# My first pc build



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

I have a 955 CPU. I recommend that you get an after-market cooler. 
I was running the Phenom II X4 955 with the stock cooler and in games it would overheat.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

We need a "post your computer specs thread." ;D I'm curious about CoffeeGrinder's specs.

Anyway, just wanted to add a few more little things I hadn't mentioned before.

1. When looking for a case try to get one that has 1.0mm steel rather than a cheaper 0.8mm or plastic case. This will add to the weight, but it will be more sound both structurally and electrically (in the event of static or shorts).
2. Case fans are cheap, but if you keep them in well ventilated areas - and not right in front of HDDs - they should last longer and not need much cleaning in a large air-flow environment. That said, make sure there's one in front of you HDDs, but make sure that there's at least one fan giving uninhibited air-flow to the rest of the case.
3. On a more personal note, because I need big cases, I always look for "Extended ATX" compatible cases. YMMV.
4. Cases with bottom-mounted power supplies never made sense to me. The heat is going to rise ... so why put one of the hottest components on the bottom? I think a top-mounted power supply case will be best.

Also, here is the case I used in my last two full-tower builds:
*Thermaltake Armor Series VA8003BWS Black Full Tower Case
*I actually have the one that *doesn't* have the side-mounted 250mm fan on it (because it interfered with my thermoelectric cooler), but it's the same chassis. I'm just throwing that out to compare sizes of things and how many drive bays one might want (for HDDs as well as airflow) versus tower height.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE
CPU Cooler: *Xigmatek S1283*
GFX: Nvidia GTX 275
RAM: 4GB
Case: *Lancool K60*


----------



## Rustang (Dec 31, 2009)

Spades said:


> We need a "post your computer specs thread." ;D I'm curious about CoffeeGrinder's specs.
> 
> Anyway, just wanted to add a few more little things I hadn't mentioned before.
> 
> ...


I read on here , Tom's Hardware Forums, a long time before doing mine 

We definitely need a post your machine or computer space thread.


3 years old;

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core 
G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250620AS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" 
Hitachi 0A38016 1TB 7200 RPM Sata 3.0Gb/s 3.5"
ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro
Thermaltake Matrix VX VD3000BNA Black Aluminum
CORSAIR CMPSU-520HX 520W
ASUS P5B Deluxe LGA 775 Intel P965
ZALMAN VF900
SAPPHIRE 100185L Radeon X1950XT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3
Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound


----------



## Highschool Pariah (Dec 11, 2009)

Ok, another thing that bothers me. Dual core vs quad. Are their perfomances near similar(if other specs are similar) when not multitasking? How does a processr split the workload for a single task for multiple cores?
(it has been awhile, a quick refresher may help)
Seagate Barracuda hard drives any good?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811156237 case any good?(does it pass your inspection)


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

I'll explain the way that threads and processes work as that's the only way to really answer the dual- vs. multi-core question. A lot of sites like to say "get a dual core CPU because you don't need four cores and it will slow you down." That's at best only half true.

On modern operating systems processes can be split up among cores so, for instance, if you have Internet Explorer open and Firefox open at the same time, you might have one running on one core and one running on the other. This balances the load across the available CPUs where you divide the number of cores by the number of processes. (in this case 2/2 = 1 process each).

Threads on the other hand are a subset of processes. There may be multiple threads running in a single process. An example of this might be the way a graphing program works. One thread might do one set of calculations, while another does a separate set of calculations; both require the other thread's information to function and so they _share_ resources between themselves such as the memory. Processes [usually/never] share such resources.

Mutli-threading CPUs allow multiple threads to be executed within a single clock cycle. Imagine a lane full of cars, where each group of cars is a single "thread," that can only move when a traffic light at the intersection turns green. When the light turns green all the cars can move through the intersection (an be executed) and then make it to the next light. However if there is only one car on the road, it's not a very efficient use of that time. Instead, some CPUs will allow a second thread to run within the same cycle to make a more efficient use of that time. So now that one car is joined by a group of a dozen cars which all can travel through the intersection within the same light cycle. Now consider that one cycle = 1Hz so a 3.0GHz processor is doing this *3 billion times* a second. So with more efficient thread-usage a CPU can take non-parallel threads and execute them within the same cycle to save cycles to be used on other processes, making the computer more efficient.

Some programs, games in particular, can make use of more than one processor at a time by doing the reverse of multi-threading by processing in parallel. Instead of having multiple threads run within a single cycle, they split large processes across multiple cores to utilize the extra processing power. There are a variety of ways to perform parallel processing, and at different levels of the computer's instructions (task-level, bit-level, and others), but the important thing to realize is that these are _huge_ processes with many, many threads that are being split across as many cores as they can (or are programmed to) to make use of all the processing power available.

Now, to answer your question:
If you're running a game that takes advantage of two processors (and only two) by processing the task in parallel, they're going to want to use ALL of both cores, right? So having a third, fourth, or eighth core doesn't help your game run faster because it's only programmed to take advantage of two cores. But! You have other processing running while the game is running, too. All of the system processes are still running and want a share of that CPU time, maybe you have MSN or Steam up which also wants some of those processor cycles. Potentially you have some anti-virus program running and maybe a BitTorrent client up in the background seeding your favorite anime. All of those things want processor time even while you're in game, so those tasks can be moved (logically or physically) onto the cores that the game isn't using. So to summarize: The Game is using cores 1 and 2 at 100% each while msnmsgr.exe, steam.exe, and iexplore.exe are using core 3 at 12%. That gives you a theoretical 212% that you wouldn't have with a dual-core processor.

