High-End Buyers' Guide: May 2007
by Dave Robinet and Jarred Walton on May 29, 2007 1:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Basic High-End Intel System
One of the few components held over from our October 2006 High-End Guide, the E6600 processor has dropped in price and remains the sweet spot for high-end purchasers at the $2,000 system range. The processor is known to be an excellent overclocker, and provides an even better value after Intel's price cuts. And speaking of price cuts, it's no secret that Intel is planning another round of price cuts in late July. If you can hold out another month or so, you just might be able to pick up a quad core Q6600 in place of the E6600 for a minor price increase.
Prices of 680i chipset-based boards have been dropping recently, which gives the EVGA 122-CK-NF63-TR its place in the baseline high-end Intel system. There were indeed some 975X motherboards which cost roughly the same, but as these implementations leveraged the ICH7 controller rather than the more-expensive ICH7R and an NVIDIA SLI currently continues to require NVIDIA chipset motherboards, it made sense to give the nod to the EVGA 680i solution.
There are potentially more overclock-friendly solutions like the ASUS P5B Deluxe, which costs roughly the same as the EVGA board and has a wider breadth of overclocking options. It runs on the P965 chipset, however, which sets it at a disadvantage in that one of the PCIe x16 slots can only run at x4 bandwidth, rather than giving each card the full x16. Again, such solutions also lack official NVIDIA SLI support so you would need to look at AMD graphics cards if you want to run a multi-GPU configuration. As mentioned already, however, running a single 8800 GTX in place of 8800 GTS SLI can save some money, avoid some headaches, and would be a great fit for a P965 platform.
We went with OCZ Flex XLC memory in the Intel high-end system. In our labs, this memory has reached 1T timings at speeds even slightly higher than 800MHz on 680i platforms. Your mileage may vary, of course, but this is an excellent pair of memory sticks at the sub-$180 price point.
The remaining components are all carried over from the AMD baseline system. The price for the Intel system comes in slightly higher than that of the AMD system, though the $2000 price point is maintained. Note that the Intel system configuration will show superior performance in virtually all applications compared to the AMD system, largely due to the Core 2 Duo's advantage over its Athlon X2 counterpart. If you're looking to overclock, the Core 2 Duo E6600 will also easily outperform any current AMD Athlon X2 processor, often by huge margins. It's not unreasonable to get 3.6 GHz and higher with E6600 chips when using an appropriate aftermarket CPU heatsink, and at present AMD lacks a dual core chip that can even hope to compete with such an overclocked processor.
This system gets Windows XP 32-bit, like the AMD baseline system. If you do choose to go above 2GB of memory, however, please ensure that you do move up to a 64-bit OS - preferably Vista at this point in time.
| Basic High-End Intel System | |||
| Hardware | Component | Price | Rebates |
| Processor | Core 2 Duo E6600 | $223 | - |
| Motherboard | EVGA 122-CK-NF63-TR | $159 | - |
| Memory | OCZ Flex XLC 2GB Kit DDR2 PC2-6400 | $179 | - |
| Video Card | 2x EVGA NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTS 640MB | $700 | $60 |
| Hard Drive | Samsung SpinPoint HD501LJ 500GB | $112 | - |
| Optical Drive | Pioneer DVR-212BK | $42 | - |
| Operating System | Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 SP2B (OEM) | $110 | - |
| System Total | $1525 | $1465 | |
| Complete Package | $2061-$3720 | $2001-$3660 | |
 |
Prices of 680i chipset-based boards have been dropping recently, which gives the EVGA 122-CK-NF63-TR its place in the baseline high-end Intel system. There were indeed some 975X motherboards which cost roughly the same, but as these implementations leveraged the ICH7 controller rather than the more-expensive ICH7R and an NVIDIA SLI currently continues to require NVIDIA chipset motherboards, it made sense to give the nod to the EVGA 680i solution.
There are potentially more overclock-friendly solutions like the ASUS P5B Deluxe, which costs roughly the same as the EVGA board and has a wider breadth of overclocking options. It runs on the P965 chipset, however, which sets it at a disadvantage in that one of the PCIe x16 slots can only run at x4 bandwidth, rather than giving each card the full x16. Again, such solutions also lack official NVIDIA SLI support so you would need to look at AMD graphics cards if you want to run a multi-GPU configuration. As mentioned already, however, running a single 8800 GTX in place of 8800 GTS SLI can save some money, avoid some headaches, and would be a great fit for a P965 platform.
We went with OCZ Flex XLC memory in the Intel high-end system. In our labs, this memory has reached 1T timings at speeds even slightly higher than 800MHz on 680i platforms. Your mileage may vary, of course, but this is an excellent pair of memory sticks at the sub-$180 price point.
The remaining components are all carried over from the AMD baseline system. The price for the Intel system comes in slightly higher than that of the AMD system, though the $2000 price point is maintained. Note that the Intel system configuration will show superior performance in virtually all applications compared to the AMD system, largely due to the Core 2 Duo's advantage over its Athlon X2 counterpart. If you're looking to overclock, the Core 2 Duo E6600 will also easily outperform any current AMD Athlon X2 processor, often by huge margins. It's not unreasonable to get 3.6 GHz and higher with E6600 chips when using an appropriate aftermarket CPU heatsink, and at present AMD lacks a dual core chip that can even hope to compete with such an overclocked processor.
