New Gaming PC Suggestions?

[Larsa]

I'm planning on building a new gaming pc this September and am wanting to make it as good as I possibly can. I have $5k saved up for it. I'm considering getting the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition 3.33 GHz CPU and 6gigs of DDR3 RAM at 1800ghz. My dilemma is with the graphics card. I read that the HD Radeon 5970s were good, and I'm considering having two of them.

Would this setup work, or are there some problems? I want to play current and near-future titles on max settings as smoothly as possible. If you have any recommendations for alternative graphic cards that would be great too (or a different CPU if the one listed will cause problems.) Thanks in advance.

 

[Bootz]

I would go with two GTX 480's in sli, just because you plan on goin with an intel cpu. but two 5970's in crossfire im sure would be plenty good as well

 

[Larsa]

Nvidia cards tend to perform better with intel CPUs?

 

[SlackerITGuy]

I'm planning on building a new gaming pc this September and am wanting to make it as good as I possibly can. I have $5k saved up for it. I'm considering getting the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition 3.33 GHz CPU and 6gigs of DDR3 RAM at 1800ghz. My dilemma is with the graphics card. I read that the HD Radeon 5970s were good, and I'm considering having two of them.

Would this setup work, or are there some problems? I want to play current and near-future titles on max settings as smoothly as possible. If you have any recommendations for alternative graphic cards that would be great too (or a different CPU if the one listed will cause problems.) Thanks in advance.

CPU: the Core i7 980X is without a doubt the fastest CPU out there right now. But, is it $1000-fast? I personally don't think so, and if I were you, I would go for a Core i7 930, which is just as fast in most cases for 1/3 of the price.

GPU: GTX 480 would be my choice here, being that it is currently the fastest single GPU solution in the market right now. Now, If you want more juice, adding a second GTX 480 would be perfectly fine, since SLI scales better than CrossFireX.

 

[JonM33]

I'm planning on building a new gaming pc this September and am wanting to make it as good as I possibly can. I have $5k saved up for it. I'm considering getting the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition 3.33 GHz CPU and 6gigs of DDR3 RAM at 1800ghz. My dilemma is with the graphics card. I read that the HD Radeon 5970s were good, and I'm considering having two of them.

Would this setup work, or are there some problems? I want to play current and near-future titles on max settings as smoothly as possible. If you have any recommendations for alternative graphic cards that would be great too (or a different CPU if the one listed will cause problems.) Thanks in advance.

A single Radeon HD 5970 will last you quite some time on all current games. What do you plan on running that would need a pair of them?

For gaming, that Core i7-980X would be no different than a Core 2 Quad. It's a waste of money for a gamer and only suitable for those that do heavy multimedia encoding.

I would go with two GTX 480's in sli, just because you plan on goin with an intel cpu. but two 5970's in crossfire im sure would be plenty good as well

Two GTX 480s would run hot, use a lot more power than they should, cost more than they should and what does using an Intel CPU justify only using nVIDIA?

Nvidia cards tend to perform better with intel CPUs?

No. ATi cards perform just as well (if not better depending on the game).

CPU: the Core i7 980X is without a doubt the fastest CPU out there right now. But, is it $1000-fast? I personally don't think so, and if I were you, I would go for a Core i7 930, which is just as fast in most cases for 1/3 of the price.

GPU: GTX 480 would be my choice here, being that it is currently the fastest single GPU solution in the market right now. Now, If you want more juice, adding a second GTX 480 would be perfectly fine, since SLI scales better than CrossFireX.

A pair of GTX 480 would run hotter, louder and use more (unnecessary) power than a single Radeon HD 5970.

 

[Bootz]

I'm planning on building a new gaming pc this September and am wanting to make it as good as I possibly can. I have $5k saved up for it. I'm considering getting the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition 3.33 GHz CPU and 6gigs of DDR3 RAM at 1800ghz. My dilemma is with the graphics card. I read that the HD Radeon 5970s were good, and I'm considering having two of them.

Would this setup work, or are there some problems? I want to play current and near-future titles on max settings as smoothly as possible. If you have any recommendations for alternative graphic cards that would be great too (or a different CPU if the one listed will cause problems.) Thanks in advance.

