intel wouldn't be spanking AMD so bad.

Looks like you got a space heater in the making there. A glowing blue one at that.

Intel spanks AMD in benchmarks mostly because of the large ammounts of L2 on it. AMD's tend to run much hotter than Intel's as well.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115018 Q6600 - $234
Cheapest Intel Quad Core, Gives a full 6MB more L2 (4MB if you include the L3 on the Phenom)

I have been a fan of AMD and had been for many years... they still rule the roost in the server market, the Opteron is significantly better than Intels current offerings for most server roles due to memory management.

Unfortuantely in the deskto market they have lost their way and are not providing the same bang for bucck as they used to. I would now definitely go intel even though it would mean changing motherboard along with the processor. The 6600 is not significantly more than the equivalent phenom but has better benchmarks on every review I have seen.

AMD also missed the graphics card market this time around... I think the aquisition of ATI has had an impact on their R&D they seem to be concentrating on integrated chips instead of improving their market share in the high end graphics market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'terrybogard21',index.php?page=Thread&postID=49031 #post49031

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Shigan5',index.php?page=Thread&postID=48469#post4 8469

Theres debates going both ways over intel and amd and my stance is this:

AMD gives about the same performance as intel for loads cheaper. Its much easier for me to upgrade an AMD chip. Reason being, amds are around 200 at most. Intel is upwards of 200 usually around 500 all the way up to 1k. So packing away a 200 chip is much easier then feeling like i blew way too much money, and then go out and spend the same amount. So in my opinion ill go with damn near close performance for cheaper, then go with the barely better for $300 more.

And if your referencing the Intel Extremes, the only thing that makes them different from any other processor is the size of the L1/L2 Cache. Everything else is the same.

---

So if AMD gives close to the same difference as Intel; Why 1) most have gone to Intel (including hell-bound amd lovers) & 2) Benchmarks clearly state the benefit and difference in performance on AMD vs Intel. The only reason to stay one versus the other is because you are use to it, but that doesn't mean they are both comparable in performance. Otherwise, Intel wouldn't be spanking AMD so bad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Thedonsquad',index.php?page=Thread&postID=49089#p ost49089

Looks like you got a space heater in the making there. A glowing blue one at that.

Intel spanks AMD in benchmarks mostly because of the large ammounts of L2 on it. AMD's tend to run much hotter than Intel's as well.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115018 Q6600 - $234
Cheapest Intel Quad Core, Gives a full 6MB more L2 (4MB if you include the L3 on the Phenom)

---

Exactly what i said in my post above. And the reason intel beats out AM. only reason. Think of it this way, two cars both have a max speed of 60mph, ones made by porche other by Nissan. Now you will say the porche is better, BUT, its realyly not they can both only go the same speed.

Same thing with processors, if theyre both 3.0ghz theyre both gonna run at 3.0ghz (unless you overclock one but thats besides point) but what will make one seem faster is the l2 cache.

Ok this shouldnt be happening but for some reason I only get 20fps with my settings all the way down on 1 client. What might be causing the major problem.

multi monitor fps issues maybe?
if you are useing windows xp, it's better to run in horizontal/vertical span instead of the two separate windows..

I'm running what I listed above at the start of the thread on 1 monitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Shigan5',index.php?page=Thread&postID=48469#post4 8469

Theres debates going both ways over intel and amd and my stance is this:

AMD gives about the same performance as intel for loads cheaper. Its much easier for me to upgrade an AMD chip. Reason being, amds are around 200 at most. Intel is upwards of 200 usually around 500 all the way up to 1k. So packing away a 200 chip is much easier then feeling like i blew way too much money, and then go out and spend the same amount. So in my opinion ill go with damn near close performance for cheaper, then go with the barely better for $300 more.

And if your referencing the Intel Extremes, the only thing that makes them different from any other processor is the size of the L1/L2 Cache. Everything else is the same.

---

ok i 5-box on one machine using a quadcore intel
i am thinking of buying 4 more computers this summer and i will run each character separately
if AMD is cheaper you guys think since each comp will only be running one char its smarter to get AMD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'TheHamburglar',index.php?page=Thread&postID=50386 #post50386

I'm running what I listed above at the start of the thread on 1 monitor.

---

oh woops... sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Klamor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=50403#post50 403

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'TheHamburglar',index.php?page=Thread&postID=50386 #post50386

I'm running what I listed above at the start of the thread on 1 monitor.

---

oh woops... sorry

---

No biggie, I ran my 3x shaman team last night and it ran perfect no lag what so ever. Maybe I have my resolution too high, I'll test it out when i get home.

ok i 5-box on one machine using a quadcore intel
i am thinking of buying 4 more computers this summer and i will run each character separately
if AMD is cheaper you guys think since each comp will only be running one char its smarter to get AMD?



Thats what I do ... but I use win2K and not Vista. The op items are all decent cept power supply (get a name brand) and the case. It sure is odd that DDR2 is 1/2 the cost of DDR and DDR3 lol .. I use ThermalTake for cases and supplies. Get a Raptor just for you game to impove speed more then faster ram. I just use AMD cause i always have, its true that for the first time Intel is slaughtering them in the desktop area. Still if you don't support AMD you might just have one choice in the future.

If you are going for 1 char/computer. Then AMD is fine. If you are 5-boxing WoW, I'd recommend having a couple of low capacity load seek time Drives to put your game installs on.