Super Computer help!

[LEOKV2]

Hello guys, this is for all you computer freaks... I'm in urgent need of having some questions answered regarding my new computer which I'm going to build by myself (buying parts).

Okay, I'm an architect so I use AutoDesk software such as AutoCAD and 3DSMax which require powerful componets. I also play in a band and I will use my computer for recording music. I also like playing video games.

Here are the questions:

MOTHERBOARD:

Intel D975XBX2 (Extreme Series) OR Asus Striker Extreme ?

PROCESSOR:

Intel Core 2 QUAD OR Intel Extreme Core 2 QX6850 ?

GRAPHICS CARD:

XFX Nvidia 8800 Ultra OR ASUS Nvidia 8800 Ultra OR MLI Nvidia 8800 Ultra ?

MEMORY:

Kingston Hyper 4gb of memory? Which "model" is the best ?.

Okay guys, BEFORE YOU FLAME ME, I know there are major differences between the "options" asked on each "category" in terms of price and power. But, have in mind that I'm not a "hardcore gamer", I just play some games eventually, but I do need a powerful graphics card for rendering and doing my CAD work... not having to enter into the super expensive QUADRA cards, but I want to have the best quality in the 8800 Ultra version, that's why I'm basically asking which of the manufacturers is better: XFX, ASUS or MLI. Regarding the processor, I know the Extreme is better, but is it THAT different from the Core 2 Duo QUAD ? Will it improve the overall computer THAT much (I mean, paying twice the price?). Regarding the motherboard.. What's the BIG difference between the Intel and the Asus Striker ? I mean, isn't it "better" to have both motherboard and processor from the same brand (INTEL) ?

Let me know guys, this is important, I'm looking to spend no more than 1800 US dollars on this (just the computer), I'm not asking about the hard drives, DVD units, soundcards etc because I've already made my mind up about those.

Thanks in advance!

[LEOKV2]

Anyone ?

[audiophile]

IMO...

Not enough Quad core supported software out there right now, it has to be coded to use all 4, or it just leaves the extra idle.
8800 Ultra, waste, a standard 640mb gts is plenty for less than 1/2 cost
4GB ram, only if going with 64bit OS = less software compatibility
975 chipset board, old, I went 965 due to popularity, but maybe better going new chipsets p35, new cpu support and faster bus

On top of those lame opinions, the performance gains the individual components compared to the lesser mentioned don't justify the price hit.


my 640mb 8800gts is flawless for games at 24" 1920x1200 rez
And my system has incredible overhead, with my aftermarket air cooler I can boost from 2.133GHz to 3.2 GHz and not budge from room temp, All fans on low, almost completely silent. So running at stock is practically zero stress.

Antec Nine Hundred Case
GigaByte P965-DS3
WD Raptor 74 10krpm primary
Seagate 7200.10 400GB secondary
Core 2 e6420 CPU
Crucial Ballistix 2GB PC2-6400


Personal opinion...
choice board with P35 chipset, 4 ram slots, other desired components
Core2 e6750 CPU
start with 2x1GB ram, crucial ballistix biased
320or640mb 8800gts what monitor size/rez you got 1280x1024 (320) 1600x1200 (640)
drives, whatever u need, 7200rpm is fine, multiple is better
Power 500+ watt, not a $30 either ($80-100)


I'd suggest getting a 24" monitor if you want to do music and autocad type stuff. The rez and workspace is fantastic, and since you stare at it the whole time you're using, you get the most benefit. Dell2407 biased hehe

[shobet]

Sorry I have no experience of PCs of late, all the stuff I work with is high end workstation or servers.

[audiophile]

BTW, benchmarks for your research....

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html (games only here, but search for models and get more than just games

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html CPU Good stuff

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33913/135/
if you can wait, and intend to spend, more insanity is just over the horizon, AMD may be playing too, but f**k AMD hehe


http://anandtech.com/ another good benchmark research tool.

