Help me build a PC under 70 - 80K

[piyushp_20]

Hi guys

I am planning to buy a high end PC.
My budget is under Rs.70-80K

Please suggest me the best configuation.
My main purpose is Gaming and super fast computing.

[saurav29]

go SLI and Quad core intel (Even core 2 duo will do), or dual core AMD absolutley rocks man buy sata2 or sata 3 hdd per (2 in number) and go for raid 5 to config the hdds and graphics cards 2 in number should be atleast 7300 GT or GS perrably with DDR3 rams, buy a pair of 1gb RAMs DDR2 atleast... if going over budget opt for pair of 512MB's instead... 16X DVD writer either ASUS or Sony..... Any decent Keyboard and atleast logitec mx310 mouse...... 17" or 19" (W)TFT samsung, LG , SOny (all have response time of 12ms)whichever appeals to you and seems affordable....
And MOST Important thing...........
Go for 500watts powersupply powersafe or local whichever you can afford and instead of cute looking cabinets assemble it in a big spaciuos and airy cabinet alternately you can also put one extra ventilation fan, though you should take care not to attach too many fans as above config will be power hungry and you will need all the power you can get.....
This should take care of a PC you can game with in 70 to 80K
hope it helps ya
though this is not the best but works for me.............
Peace
Raj

[Ankur Gupta]

Wrong section dude...
Post in the hardware troubleshooting section...
Thread reported

[wizrulz]

Originally Posted by piyushp_20

Hi guys

I am planning to buy a high end PC.
My budget is under Rs.70-80K

Please suggest me the best configuation.
My main purpose is Gaming and super fast computing.

AMD BASED=>
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (65nm,2.3GHz,512KB L2 cache,2GHz HT bus,AM2) Rs10300
ASUS M2N32-SLI DLX Rs11500
250 GB SATA2 Rs3600
DDR2 2 x 1gb 667Mhz more if available 6K x 2
2 x 256 MB NVIDIA GF 6600 GT DDR3 Rs6000 make it SLI
SAMSUNG 19'' 940BW Rs14500/SAMSUNG 17" 740N Rs10400
DVD WRITER BENQ 2K
CREATIVE INSPIRE 5.1 Rs3800
MERCURY GAMEPAD Rs650
GOOD zebronics cabinet + 600W PSU=> 5K

[drvarunmehta]

C2D E6600 16k
MSI P965 Neo4 6.5k
Transcend 2 GB DDR2667 RAM 10k
Seagate 250GB SATA2 HDD 3.8k
Asus/BenQ DVD writer 2k
Samsung 940BW 14.5k
Sapphire Radeon X1950Pro 14.5
Cabinet+Antec 500W PSU 5k
Logitech cordless kbd+mouse 1.7k
Creative Inspire 5.1 3.8k

Total Rs. 77,800

[sam9s]

C2D 6600 ....OC it to 4Ghz
P5B Delux Wifi or Gigabyte DQ6 (Awsome board)
7900 GTX
2 GB Transcend 800 Mhz RAM
PSU 500W with a cooling system if OC to 4 Ghz

rest you choose anything...the above 4 are sufficient enough to make a "Pump up the jam" kinda system.

[wizrulz]

is not 6600GT in SLI gona give better performance than the suggested by u?? wanna verify
__________

Originally Posted by sam9s

C2D 6600 ....OC it to 4Ghz
P5B Delux Wifi or Gigabyte DQ6 (Awsome board)
7900 GTX
2 GB Transcend 800 Mhz RAM
PSU 500W with a cooling system if OC to 4 Ghz

rest you choose anything...the above 4 are sufficient enough to make a "Pump up the jam" kinda system.

WIth 4Ghz...he might need a very good cooling system....isnt it???

[sam9s]

Originally Posted by wizrulz

is not 6600GT in SLI gona give better performance than the suggested by u?? wanna verify

Nope 7900GTX is an awsome performer even better than 7950GT. SLI usually does not give you much better performence per price. Its more of an upgrade option rather than a move towards a high end gaming system.

WIth 4Ghz...he might need a very good cooling system....isnt it???

A decent cooling system will do. Check this out.

http://www.coolermaster.com/index.ph...20%2F%20R1 20

[caleb]

How come no one suggested NVidia 8800, the only dx10 compatible card?...it costs Rs.34000/-

[Edburg]

I would recommend to buy a single more powerful graphic card than 2 less powerful cards in SLI.Both cost wise and performance wise a single powerful card is always better.Besides there are some games which really dont make use of 2 cards.