A single Radeon HD 5970 will last you quite some time on all current games. What do you plan on running that would need a pair of them?

For gaming, that Core i7-980X would be no different than a Core 2 Quad. It's a waste of money for a gamer and only suitable for those that do heavy multimedia encoding.

I would go with two GTX 480's in sli, just because you plan on goin with an intel cpu. but two 5970's in crossfire im sure would be plenty good as well

Two GTX 480s would run hot, use a lot more power than they should, cost more than they should and what does using an Intel CPU justify only using nVIDIA?

Nvidia cards tend to perform better with intel CPUs?

No. ATi cards perform just as well (if not better depending on the game).

CPU: the Core i7 980X is without a doubt the fastest CPU out there right now. But, is it $1000-fast? I personally don't think so, and if I were you, I would go for a Core i7 930, which is just as fast in most cases for 1/3 of the price.

GPU: GTX 480 would be my choice here, being that it is currently the fastest single GPU solution in the market right now. Now, If you want more juice, adding a second GTX 480 would be perfectly fine, since SLI scales better than CrossFireX.

A pair of GTX 480 would run hotter, louder and use more (unnecessary) power than a single Radeon HD 5970.

I dont want to start an argument but i would disagree with most of this post.

I do believe you would notice a difference with the i7 compared to the core 2 quad.

The GTX's will run hotter but with a 5k budget im sure you will be on liquid cooling so heat shouldnt be an issue.

Generally its a good idea to match Intel with nvidia and AMD with ATI although you dont have to by any means.

How a 5970 would outperform a GTX 480 with the core i7, maybe look at some benchmarks to know for sure?

Again running hotter and louder shouldnt be an issue at all with liquid cooling.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Larsa]

Just to clarify I will be getting liquid cooling.

Thanks for the help guys!

 

[SlackerITGuy]

I'm planning on building a new gaming pc this September and am wanting to make it as good as I possibly can. I have $5k saved up for it. I'm considering getting the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition 3.33 GHz CPU and 6gigs of DDR3 RAM at 1800ghz. My dilemma is with the graphics card. I read that the HD Radeon 5970s were good, and I'm considering having two of them.

Would this setup work, or are there some problems? I want to play current and near-future titles on max settings as smoothly as possible. If you have any recommendations for alternative graphic cards that would be great too (or a different CPU if the one listed will cause problems.) Thanks in advance.

A single Radeon HD 5970 will last you quite some time on all current games. What do you plan on running that would need a pair of them?

For gaming, that Core i7-980X would be no different than a Core 2 Quad. It's a waste of money for a gamer and only suitable for those that do heavy multimedia encoding.



Two GTX 480s would run hot, use a lot more power than they should, cost more than they should and what does using an Intel CPU justify only using nVIDIA?



No. ATi cards perform just as well (if not better depending on the game).

CPU: the Core i7 980X is without a doubt the fastest CPU out there right now. But, is it $1000-fast? I personally don't think so, and if I were you, I would go for a Core i7 930, which is just as fast in most cases for 1/3 of the price.

GPU: GTX 480 would be my choice here, being that it is currently the fastest single GPU solution in the market right now. Now, If you want more juice, adding a second GTX 480 would be perfectly fine, since SLI scales better than CrossFireX.

A pair of GTX 480 would run hotter, louder and use more (unnecessary) power than a single Radeon HD 5970.

I dont want to start an argument but i would disagree with most of this post.

I do believe you would notice a difference with the i7 compared to the core 2 quad.

The GTX's will run hotter but with a 5k budget im sure you will be on liquid cooling so heat shouldnt be an issue.

Generally its a good idea to match Intel with nvidia and AMD with ATI although you dont have to by any means.

How a 5970 would outperform a GTX 480 with the core i7, maybe look at some benchmarks to know for sure?

Again running hotter and louder shouldnt be an issue at all with liquid cooling.

Just my 2 cents

This.

