CPU Friend, Time for a new rig; Your thoughts?

[sirRealist]

Opps, I meant "CPU Fried" in the title; oh well...

So yeah, I OCed my 4200+ to:
11 x 260 @ 1.55v, 52-54C and it primed fine for 12hrs
Then 3 days later, it wont boot any OS
Only way it boots now is if I set it all to stock settings and lower multi to 6x. RAM is good, mobo caps are good, PSU voltage output is good etc etc.

If you're curious for the whole story, see my thread here:
Sadness


Well, so its not a totally bum deal... now I have an excuse to build a whole new rig! Here's what I'm thinking:


ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe

OCZ GameXStream 700W PSU

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor 3.2GHz Socket AM2 125W Dual-Core Processor Model ADX6400CZWOF BlackBox

SUPER TALENT 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)

Tuniq Tower 120

EVGA 512-P3-N841-A3 GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB

Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM


The idea here is to build a system i don't even HAVE to overclock, or at the very most OC to an extremely safe level (so i don't have a recurrence of what happened last time, where all seemed in the green and yet it still died). Then, as the system ages, I can OC what I've got in there (and add another vid card) to extend its life. Should I go with 2 x 1GB or 4 x 1GB of RAM? I am currently running XP, and I don't plan on upgrading to Vista, but maybe I should. If I build a new system, I'll need to clean install and OS, so should I go Vista now?

To sum up:

1) What do you think of my components?

2) 2GB RAM or 4GB?

3) Should I go Vista? Someone on another thread said:
"I do want to mention I think you should go with Vista, it's DX10 and that alone makes it worth it. Go 64-bit and get 4GB of ram..... For 64bit 4GB ram makes a huge difference, and witht he prices of DDR2 now, definitely get 4GB. Now I ran 64-bit with 2gb for months and my PC was just not as snappy as I like,. I got another 2gb kit and wala, system is blazing fast, load times are insanely low.." So, in addition tot he vista question, should I go 64bit?

4) Finally, and this is a big one... should I be looking at Intel? Is AM2 the way to go right now and not Intel?
I haven't bought Intel since my Celeron 366, which was my first OC (got it to 566!), but I'm not "married" to AMD; I'm married to best bang for my buck. I want to build a system that's going to last, and is going to be a screamer, and If I'm going to put this much money into this thing, I don't want to regret not even looking at Intel. Please, no fan boy responses, just clear discussion



The rig looks to be about $1100 (with 2GB ram, $1166 for 4GB)

I truly truly appreciate all your help and wisdom! Again, for the new rig, I'm looking for best bang for my buck, in the long run (if that makes sense).

 

[th3]

Sorry but i felt like linking to your thread in the Intel section:
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=544125

Because:

Again, for the new rig, I'm looking for best bang for my buck, in the long run (if that makes sense).

Its hard to defend Windsor against Intels overclockability and lower power consumption, AMD is only good for low budget rigs nowadays, at the ~$1100 pricepoint you set Intel is better also without overclocking.

 

[Careface]

To sum up:

1) What do you think of my components?

Im jealous. Put it that way

2) 2GB RAM or 4GB?

Do you think youd use many apps that would make use of extra RAM? Photoshop, vid editting, serving.. but DDR2 prices are so cheap these days, 4gb seems to be the "meh, why not?" mark.

3) Should I go Vista? Someone on another thread said:
"I do want to mention I think you should go with Vista, it's DX10 and that alone makes it worth it. Go 64-bit and get 4GB of ram..... For 64bit 4GB ram makes a huge difference, and witht he prices of DDR2 now, definitely get 4GB. Now I ran 64-bit with 2gb for months and my PC was just not as snappy as I like,. I got another 2gb kit and wala, system is blazing fast, load times are insanely low.." So, in addition tot he vista question, should I go 64bit?

I really think this depends on the individual. I personally dislike Vista simply because I think microsoft really ****ed it up compatibility wise, and its such a resource hog.. and to save my skin from Vista-fiends, I have used Vista on my laptop, and on my flatmates very well specced desktop.. yes, Vista looks pretty and is probably "the way forward", but Ill stick to XP until Vista is decent. Hopefully SP1 fixes it.

As for the DX10 thing.. eh, I think its 100% BS that MS say you can only run DX10 on Vista.. I bet you $100 imaginary-cash that someone will bring out either a cracked version, or just simply a ported version to XP. Bill Gates just wants more people to switch to his new baby, so he uses DX10 as ransom! hehehe

4) Finally, and this is a big one... should I be looking at Intel? Is AM2 the way to go right now and not Intel?
I haven't bought Intel since my Celeron 366, which was my first OC (got it to 566!), but I'm not "married" to AMD; I'm married to best bang for my buck. I want to build a system that's going to last, and is going to be a screamer, and If I'm going to put this much money into this thing, I don't want to regret not even looking at Intel. Please, no fan boy responses, just clear discussion

No fanboy responses? Damn, guess I cant recommend AMD then. I simply <3 AMD and always will.

Having said that, yeah, Intel is pretty much where its at at the moment *hides from current Phenom owners*

 

[sirRealist]

Thanks for the honest replys guys.. keep 'em coming!

Also, I was suggested to look into doing this:

Instead of having the one 10k raptor as my primary, to consider doing 2x 7200 in raid 0. That is usually has increased or similar performance (for gaming) as 1 10k, and that I'll get more space.

Thoughts? Here are the 7200s I was looking at:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache

 

[MR-FIX-IT]

Have you looked into Intel? I've been an AMD fan boy for quite some time, and switched to Intel last year. They offer alot more bang for your buck... Just a thought. I'm not bashing AMD at all, in fact all of my PCs here are AMD except my new gaming rig... Give it some thought...

For me, I just want a good value, and Intel have proven that so far with the core 2....

The raptor is a good choice but I would go with two 80 gigers in RAID 0, and get a little more space and speed for less..

 

[juane414]

I recommend Vista 64-bit and 4 or more Gb or ram. DDR2 is dirt cheap right now, you might as well stack up on it. Also, I've heard of people getting better game performance with Vista on certain games then with XP using the exact same hardware. Newer games, especially those backed by Microsoft are obviously geared toward Vista.

 

[QuietIce]

If you're building a rig NOW then, yes, Intel is a more cost efficient option at that price point (Gads I hated typing that! ).


If you can wait until April/May the Phenom revision should be readily available and (clock for clock) looks better for gaming.
But that's assuming the revised Phenom will OC well ...

 

[OC101]

Intel is more cost efficient only if you overclock the heck out of it. At stock, AMD is still better for the money.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

Thanks for the honest replys guys.. keep 'em coming!

Also, I was suggested to look into doing this:

Instead of having the one 10k raptor as my primary, to consider doing 2x 7200 in raid 0. That is usually has increased or similar performance (for gaming) as 1 10k, and that I'll get more space.

Thoughts? Here are the 7200s I was looking at:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache

I'm starting to see apps like Photoshop recommend 2 drives for speed reasons. Raid is the way to go but I like the idea of having a separate drive that only contains the page file and storage of images, movies and music. Nice rig compared to what we were talking about on the other thread

 

[dealmaster]

Intel is more cost efficient only if you overclock the heck out of it. At stock, AMD is still better for the money.

True, but look at the forum you're posting on.