Silent (if possible) Core2 Dual & motherboard

[Quitch]

I'm putting together a PC with the following rough spec:

* Intel Core 2 Duo, E8500, S775, 3.16 GHz, 1333MHz, 6MB Cache, OEM. Possibly changed for a Quad core later in life if necessary.
* ATI - Radeon HD4870 - PCI-E (possibly two of them, they come with two slow cooling solutions which pump air out of the case). Could well be upgraded in a generation or two.
* 8GB RAM, in whatever config proves most affordable over four slots. I don't anticipate ever changing this.
* Some soundcard, unless on-board sound has got a LOT better and doesn't force me to compromise on motherboard.

With this in mind, is a silent solution possible or practical for the CPU? I want something as quiet as possible, but which will be able to move sufficient heat with those other components in the case. Unfortunately I can't give details on the case because I'm still asking around.

Likewise with the motherboard, I need something which can do CrossFire, support a 1333Mhz+ FSB and 8GB memory. Everything using the Intel x45 chipset seems to use heat pipes and not fans, so I think I'm going to be okay here, but just in case are there any considerations I need?

[tehfire]

As long as you have decent airflow, a silent solution for your CPU should be very possible. I would recommend the Thermalright HR-01 Plus. It is very good passive and has a very good mounting system. You shouldn't have to mount a fan on it either if you have good (read: not insane) airflow, and you always have the option of putting an extremely slow (and quiet) fan on it (like a 500rpm Scythe Slipstream) if you need to.

Any reason why you're going for the X45 chipset? I'd rather go with the P45 chipset. Supports pretty much everything you need (including crossfire) and should save you a pretty penny. I haven't been shopping for a motherboard lately, but I'm pretty sure the P45 should satisfy all your requirements.

If you're anything like me (and do not use digital output), you'll want to get a decent soundcard. Integrated sound cards are getting better, but they're still not as clear as standalone cards. I love my Auzentech X-Plosion 7.1, but it doesn't support the newest versions of EAX so if you game you may want to look somewhere else.

[Quitch]

I'll be running Vista, so EAX isn't an issue anyway. For soundcard worries I'd be looking at OpenAL, but with the Miles system becoming so popular I think I'm free to use pretty much whatever on that front. Both Asus and Auzentech would be possibilities. I can't put up with Creative drivers any more, a decade of them is enough.

I didn't realise the P45 chipset was an option, though a quick glance reveals some very limited options on that front (very few boards supporting anything more than 1066 FSB). I'll have to look at what the two chipsets offer over one another.

Hopefully airflow won't be an issue, I've got another post over on the cases forum looking for just the right case. Heatsink looks good though. If I may ask, why that one? I had a look over the Thermalright site, but it was light on information to tell me why I would one to pick one of their heatsinks over the other, at least at a quick glance.

[krille]

Uhm, P45 supports 1600 FSB. I think you're confusing the FSB with the memory speed. For 1600 Mhz RAM you'd have to go PC3-12800 DDR3. DDR3 is not very affordable, however, and I strongly advise against it.

If you can find it, Abit's IP45 Pro board should have the best on-board fan controller.

The Auzentech X-Fi Prelude supports latest EAX, OpenAL and has ALchemy so you can enjoy EAX in Vista (if EAX is your cup of tea). It also supports DD Live and DTS Connect. It does however use Creative's X-Fi chip. Otherwise I guess the ASUS Xonar D2(X) cards are popular. They use the CMI8788 chip (but ASUS calls it ASUS AV200) previously featured on the very popular Auzentech X-MERIDIAN 7.1. ASUS bought the exclusive rights for the chip and that's why X-MERIDIAN was discontinued.

Definitely Thermalright HR-01 Plus as your CPU HS. Couple it with a low-RPM (such as a Nexus) and take advantage of Abit's hardware fan-controller.

[Quitch]

Ah thanks for clearing that up, the DDR2 Vs. DDR3 thing is interesting, though it's tricky to find benchmarks based around the higher clocked DDR3 modules, most of the talk is around the 1066 stuff. Still, it does look like low latency DDR2 at 1066Mhz could be the way to go.

As for the P45, it looks like it only has one 16x PCI-E slot, the other being 8x, which isn't any good if I go the CrossFire route.

Incidentally, if I ended up going quad-core, does this substantially change the approach to cooling the processor, or would I look to take a similar solution but with a fan being mandatory?