[Inazone]

If you are also going to use your PC for recording, I would strongly suggest that you see what OS and hardware is supported/required among the various software vendors. Many recording apps and interfaces don't support Vista, for example. In the past, some motherboard chipsets were extremely buggy when used in recording situations too. I can't name specific products because I haven't stayed up-to-date on the latest hardware and software, but since you are planning to combine very picky apps such as CAD and audio, you may want the gaming requirements to take a back seat to "real" software.

Also, take case design into account for both air flow and noise. Although I don't really do any recording on my PC right now, I bought an Antec case and power supply that are insanely quiet, with no-tool drive removal and insulated bays to cushion drives against vibration.

[LEOKV2]

So, if I get Windows XP Professional 64... or Vista Ultimate...

I won't be able to run my old Cakewalk 8 Pro Audio software? It runs on my regular XP Pro now, but this is an old software (which I love) and I believe it was made for Win 98 or 2000... this is a MUST for me since it's the only software I use extensively for my home recording purposes. I will use a 2496 sound card which I've already bought.

Also, a very particular question: XP Professional or Vista Ultimate? I mean, I'm used to the XP but I'm sure that in a couple of years we will all be using Vista and XP will be obsolete so that kinda bugs me. Anyway, question is... is Vista THAT much heavy and memory and graphic card consuming than the XP ? Meaning, that a "super computer" running on XP will be a "normal computer" on Vista or something like that ? This is important...

[delt]

Fuck windows. Use Linux.

My knowledge of hardware stops at the P4 "prescott" hyperthreading and pci-express bus, then i stopped following mostly due to boredom and lack of interest.

[rjohnstone]

Cakewalk 8 will not run on XP Pro 64bit.
I use Cakewalk Sonar 6 Producer Edition on Vista Ultimate... works flawlessly.
I'm only running a Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHz dual core) with 2GB of ram and an 256MB ATI X600 video card.
If you are going to try Vista, go with an ATI video card.
NVidia drivers suck ass for Vista.

Contrary to popular BS, Vista is not a memory hog, it just manages memory differently than XP did.

[thetroy]

I have what is a now crappy PC but I tried Vista for a week or so and went back to XP because it was slow as fuck.

I can't help you any further as I haven't kept up with hardware since I bought this PC 4 years ago

[Inazone]

So, if I get Windows XP Professional 64... or Vista Ultimate...

I won't be able to run my old Cakewalk 8 Pro Audio software? It runs on my regular XP Pro now, but this is an old software (which I love) and I believe it was made for Win 98 or 2000... this is a MUST for me since it's the only software I use extensively for my home recording purposes. I will use a 2496 sound card which I've already bought.

Also, a very particular question: XP Professional or Vista Ultimate? I mean, I'm used to the XP but I'm sure that in a couple of years we will all be using Vista and XP will be obsolete so that kinda bugs me. Anyway, question is... is Vista THAT much heavy and memory and graphic card consuming than the XP ? Meaning, that a "super computer" running on XP will be a "normal computer" on Vista or something like that ? This is important...

I use Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 with an old Echo Mia card, so not very different from what you have. It all ran without issues on Win98, and on XP Pro once I got the right drivers. But I installed Sonar Home 4 XL and half of the card's features quit working. I still had Cakewalk installed, but something in the Sonar setup messed up the configuration. The setup that used to work so well is only half functional at this point, and I don't care for Sonar very much despite the similarities with the older software.

As far as performance, Vista is a resource hog compared to XP, just as XP was compared to 98. I would hope that it makes more efficient use of multiple processors and greater RAM capacity, but on the surface it just looks to be "pretty" and have a lot of Mac-type fluff that hardcore users have no need for. I have worked in IT at the same company for over ten years, and we ran 95/98 until 2004 as I recall, before finally moving to XP Pro. We still use 95/98 in our manufacturing areas, because it's hard to justify buying new hardware when using browser-based apps that run on an old Pentium 2 or Celeron processor. Most of our industry-specific apps in the office only recently became available for XP, so a move to Vista is out of the question. The same is true in many large companies, where it's just not practical to migrate to Vista. Another thing to consider is Microsoft's history with service packs and "critical" security fixes. I wouldn't dream of running a Windows OS that isn't on at least its second major service pack or update.

