EggXpert

Hello again everybody.

I'm building a new computer (first from-scratch build) for my husband.  It'll be mainly for video work, while multitasking, but will also be used for some games.  At least one of his favorite games is (from what I've read) very CPU intensive (Football Manager).

I don't know anything about overclocking, and he's "forbidden" me to experiment on his computer.  When I get it a couple years as a hand-me-down, maybe...  But for now, overlockability isn't a consideration

I may, in six months or so, splurge on a second graphics card for him, but probably will not swap out the CPU.  Better to just spend a little more now, than spend a lot more later for a slight upgrade, and have an old used CPU on my hands that I can't resell for much (if anything).  The question is, how much more is worth the expense.

I know it's kind of like RAM used to be, "Buy as much as you can afford!"  But, is it really worth the extra money? 

Definately a quad core.  The i7 (with motherboard and pricey RAM) is out of my budget, aside from the "early adopter" risks I prefer to not run.  And I can't really wait another six months for the pricing to drop and the kinks to be worked out.  He needs a new computer (as much as anyone "needs" a new computer) by Christmas, which is when he will be getting new games that his current one can't handle.

So, I started out looking at the Q6600.  Then the Q8200 price dropped and I thought, "Hey, that'd be better for what he'll use it for!"  Then I saw a comparison chart, and the Q9550 looks so much better...but it's also $130 more.  The Q8200's $190, the Q6600's $190, but the Q9550's $320. 

I know at least part of the reason the Q6600 is so popular is that it's so very overclockable.  The Q8200 seems like a good chip, except it's not very overclock-friendly, and just doesn't seem to have ever taken off compared to the used-to-be-cheaper Q6600 or the much better Q9550.

So, if I may solicit opinions please, does anyone know if the real world performance of the Q9550 is worth the extra cash over the Q8200?  Or any good real-world reasons to not go for the Q8200?

Thanks for any input, :) as well as your patience reading through all this!

Linda

edit: to put my proposed parts in the System Specs section

Most video apps will do fine with 4 Gigs of memory. 8 gigs is a bit much. 4 gigs even runs Premiere excellent, for me anyways.

Great mobo, I have it, it rocks.

Why shoot all the way up for a 9550? There's these,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115043

Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80580Q9400 Free Far Cry 2 PC game w/ purchase

for less. An dstill the efficient 45nm.

Unless you plan to crossfire the 4850, there's really no need for a 750W PSU, but if so, so be it. But this OCZ GameXStream OCZ700GXSSLI 700W Power Supply - Retail with MIR and Promo code: EMCBBBEBB, will run yah $60ish after everything. I got a PCPC 750W and this OCZ 700W and I gotta say, it's just as solid of juice deliverer. IMO. Great buy. (Buy all means though, the Corsair and pcpc are tops, though the 750W Corsair just got panned in Anandtech: AnandTech: Corsair TX750W Power Supply

Nice build though, gonna be a beast.

Penewah!

The q9550 is definitely the faster chip. Not only is it a few Ghz faster, but bigger cache size, runs cooler, and some enhancements from 65nm to 45nm tech. If you ever plan on overclocking it, the gap widens even further. The only real advantage the Q8200 has over the Q6600 is maybe runs a little cooler. If you're overclocking at all, the extra multipliers on the Q6600 over the Q8200 will make that easier.

Hard to say if the Q9550 is "worth" an extra $130 (if you've got a Fry's or Micro Center near you, it is a bit cheaper there). It is definitely faster (I think along the lines of 20% on average), and if the speed of the CPU is a priority, then in your case it may be worth it. It comes down to about $10 per month if you want to look at it that way.

If I apply the "if it were me rule" here, I'd say I would purchase the Q9550 for the following reasons... 1) It's the fastest reasonably priced quad for this platform. 2) If you purchase a Q6600 now, the only way to upgrade it later (which you said you wouldn't do) is to purchase a Q9550.

If you purchase the Q6600 (personally I think the Q8200 isn't a good option here), thats still a good choice and you can then pocket the extra $130 or use it to buy a better (or another) video card.

On the power supply - I do plan to crossfire the 4850, probably next spring/summer.  I also expect this PC to run near continuously for the next two years, then probably 6 hours a day for the next two years, and every place I've seen says power supplies, over time, lose effectiveness.  I went to the most-recommended power supply calculator out there, extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp and put in the capacitor aging as recommended in the footnotes, and it comes up higher.

I use the calculator, add a third hard drive to my specs, add a second graphics card, add a blu-ray player, and the two things my husband seems to always have hooked up to the USB ports, and the capacitor aging at 30%, and it recommends a 930w power supply.  Even taking out the blu-ray and the third HDD, and assuming he only has one USB thing hooked up, the recommendation is for 858w.  If I take out the 2nd graphics card, and drop the capacitor aging to 10%, it still says 634.  I figured 750w would probably see me through a second card, and more than likely survive the four years of use this PC will see.

Getting back to the PCU question, thanks for the recommendations, both of you.  Penewah, I'll definitely look at that Q9400.

And elconejito, thanks for the perspective.  Thinking about it as only an extra $10/month (or, really, closer to $5 a month over the useful life my husband should get out of it), makes it sound pretty appealing.

As for not upgrading, I know it sounds silly, but for the past 8 years I've bought computers based on their "upgradability," then never actually getting around to upgrading.  By the time I think, "Hmm, maybe I should upgrade," it's too late, the upgrades are too old, and are either unavailable, or expensive compared to simply getting a new PC.

Thanks to both of you for your opinions, I appreciate all the information I can collect!

Linda

Hello Linda hope you don't mind but here are my 2cents, I love your build I plan on getting this mobo if I can sweet talk the wife into letting me spend the money. I would have to agree with Penewah on part of what he say's, if budget is tight drop down to the Q9300 and go with 4 gigs of RAM, as for the PSU it is not always the wattage that counts its the amperage behind it that will play the bigger part. Now on your RAM Gigabyte is finicky with the brands you use that is why I stick with their QVL list and if you want to pick up the pace you could go with the DDR2-1066 it could increase your OCing ability which is pretty good for that mobo.

http://www.gigabyte.us/FileList/MemorySupport/motherboard_memory_ga-ep45-ud3p.pdf

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115043 CPU

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227298 RAM

Here's an interesting posit, first time I'm throwing it out there as a possible:

The new i7: Intel® Core™ i7 920 2.66GHz Quad-Core Processor

a nice X58, with Crossifre caps: MSI X58 Platinum LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail

Comes out the $530, which is only how much more than what you're thinking of spending on a 45nm quad and P45? About $100 (if the Q9550)ish?

In terms of futurability, hmmmmmm, but then the hammer you on the memory if you go 3 x 3GB , nothing > $200, but 3 x 1Gb can be had for $120.

Dones't leave much for the rest aye? lol. Oh well, just a thought. Most would crucify  for even dreading the thought of spending that kind of $$, but man, that L3 looks sweet!

Penewah!