C2d E6600 - 15000 approx
Good overclocking mobo from asus or gogabyte -10000
Ram - 2*1 GB from good company - 9000
2*160 GB SATA2 - 5500
19" TFT - 14000
Rest accessories are ur choice

[abhipal]

Graphics Card : Don't go for Dx9 Cards. Buy Dx10 Card 8800. If doesn't fit in budget wait for a month or two (atleast untill Dx10 is out).

[sam9s]

Originally Posted by caleb

How come no one suggested NVidia 8800, the only dx10 compatible card?...it costs Rs.34000/-

34000/- is way too expensive, you have to wait ATLEAST 8 months maybe even more untill the card comes under any affordable range. There are not even any games on DX10 currently. I'd say go for 7900 and upgrade to 8800 maybe year and a half later. By the time the card would be much under range and there would be lots of game on DX10 as well to enjoy.
__________

Originally Posted by abhipal

Graphics Card : Don't go for Dx9 Cards. Buy Dx10 Card 8800. If doesn't fit in budget wait for a month or two (atleast untill Dx10 is out).

LOL...what difference would come in a 34000 card in two months.....

[abhipal]

Originally Posted by sam9s

LOL...what difference would come in a 34000 card in two months.....

Sorry for my mistake. I was saying that wait for a month or two by then some new Dx10 cards can come in market

[Kniwor]

My suggestion

C2D E6600 ~ 14.5k
ASUS P5B or Gigabyte GA-P965-DS3 ~ 8.5k
2x1Gb DDR2 667Mhz Transcend ~ 10k
Sony 120C ~ 1900
19" TFT (this is your choice) ~ 14k

Hard disk is again your choice, but I'd suggest a Raid 1 setup for higher performance.

I will NOT suggest a DX10 card now, reason?
well firstly most processors available now are not up to the power of 8800, so u will not see any noticable difference from a 7950GT, and secondly, a 7950 will push all the frame rates you require on a 19" screen, you need a more powerful processor and a bigger screen to make use of the power of an 8800, secondly, they are very costly now, with not much DX10 usage now, it makes no sense, better is get a 7950 now and then, sell it and get a 8800 when DX10 apps are out or u planning on getting another, larger screen. That time these cards will be a lot cheaper, especially after R600 cards roll out.

[drvarunmehta]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

Hard disk is again your choice, but I'd suggest a Raid 1 setup for higher performance.

How will RAID 1 give higher performance?

[sam9s]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

I'd suggest a Raid 1 setup for higher performance.

Raid 1 is not for better performance Raid 0 is. Raid 1 is for better data security, as against Raid 0 which becomes a bit non reliable but with better performance.

firstly most processors available now are not up to the power of 8800

You must be kidding all current processors are well pumped up to handle 8800 easily. you dont know what you are saying.

[Kniwor]

Read performance is same as in Raid 0 setup, read can be done from both the disks, one is a mirror image of other.

[drvarunmehta]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

Read performance is same as in Raid 0 setup, read can be done from both the disks, one is a mirror image of other.

Thats completely untrue. RAID 1 is slower than a single HDD due to CPU overhead involved and RAID 0 is much faster than a single HDD because half the data is stored on each HDD.

Why would you recommend RAID 1 for a gaming rig? RAID 0, I can understand but why on earth RAID one?

[Kniwor]

Originally Posted by sam9s

Raid 1 is not for better performance Raid 0 is. Raid 1 is for better data security, as against Raid 0 which becomes a bit non reliable but with better performance.

I suggested Raid 1 because it has a higher data security, it is only costlier than Raid 0, because it provides half the space and no performance improvement in write speed. and if data is not the concern, raid 0 is better option. But it's not a "bit" unreliable, it's "VERY" unreliable. and I am planning on raid 1 for Myself.

Originally Posted by sam9s

You must be kidding all current processors are well pumped up to handle 8800 easily. you dont know what you are saying.

No kidding here pal, and i know what i said. If u play games at higher resolution, graphics cards are frame deciding factors, but if u play at lower resoultuons, the CPU is, and he is getting a 19" display atm. so my point is a valid one. I'll help you with some benchmarks. let me search.

[drvarunmehta]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

I suggested Raid 1 because it has a higher data security, it is only costlier than Raid 0, because it provides half the space and no performance improvement in write speed. and if data is not the concern, raid 0 is better option. But it's not a "bit" unreliable, it's "VERY" unreliable. and I am planning on raid 1 for Myself.