[Quitch]

OK, so I'm going with the dual core and 8GB of DDR2 1066 memory at 5-5-5-15. Soundcard will be an ASUS Xonar DX.

If I put this setup in an Antec Solo case (it receives so much universal love that it's my default choice), am I going to get the necessary airflow? Does that then force me to choose a non-passive PSU?

[andyb]

OK, so I'm going with the dual core and 8GB of DDR2 1066 memory at 5-5-5-15.

Wy would you want to waste your money on 8GB of RAM when nothing out there gets a benefit from the jump between 3GB and 4GB, its a waste of money.

Also have a look at this 1000MHz RAM compared to the price of the 1066.

http://www.microdirect.co.uk/(32155)OCZ ... 2-PC2.aspx

It runs at a sensible voltage, and its a standard height DIMM, which means that it will fit on the vast majority of motherboards with the vast majority of coolers and fans.


Andy

[krille]

Ah thanks for clearing that up, the DDR2 Vs. DDR3 thing is interesting, though it's tricky to find benchmarks based around the higher clocked DDR3 modules, most of the talk is around the 1066 stuff. Still, it does look like low latency DDR2 at 1066Mhz could be the way to go.

As for the P45, it looks like it only has one 16x PCI-E slot, the other being 8x, which isn't any good if I go the CrossFire route.

Incidentally, if I ended up going quad-core, does this substantially change the approach to cooling the processor, or would I look to take a similar solution but with a fan being mandatory?

DDR3 is not worth it's price tag at the moment. If you've got an infinite budget (ie Bill Gates' Gaming Rig) I'd suggest DDR3. If you're a mere mortal, stick with DDR2 for now. You will only benefit a few FPS in games, tops.

This is from last year, but it's AnandTech at least: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2989&p=7
TweakTown (also last year =/): http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1124/ ... _analysis/

P45 uses PCI-E 2.0 which doubles the data rate of PCI-E. So, two 8x lanes of PCI-E 2.0 (as available on P45 boards) is actually equivalent to two 16x lanes of PCI-E 1.1. So you're not missing out on anything!

As for the Antec Solo, I wouldn't know. I know the Antec P182 is a solid choice however and according to SPCR the Solo is just as good although a bit smaller. (So I don't know if, for example, you could use AC S1s on your GPUs.)

Going quad over dual essentially doubles your heat output. You'd have to compensate by ramping up fan speeds. Unless you have a particular reason to go quad, I would suggest waiting till maybe 32nm quad-core Nehalem or getting at least a dual-core Nehalem 45nm as it has hyperthreading. The only reason for the wait being the extra heat really, but that's just me. Your HR-01 Plus and a Nexus should be more than enough (you could probably ramp down the Nexus slightly). I doubt a Slipstream would be enough.

andyb > He said he's running Vista and Vista 64-bit actually takes advantage of up to 128 GB of RAM (as can XP 64-bit). That and DX10 are the only real reasons to upgrade at this point in my opinion.

[Quitch]

OK, so I'm going with the dual core and 8GB of DDR2 1066 memory at 5-5-5-15.

Wy would you want to waste your money on 8GB of RAM when nothing out there gets a benefit from the jump between 3GB and 4GB, its a waste of money.

1. RAM is dirt cheap, doubling the RAM costs me almost nothing.

2. SuperFetch in Vista pre-emptively caches information, so the more RAM the more it can cache and the faster my load times, and since hard-drives are still one of the slowest components in any PC, that's a good thing.

3. I intend to keep this build for a long time, and as DDR2 is phased out it will go up in price as it's replaced, it makes more sense to get the RAM now than later.

In other words, the cost is tiny and there aren't any downsides. RAM is just so cheap that I should throw all the RAM at it now. And yes, I'll be running Vista 64-bit.

I'm going DDR2 because my reading suggests you'll need DDR3 1600 before you see even the slightest gain against DDR2 1066.

[Quitch]

P45 uses PCI-E 2.0 which doubles the data rate of PCI-E. So, two 8x lanes of PCI-E 2.0 (as available on P45 boards) is actually equivalent to two 16x lanes of PCI-E 1.1. So you're not missing out on anything!

Good to know, thanks!