 

[pparks1]

Well, $5k is a monstrous budget and pretty much allows you to do anything that you want to do. However, I still question paying the outrageous premium on the Intel chip.... For 1/2 to 1/3 the price, you can get a suitable Core i7 that will perform 90% as good and will free up money for other components. Again, in your case...there isn't that much need to save money....but spending for the sake of spending just doesn't seem like the greatest move either. I would rather put in a $500 CPU and use the other $500 on an SSD which would really make a noticeable difference.

 

[Fumz]

... Generally its a good idea to match Intel with nvidia and AMD with ATI although you dont have to by any means...

I also have no wish to start an argument, but this is unfounded nonsense. ATI cards work equally well with AMD chipsets, Intel chipsets and even nVidia chipsets. There's no basis in reality for the claim to the contrary; it's all urban myth.

To the OP. Unless you're going to be running 3 monitors in eyefinity, there's no justification for getting two 5970's; it would be a waste of money. One will certainly suffice even up to 2500.

 

[Lordbob75]

... Generally its a good idea to match Intel with nvidia and AMD with ATI although you dont have to by any means...

I also have no wish to start an argument, but this is unfounded nonsense. ATI cards work equally well with AMD chipsets, Intel chipsets and even nVidia chipsets. There's no basis in reality for the claim to the contrary; it's all urban myth.

Exactly. People need to stop saying that. Its just stupid.

I would actually recommend the new 6 score AMD chip, black edition preferably. It is similar in performance, but literally 1/5 the cost.
Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT90ZFBGRBOX

The 480 and 5970 are similar in price, so that is more a matter of preference.
I will say that I have never had a driver issue with NVidia, but I did with ATI.

~Lordbob

 

[pparks1]

I would actually recommend the new 6 score AMD chip, black edition preferably. It is similar in performance, but literally 1/5 the cost.
Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT90ZFBGRBOX

Uh....the 6 core AMD doesn't perform any better than most of the middle of the road Core i5 CPU's. This has been discussed quite a bit around here and consensus is that the Core i5's and Core i7's are much better performing. While it's 1/5 the cost, there is a reason.

Edit: here is one of the links used showing scores and benchmarks: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x6-1090t_6.html#sect0

The Intel Core i5-750 is about $195, while the 1090T is around $295 and the Intel chip pretty much performs better in more benchmarks than not. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...5215&cm_re=core_i5-750-_-19-115-215-_-Product

And here, one of our members (A Guy), references Tom's Hardware listing other Intel CPU's that perform similarly to the AMD-1090T 6 core
http://www.sevenforums.com/843127-post26.html

 

[Lordbob75]

I would actually recommend the new 6 score AMD chip, black edition preferably. It is similar in performance, but literally 1/5 the cost.
Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT90ZFBGRBOX

Uh....the 6 core AMD doesn't perform any better than most of the middle of the road Core i5 CPU's. This has been discussed quite a bit around here and consensus is that the Core i5's and Core i7's are much better performing. While it's 1/5 the cost, there is a reason.

Edit: here is one of the links used showing scores and benchmarks: Six Cores from AMD: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition and Phenom II X6 1055T CPU Review (page 6) - X-bit labs

And here, one of our members (A Guy), references Tom's Hardware listing other Intel CPU's that perform similarly to the AMD-1090T 6 core
http://www.sevenforums.com/843127-post26.html

Wow, thats interesting. I didn't know that. I just assumed it would be better.

In that case, I would STILL recommend going with a black edition AMD simply because $1000 on a CPU is ridiculous.

~Lordbob

 

[pparks1]

Wow, thats interesting. I didn't know that. I just assumed it would be better.

In that case, I would STILL recommend going with a black edition AMD simply because $1000 on a CPU is ridiculous.

~Lordbob

I agree that for most of us, $1,000 is crazy. I would never do it, nor ever get the bang for the buck out of it. But for those who have to have the bragging rights or want the absolute best regardless of cost...it's there for them.

I wouldn't go AMD. The black edition 1090T is $295...while the better performing Core i5-750 is only $195. I'd be using an Intel without question.