Why does a gaming rig need data security? For ordinary users backing up to an external HDD or DVD's is far better than setting up RAID 1.

[sam9s]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

I suggested Raid 1 because it has a higher data security, it is only costlier than Raid 0, because it provides half the space and no performance improvement in write speed. and if data is not the concern, raid 0 is better option. But it's not a "bit" unreliable, it's "VERY" unreliable. and I am planning on raid 1 for Myself.

Go for any Raid you wish, you've changed your own statement, and foolishly have quoted mine, what I initially said to defend your own incorrect one.......lol. Pitty.

If u play games at higher resolution, graphics cards are frame deciding factors, but if u play at lower resoultuons, the CPU is, and he is getting a 19" display atm

Thats the most ridiculous statement in context to the thread. First of all who said CPU is the deciding factor at lower resolution. Secondly....ROFL.... how does getting a 19" display fit here and make your point valid. Can anybody make me understand?. You are totally haywire in your convictions buddy.........pitty again.
__________

Originally Posted by drvarunmehta

Why does a gaming rig need data security? For ordinary users backing up to an external HDD or DVD's is far better than setting up RAID 1.

drvarun he does'nt know what he is saying......

[Kniwor]

for one, in intended to quote drvarunmehta about raid comment.

Originally Posted by drvarunmehta

Why does a gaming rig need data security? For ordinary users backing up to an external HDD or DVD's is far better than setting up RAID 1.

That is a matter of personal preference, and I agree to your point.

I suggested raid 1 because both raid 1 and raid 0 will increase performance in gaming, but considered Raid 0 to be a big risk considering he will you integrated raid controllers. views may vary. I will myself be using Raid 1 to increase "gaming" performance.

@sam9s
about the graphics card comment. well when you play at high resolutions and eye candy, there is more graphics to be processed, and hence the frame deciding thing is graphics card, but at low resolutions, the graphics card will process the frames very faster, now it only depends on how fast the CPU can process the physics and all. Well if u have seen enough benchmarks yo will notice that when for higher processors and high resolutions all processors have identical frame rates, and they reduce the resolution to differentiate between processors, similarly for high end graphics cards when he test setup includes not so powerful processors, the difference is visible only on very high resolutions. With increasing physics in the games, it is becoming hard for the processors. Now if he gets a 19" monitor, he can play games at resolutions only what monitor supports, not higher than that. So what i said is purely logical, I did not care to explain because I figured you'd understand.




But all our comments are useless as the original poster has not posted since his first post, so no point arguing.

[sam9s]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

That is a matter of personal preference. and I agree to your point.

But all our comments are useless as the original poster is MIA

aah!!! so now you agree...lol. And who on the entire earth would be having a personal peference of having a gaming rig with a data secutiry RAID??????

[Kniwor]

Originally Posted by sam9s

aah!!! so now you agree...lol. And who on the entire earth would be having a personal peference of having a gaming rig with a data secutiry RAID??????

I am getting a RAID 1 setup for myself as I said to enhance "gaming" performance, as already said, both increase performance, but RAID 0 is a big risk, I'd rather pay little extra.

do u have a raid 0 setup?



@sam9s
just to give you an idea of what I was trying to tell. Look the links below.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=547&chart=215
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=547&chart=212

you will notice that at high resolution the difference between graphics card seem high, but at low resolution the difference in frame rates is not too much. Now these are the cards that stand nowhere near an 8800, so in case of and 8800, the situation will be worse, now again, he is not getting the all powerful quad core processor, no doubt 8800 will still give higher frame rates, but i bet it's not worth the money, and that's what i suggested.

[drvarunmehta]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

I am getting a RAID 1 setup for myself as I said to enhance "gaming" performance, as already said, both increase performance, but RAID 0 is a big risk, I'd rather pay little extra.

do u have a raid 0 setup?

You seem to have misunderstood. RAID 1 does NOTHING to enhance performance. It only keeps a mirror image of your data on a second HDD. It does NOT speed up disk performance. If anything it degrades it because using RAID increases CPU utilization.

RAID 0 heeps half of every file on one disk and half on the second. Both HDD's work in parallel to retrieve data and speed up performance. On the downside if one disk crashes then all the data is lost. But RAID 0 shouldn't be considered "unsafe" by any means. If you keep the temperatures under check, HDD's rarely fail.

RAID 0 is idea for a gaming rig to speed up load times while RAID 1 has no place in a gaming rig because data security isn't the primary purpose.