[LEOKV2]

So guys, what's the deal with 64 bits? Why won't a program run on 64 bits at all ? This sucks, I'm doomed to buy the 32 bit XP then ??

[Spivonious]

Vista 64-bit really locks down the system, and any application that tries to do something it's not really supposed to do may have troubles. I suspect that's what the problem with Cakewalk is.

As per your original specs:
975 chipset is old, as has been mentioned. Go with a P35-based board. It really doesn't matter which one, as long as it has the number of slots and connectors you need. Unless you're doing some overclocking, then the boards start to vary in terms of overclocking headroom.

Core 2 Quad - Since I think 3ds supports multi-core chips, this is a good move. The Qx6850 is a bit overkill though. Any of the Q line will do fine. Intel does have new quad-cores coming out in the next few months (codenamed Penryn) so you may want to wait, as it will no doubt push prices even lower than they are now.

Graphics: Assuming 3ds and AutoCAD take advantage of 3D hardware acceleration, then get as much as you can afford in this category. Unless you're dealing with very large textures, the ultra/gtx is overkill with it's 768MB of RAM. As far as brand, usually the differences are only with what software is bundled.

Memory: I've read lots of stories about people having lots of trouble with 4gigs on Vista 64-bit. Stay away from XP Pro 64-bit - it's not really supported by anyone. My advice would be to get 2GB and stick with XP Pro until the Vista problems get sorted out (probably early next year when SP1 gets released). As far as what type, the P35 chipset takes DDR2 or DDR3. The various speeds (533/667/800) do make a difference, but probably not enough to be noticeable for what you'll be using it for.

Just a little tech lesson: a 32-bit operating system can only address 2^32 memory locations. Each location points to one bit (1/8 of a byte). If we add all those up, it comes to exactly 4GB of address space. Because of the way XP works, the most memory one application can use is 2GB (unless you do some minor hacking to get it up to 3GB). Vista comes in both 32- and 64-bit versions. The 32-bit version has the same restriction. 64-bit can theoretically address 2,097,152TB (terabytes) but Vista Home Premium limits you to 8GB. The other versions of Vista can support up to 16GB.

You mentioned Vista Ultimate. My advice? Stick with Home Premium. The few extra features that Ultimate gives you over Premium (namely Remote Desktop, domain support, shadow copying, and scheduled backups) are not worth the extra money IMO. The best part is that you can always upgrade later if you find that you need those features. Every Vista DVD holds the same information; it's the product key that tells it what to install. If you want to upgrade, you can upgrade to a new key on Microsoft's website.

Some people claim that Vista is a resource hog. I admit it uses much more memory than XP, but that is only because it approaches memory use in the opposite way. Rather than keeping as much memory free as possible, Vista preloads your most commonly used data into memory as soon as it boots. This makes your apps actually load faster, since everything they need is already in RAM.

Since you mentioned doing audio on this machine, I'm surprised that you didn't mention a sound card choice. While the onboard sound is fine for general use it really sucks for anything more. I'm happy with my X-Fi, but there are lots of other choices that are just as good or better.

[delt]

The whole 32 vs 64 bit thing is about memory ADDRESSING. With 32 bits, you have 4294967296 possibilities (00000000000000000000000000000000, 00000000000000000000000000000001, 00000000000000000000000000000010, 00000000000000000000000000000011, and so on) , so that means you can have about 4 billion (4 giga) individual byte addresses. With 64 bits, that number raises to almost infinity - of course that's what everyone said 20 years ago when the 16-bit (64 kilobytes addressing) + segmented modeling (640kb) + EMS/XMS hacks (16 megs) became insufficient back in the old DOS and windows 3.1 days.....

History repeats itself, and that's why i say, don't trust anything you don't have access to the source code, or else you'll end up fucked, like pretty much all windows users are now.

[rjohnstone]

History repeats itself, and that's why i say, don't trust anything you don't have access to the source code, or else you'll end up fucked, like pretty much all windows users are now.