AMD had their day...it was after the Pentium 4...when the AMD Athlon 64 X2's where the cat's pajamas and had best bang for the buck. However, since the core 2 duo, core 2 quad and Core i3/i5/i7 arrivals....AMD has been playing second fiddle without a strong enough price discount to make them a serious threat to people who really value performance and price. Those who are using AMD's are often just AMD fanboys and make their decision based upon that fact.

 

[Lordbob75]

Wow, thats interesting. I didn't know that. I just assumed it would be better.

In that case, I would STILL recommend going with a black edition AMD simply because $1000 on a CPU is ridiculous.

~Lordbob

I agree that for most of us, $1,000 is crazy. I would never do it, nor ever get the bang for the buck out of it. But for those who have to have the bragging rights or want the absolute best regardless of cost...it's there for them.

I wouldn't go AMD. The black edition 1090T is $295...while the better performing Core i5-750 is only $195.

Is that one unlocked to overclocked?

~Lordbob

 

[pparks1]

Is that one unlocked to overclocked?

~Lordbob

Unlocked? No
Overclockable? Yes

 

[Lordbob75]

Is that one unlocked to overclocked?

~Lordbob

Unlocked? No
Overclockable? Yes

That is a big difference though. I know the locked ones are a pain to overclock and you can't get very far with them...
But the BE AMDs are all unlocked at a more or less reasonable price compared to the unlocked Intel ones. That is my point.

~Lordbob

 

[pparks1]

That is a big difference though. I know the locked ones are a pain to overclock and you can't get very far with them...
But the BE AMDs are all unlocked at a more or less reasonable price compared to the unlocked Intel ones. That is my point.

~Lordbob

Not really a big deal. Most Intel processors have been locked. My E8400 and my Q9550 are both locked CPU's and both have been an absolute breeze to overclock. My E8400 went from 3.0Ghz to 3.62Ghz on stock cooling while my Q9550 went from 2.83Ghz to 3.20Ghz on stock cooling. Both of these chips can go much further with 3rd party coolers.

And besides, why spend more on the AMD chip, to then just have to tinker with overclocking and get it stable...when you can go Intel and save money and have a faster chip without even bothering with overclocking? And if you want to overclock, you are only going to make it even faster and still have saved money.

In my opinion, it's not worth $100 more to have the AMD simply because it's unlocked from a multiplier standpoint.

 

[thefabe]

I would just like to add whatever way you decide to go, don't forget to buy a quality power supply.
Check the motherboard manufacturers recommended Ram if available to avoid any problems with temperamental ram/mb combination.
I'm going to be building a new system soon and am looking at the i7 920 or 930 the x58 chipset and hopefully Mushkin Ram, probably a couple of GTX460's a 800w modular PUS, a full tower with cutouts for CPU changing without having to remove the MB and good cable management the largest SSD available and a 1 or 1.5 terabyte internal drive with the blu ray optical I already have. And either stick with the H50 CPU water cooler or The Ultra chillTec. But then I'm not planning on spending 5k for a system I just don't see any need for it for what I use my system for. My 2cents worth. Fabe

 

[Lordbob75]

That is a big difference though. I know the locked ones are a pain to overclock and you can't get very far with them...
But the BE AMDs are all unlocked at a more or less reasonable price compared to the unlocked Intel ones. That is my point.

~Lordbob

Not really a big deal. Most Intel processors have been locked. My E8400 and my Q9550 are both locked CPU's and both have been an absolute breeze to overclock. My E8400 went from 3.0Ghz to 3.62Ghz on stock cooling while my Q9550 went from 2.83Ghz to 3.20Ghz on stock cooling. Both of these chips can go much further with 3rd party coolers.

And besides, why spend more on the AMD chip, to then just have to tinker with overclocking and get it stable...when you can go Intel and save money and have a faster chip without even bothering with overclocking? And if you want to overclock, you are only going to make it even faster and still have saved money.

In my opinion, it's not worth $100 more to have the AMD simply because it's unlocked from a multiplier standpoint.

That makes sense, and I do agree.

I was thinking that he would probably be overclocking. I still think $1000 for Intel's CPU is just ridiculous.

~Lordbob