[sam9s]

Originally Posted by Kniwor

I am getting a RAID 1 setup for myself as I said to enhance "gaming" performance, as already said, both increase performance, but RAID 0 is a big risk, I'd rather pay little extra.

do u have a raid 0 setup?



@sam9s
just to give you an idea of what I was trying to tell. Look the links below.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=547&chart=215
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=547&chart=212

you will notice that at high resolution the difference between graphics card seem high, but at low resolution the difference in frame rates is not too much. Now these are the cards that stand nowhere near an 8800, so in case of and 8800, the situation will be worse, now again, he is not getting the all powerful quad core processor, no doubt 8800 will still give higher frame rates, but i bet it's not worth the money, and that's what i suggested.

Humf!! you have absolute no idea what you are defending, so let it be alone.
Your own adament ego is hinderance to your knowldge.
But for the thread sake leme clear that RAID 1 in NOWAY enhance performance, infact it can decreases to some extent. RAID 1 is only used for data security coz it maintains double copy for the same. RAID 0 increases your performance especially in game n level loading time. I know coz yes I am using RAID 0. Secondly using RAID 0 is no "big risk", if you keep your HDD configured correctly. The only "risk" as you might say, here is if your HDD crashes, completely fails, and how frequently you hear todays HDDs crashing.

[Kniwor]

Originally Posted by drvarunmehta

You seem to have misunderstood. RAID 1 does NOTHING to enhance performance. It only keeps a mirror image of your data on a second HDD. It does NOT speed up disk performance. If anything it degrades it because using RAID increases CPU utilization.

RAID 0 heeps half of every file on one disk and half on the second. Both HDD's work in parallel to retrieve data and speed up performance. On the downside if one disk crashes then all the data is lost. But RAID 0 shouldn't be considered "unsafe" by any means. If you keep the temperatures under check, HDD's rarely fail.

RAID 0 is idea for a gaming rig to speed up load times while RAID 1 has no place in a gaming rig because data security isn't the primary purpose.

In Raid 1, a mirror image of HDD is maintained, and both HDD's work together to retrieve data, same as in Raid 0, as the file is on both the HDD's the data is being read from both of them at the same time, say u want to lead a 50Mb file, and it is present in both HDD's, then it will read 25Mb fom 1 HDD and another 25 from second. It is a simple thing that if u have 2 copies of a file, you can read from both HDD's at the same time, and will be faster.

The only downside is while writing a file, in Raid 1 you need to write full file on both HDD's, so it takes same time as writing on one HDD, whereas in Raid 0, you have to write half the file on each HDD, and hence takes less time..


@sam9s
I am very clear about what I said, and tried to explain it to you the best I could.
Now I'd suggest you read the entire thread again and inspect the way me and drvarunmehta have posted, and compare it to the way u have, and learn to show respect to fellow forum members.

[drvarunmehta]

That's completely wrong. In RAID 1 data is NOT retrieved from both HDD's simultaneously.

[Kniwor]

Originally Posted by drvarunmehta

That's completely wrong. In RAID 1 data is NOT retrieved from both HDD's simultaneously.

That is something which depends on the Raid card. It can be done and it cannot be.
The only thing I doubt is that integrated cards wont do it, and which makes Raid 0 the only choice for people not willing to spend in a card. But to that i have already said, it's a matter of personal choice, and the money u need to spend. Raid 0 is obviously cheaper.

Mirroring: Read performance under mirroring is far superior to write performance. Let's suppose you are mirroring two drives under RAID 1. Every piece of data is duplicated, stored on both drives. This means that every byte of data stored must be written to both drives, making write performance under RAID 1 actually a bit slower than just using a single disk; even if it were as fast as a single disk, both drives are tied up during the write. But when you go to read back the data? There's absolutely no reason to access both drives; the controller, if intelligently programmed, will only ask one of the drives for the data--the other drive can be used to satisfy a different request. This makes RAID significantly faster than a single drive for reads, under most conditions

from here,
http://www.storagereview.com/guide20...ReadWrite.html

Although RAID 1's focus is on redundancy, mirroring can improve performance by allowing read requests to be distributed between the two drives (although not all RAID 1 implementations take advantage of this opportunity).

from here
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4...d/index.x?pg=1

[drvarunmehta]

What you say about RAID 1 may be true if you have a dedicated RAID controller but most people use onboard RAID. I'm not sure if that has the same features as a dedicated controller.

Anyways that is beside the point because most people won't want to buy 2 HDD's and be able to use only half the storage space without a very, very good reason. RAID 1 is really not recommended for ordinary usage. Better to use an external HDD to backup data.