This system gets Windows XP 32-bit, like the AMD baseline system. If you do choose to go above 2GB of memory, however, please ensure that you do move up to a 64-bit OS - preferably Vista at this point in time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
A lot of sites seem to prove you wrong in addition to the ones I linked to. You need to get your meter checked or that Dell PS is REALLY inefficient. All of these sites measure power drawn by the SYSTEM at the AC outlet. None of the 8800GTX SLI configurations use more than 500 watts under full load and the R600 Crossfire setup uses 522 watts under full load.http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=332&type=...">One.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/geforce-8800-...">Two.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/16/r600_a...">Three.
http://www.hwupgrade.com/articles/video/13/the-nvi...">Four.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2873...">Now check this out from YOUR OWN SITE. Do you really think that an upgrade to a quad core and another 8800GTX will pull another 500 watts?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - link
The big question is whether or not you plan on overclocking. I just did some quick tests, and taking a quad core QX6700 chip from 2.67 GHz to 3.33 GHz increases the power draw by about 60W. I know that if I went out and got a QX6700, I would overclock it at least that far. For that matter, if I got a Q6600, I would probably shoot for a similar clock speed.At stock voltage, stock speeds, the highest power draw I got with CrossFire X1950 XTX and a QX6700 (with three hard drives in the system) was "only" 488W. Could such a system run with a 520W power supply? Perhaps, provided it's a really high-quality power supply. Personally, I like to have a bit of leeway, so I would say 620W minimum for such a configuration.
Looking at your Bit-tech link, it appears that a Radeon HD 2900 XT consumes ~70W more power than a Radeon X1950 XTX, and in CrossFire mode the difference was 145W (worst-case). 488W + 145W = 633W... Eureka! Now, are you still going to want to run such a configuration with a 620W power supply? You could try, and it might even work depending on how often you reach maximum load, but again I prefer a little leeway. Without overclocking, I can easily see quad core and 2900 XT CrossFire breaking 600W on a regular basis (or at least approaching it). Throw in overclocking (~80W) and water-cooling (10W-30W - or more - depending on pump), and we are now at over 700W. Sure enough, that's exactly what I measured with the Dell XPS 720H2C (add a few more watts for the additional memory).
I personally follow an 80% rule: just to be safe, I don't exceed 80% of the rated power supply wattage. (this is especially important if you have power supplies with multiple 12V rails, as you almost certainly won't be drawing maximum power from each rail.) That means if I'm going to be drying up to 600W of power, I would want at least at a 750W power supply. If I'm going to overclock, I would want something in the 850W+ range.
CK804 - Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - link
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php...">It seems that the TEC inside your Dell is drawing a lot of power. That's why your power consumption is so high. A power supply wattage rating is the amount of power that the PS can deliver to the components and not how much power it can draw from the wall. Since we have to account for efficiency, 800W * 0.8 = 640 is the power consumption of the components inside. Take away the power consumption of the TEC (640 - 120) and the power consumption of the components is about 520 watts.CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36...">Are you sure about that breaking 850 watts?http://www.abxzone.com/forums/cases-psus-mods/1064...">That's a little too extreme, don't you think?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Depends on what you throw in there. I've got a system with an overclocked QX6700 and 8800 Ultra SLI with water-cooling, multiple hard drives, and basically about every high-end option you can find. I've measured peak power draw of nearly 800W, and a stock HD 2900 XT uses more power than an 8800 GTX by about 20W at load. Overclock two of those cards, and yes I think you can break 850W power draw.FWIW, idle power draw is 475W on the system, putting 100% load on the CPU takes that up to 625W, and 100% CPU while running 3DMark06 put it at something close to 750-775W (with the average being more like 700W). If I were to manually overclock the GPUs, then I'm sure I could break 800W.
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
I still call BS on 800. 475 watts idling? That's a little too extreme don't you think? Did you even read the sites I linked to? And what are you measuring with? Your @SS?JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Some people always need proof I suppose.Sitting next to me is a Dell XPS 720 H2C measured at the outlet with a Kill-A-Watt device. The CPU is running at 3.43 GHz with 1.550V. Why should I need to read your links when I've got a system right in front of me generating those numbers? But of course you're right: your linked article must be more accurate than anything we could measure in-house. The Dell has a 1000W power supply, and I'm sure Dell is just being cautious, like they are with their 375W PSUs in the XPS 410.
PS: My ass measured a power output of 1.21GW last I checked. I have to be careful as I don't want to accidentally warp myself through time if I go eat Mexican food. You see, I also have a flux capacitor hardwired into my spine, just in case....
Thanks for reading, though.
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/100...">AMD 4x4 system with 8800GTX SLI uses 612 watts under full load.JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Overclocking + overvolting will jack up the power draw of the CPU quite a bit. Stock voltage is supposed to be 1.300V (I think) and overclocked it's 1.550V, plus it's running at 3.43 GHz instead of 2.67 GHz. Throw in a water-cooling setup, three hard drives, 4GB RAM, and you get quite a bit more power draw than a stock 4x4 SLI setup.CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Hard drives draw about 10 watts each. That's 30 watts. Each extra memory module will draw about 5 more watts. That's 20 watts. The water pump should draw no more than 10 watts and the fans about 5 watts each. Assuming you're using 2 120mm fans, the extra power draw under a worse case secenario would be 90 watts. So now we move onto the CPU. Are you seriously going to tell me that an overclocked Core 2 Quad consumes 300 watts under load? A Smithfield barely consumed half of 300 watts. I think any CPU would explode if it consumed 300 watts.