Going quad over dual essentially doubles your heat output. You'd have to compensate by ramping up fan speeds. Unless you have a particular reason to go quad, I would suggest waiting till maybe 32nm quad-core Nehalem or getting at least a dual-core Nehalem 45nm as it has hyperthreading. The only reason for the wait being the extra heat really, but that's just me. Your HR-01 Plus and a Nexus should be more than enough (you could probably ramp down the Nexus slightly). I doubt a Slipstream would be enough.

I'm going to skip quad for the next four years, the price differential is too much, it compromises the build, and by the time it's affordable I'd need a new socket anyway.

andyb > He said he's running Vista and Vista 64-bit actually takes advantage of up to 128 GB of RAM (as can XP 64-bit). That and DX10 are the only real reasons to upgrade at this point in my opinion.

I love Vista, it's much better than XP, though for the average guy in the street I would say "get it with your new PC".

[smilingcrow]

2. SuperFetch in Vista pre-emptively caches information, so the more RAM the more it can cache and the faster my load times, and since hard-drives are still one of the slowest components in any PC, that's a good thing.

I’m curious to see how much RAM Vista will utilise when you have 8GB installed; it will depend a lot on your typical workload of course.
I dual boot XP and Vista x64 with 4GB but I’ve never checked to see how much RAM Vista utilises. XP peaks at roughly 2GB usage which gives a benchmark to see how much of the free RAM Vista uses. I’ll take a look the next time I use Vista.

[krille]

2. SuperFetch in Vista pre-emptively caches information, so the more RAM the more it can cache and the faster my load times, and since hard-drives are still one of the slowest components in any PC, that's a good thing.

I’m curious to see how much RAM Vista will utilise when you have 8GB installed; it will depend a lot on your typical workload of course.
I dual boot XP and Vista x64 with 4GB but I’ve never checked to see how much RAM Vista utilises. XP peaks at roughly 2GB usage which gives a benchmark to see how much of the free RAM Vista uses. I’ll take a look the next time I use Vista.

While XP Pro only addresses about 3.2GB, by default any single application can only address 2GB (you can add a /3gb switch in boot.ini, but it's not recommended). That's probably why XP only peaks at 2GB for you. Try running two different applications that use 2GB each. I guess two instances of Prime95 would work, for example. Haven't actually tried it myself, however.

Quitch you are correct in that it's either DDR3 1600 or nothing to be gained. I fully support your decision to go 8GB unless you're overclocking and care about those last few FPS (as 2x2GB or 4x1GB would perform better than 4x2GB until games actually start using more than 4GB RAM).

[smilingcrow]

While XP Pro only addresses about 3.2GB, by default any single application can only address 2GB. That's probably why XP only peaks at 2GB for you.

No, XP peaks at 2GB because that’s all my applications require; XP can address 3.5GB in my system. I don’t use any applications that require more than 512MB so the 2GB (or 3GB) limit per application doesn’t apply.

[Quitch]

2. SuperFetch in Vista pre-emptively caches information, so the more RAM the more it can cache and the faster my load times, and since hard-drives are still one of the slowest components in any PC, that's a good thing.

I’m curious to see how much RAM Vista will utilise when you have 8GB installed; it will depend a lot on your typical workload of course.
I dual boot XP and Vista x64 with 4GB but I’ve never checked to see how much RAM Vista utilises. XP peaks at roughly 2GB usage which gives a benchmark to see how much of the free RAM Vista uses. I’ll take a look the next time I use Vista.

It will use all of it. As I recall if it runs out of apps to cache it will start putting user files into memory.

While XP Pro only addresses about 3.2GB, by default any single application can only address 2GB (you can add a /3gb switch in boot.ini, but it's not recommended). That's probably why XP only peaks at 2GB for you

The /3GB switch does not address a physical memory limit but rather a virtual one. It changes how much memory applications can address.

[Quitch]

How does the Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtremestack up against the HR-01? I've seen several recommendations for the former, but I can't tell what the difference would be in the real-world, except the former appears to have a fan recommended where as the later does not.

The build is beginning to come together:

* Intel Core 2 Duo, E8500, S775, 3.16 GHz, 1333MHz, 6MB Cache, OEM.
* ATI - Radeon HD4870 - PCI-E
* 8GB RAM
* Asus Xonar DX sound card
* Samsun F1 1TB hard drive
* Antec SOLO case
* A P45 motherboard

I have the ability to go all passive using an HR-01 on the CPU, an Accelero S1 Rev. 2 on the GPU and a passive PSU, but I think that would get too hot. For PSU then I thought the 625W Enermax MODU82+ would be a good option. I'm still looking into GPU coolers.