That said, dual-core processors typically come out with a high clock frequency than quad-/hexa-/octo-cores do, due to the amount of heat they generate. So if you compare a dual-core 3.6GHz Phenom X2 to a quad-core 3.0GHz Phenom X4 and you're only running an application that only takes advantage of one or two cores, the extra cores in the quad-core CPU likely won't help. As 3.6GHz > 3.0GHz the dual-core will perform faster in that one application. A lot of benchmarks like to stress this point that clock frequency will still beat the number of cores if the program can't take advantage of n-cores; but realistically you will rarely be in a situation where you are only running one task/process/thread and so other processes will slow your main application down as they request time on the CPU.

Hopefully that will help you decide on your own what you need/want out of your computing experience. =)

As for Seagate drives ... they're decent, but I don't really trust them. My HDD preference goes like this:
1. Western Digital
2. Hitachi
3. Samsung
4. Seagate


----------



## Highschool Pariah (Dec 11, 2009)

Spades said:


> I'll explain the way that threads and processes work as that's the only way to really answer the dual- vs. multi-core question. A lot of sites like to say "get a dual core CPU because you don't need four cores and it will slow you down." That's at best only half true.
> 
> On modern operating systems processes can be split up among cores so, for instance, if you have Internet Explorer open and Firefox open at the same time, you might have one running on one core and one running on the other. This balances the load across the available CPUs where you divide the number of cores by the number of processes. (in this case 2/2 = 1 process each).
> 
> ...


You should go into public speaking:wink:. When I try to explain something it always comes out jumbled.
Anyhow... I'm going to check if the callisto cpu's use the same cooling method as the deneb. If they do, it may give me greater opportunity to overclock them, and make them a much more appealing idea seeing as I won't have to, hypothetically, spend as much money on colling devices.


----------



## napoleon227 (Jan 17, 2010)

Spades said:


> I'll explain the way that threads and processes work ...
> 
> My HDD preference goes like this:
> 1. Western Digital
> ...


Excellent explanation of multi-threading Mr. Spades!

I was just a bit surprised by your high ranking of Hitachi drives, but I'm not a hardware guy so I'll take your word for it. Learn something new every day.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

Ah, thanks guys. I've actually done some public speaking before; I hate it, but at least I don't have to listen to someone else make an ass of themselves. 

Haha, Mr. Napoleon, you should hear how I explain _the internet_. Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens has nothing on me!

In regards to Hitachi:
Their more recent drives have improved dramatically (from suck->decent). They tend to also be cheaper which usually gives them a better price/performance ratio in consumer electronics. But yes, I have heard of the "DeathStar" debacle, I just don't think that stigma lingers in their current models, though.


----------



## Highschool Pariah (Dec 11, 2009)

Nvr mind.

(ten char)


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

two words: hampster wheel.


----------



## Highschool Pariah (Dec 11, 2009)

Tophat182 said:


> two words: hampster wheel.


*Tilt head sideways questionly*
Also, thats four:crazy:


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

"hampster wheel" is two words. I've build dozens of computers with hampster wheels and I get twice the processing power than a non-wheeled ones.


----------



## Highschool Pariah (Dec 11, 2009)

Tophat182 said:


> "hampster wheel" is two words. I've build dozens of computers with hampster wheels and I get twice the processing power than a non-wheeled ones.


 Excuse me for asking but, what does" hamstser wheel" actually imply?


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

You buy a hampster and an appropriately sized wheel from Petsmart and mount it directly above the motherboard.
Duh


----------



## Highschool Pariah (Dec 11, 2009)

Tophat182 said:


> You buy a hampster and an appropriately sized wheel from Petsmart and mount it directly above the motherboard.
> Duh


:dry:

(ten char limit)


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

The key is feeding the hampster :happy:


----------



## Highschool Pariah (Dec 11, 2009)

Tophat182 said:


> The key is feeding the hampster :happy:


Can you please take this somewhere else?


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

I'm sorry, I wanted to add something but I don't speak computer parts. It's all so foreign to me.


----------



## Solace (Jan 12, 2010)

I just noticed that the Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1600MHZ that I recommended to you has dropped in price by $10 to $115. That is a really good deal if you want to go the DDR3 route. You could probably save a bit of cash by using DDR2 (which would necessitate a cheaper motherboard and processor as well), but then you wouldn't have the future-proofing and ability to upgrade that DDR3 offers.

_id est:_
1. DDR3 mobo +
2. DDR3 CPU +
3. DDR3 RAM
= in the future you can upgrade one wthout having to upgrade any of the others.

where as:
1. DDR2 mobo +
2. DDR2 CPU +
3. DDR2 RAM
= Upgrading the CPU or motherboard means you will have to upgrade your motherboard or CPU (and likely your RAM).

Some boards are compatible with DDR2 *and* DDR3, but will likely not allow upgrades between AM2 and AM3 processors (even if it says AM2+ for the generation model).

But it's up to you, DDR2 is definitely the cheaper short-term solution. (I think I have some spare DDR2 800 sitting around I can send you if you want it.)


----------