[andyb]

He said he's running Vista and Vista 64-bit actually takes advantage of up to 128 GB of RAM (as can XP 64-bit). That and DX10 are the only real reasons to upgrade at this point in my opinion.

You mean DX10 is the ONLY reason - there are many other 64-bit OS's to use.

I’m curious to see how much RAM Vista will utilise when you have 8GB installed; it will depend a lot on your typical workload of course.
I dual boot XP and Vista x64 with 4GB but I’ve never checked to see how much RAM Vista utilises. XP peaks at roughly 2GB usage which gives a benchmark to see how much of the free RAM Vista uses. I’ll take a look the next time I use Vista.

I feel fortunate that I have only ever seen one 64-bit Fista PC running 4GB of RAM, it took 5-minutes to boot and become responsive, it wasnt using the fastest HDD, but it was quite quick (500GB Hitachi I think), it also left 4MB of RAM usable. I know what your thinking 4MB - he must be wrong. I'm not, I rebooted the PC several times and was shocked and appauled at how shyte and slow Fista is even on a high end PC (this was an X2 4800+ running PC6400).

All that will happen is that it will leave you with 4MB of RAM out of your 8GB, and take far longer too boot as it will just cache more and more stuff. (I hope I am wrong, but nothing really surprises me with Fista anymore). BTW you are the second person I have talked to that actually "likes" Fista.

If you can turn off the caching you might actually see some benefit to using 8GB of RAM. I also believe that you would be much better of in the short AND long term by saving the £60 on the extra 4GB of RAM and spending that on an extra 2 cores as its far easier (as you dont want to meddle with your PC) to simply plug in another 4GB later on if you want/need to, whereas you would make a loss selling your old CPU to upgrade to a quad core. But then again, if you expect to keep your PC for 4 years without a significant upgrade (like most of the innards) then you will be very dissapointed.

You have also missed one vital component to your PC - the screen, this is simply put: The MOST important component of your PC.


Andy

[smilingcrow]

I feel fortunate that I have only ever seen one 64-bit Fista PC running 4GB of RAM, it took 5-minutes to boot and become responsive, it wasnt using the fastest HDD, but it was quite quick (500GB Hitachi I think), it also left 4MB of RAM usable. I know what you’re thinking 4MB - he must be wrong. I'm not, I rebooted the PC several times and was shocked and appalled at how shyte and slow Fista is even on a high end PC (this was an X2 4800+ running PC6400).

All that will happen is that it will leave you with 4MB of RAM out of your 8GB, and take far longer too boot as it will just cache more and more stuff. (I hope I am wrong, but nothing really surprises me with Fista anymore). BTW you are the second person I have talked to that actually "likes" Fista.

My Vista x64 SP1 boots much quicker than XP Pro SP3 on the same hardware; it’s a dual boot. Both are running almost exactly the same background utilities and I haven’t tweaked Vista in any way as I’m a novice and still evaluating it. Did you friend try tweaking Vista’s settings and end up making it worse!

[andyb]

Did you friend try tweaking Vista’s settings and end up making it worse!

Customer, not friend otherwise I would have looked into his problems.

As far as I understand the more programs you have installed, the more time Fista takes to boot up because it tries to cache everything there is.

He had loads of games installed, as well as AV, Firewall, iTunes, Skype and other stuff. I expect that you only have the minimal amount of programs installed. If you want to really evaluate it, install everything that you have on your XP PC and see how you do.

FYI, I have recently decided that when I quote customers for fixing their PC's we will be charging a premium for Fista, just like we used too for Win-98 a couple of years ago. It takes longer to work with the PC's due to permission problems slowing down backups, the retarded layout of of the user data, and the many many differences from W2K and XP that all add up to taking longer to do the same work.

We have also been asked by quite a few people to "upgrade" their Fista PC's to XP, because they dont like it, they find it slower than their "old" PC/laptop, or both.

I will only ever use Fista personally if a killer game comes out that will ONLY run on DX10, I am looking forward to the next version of Windows just like I was with Fista, I doubt it is possible for me to be as unimpressed. I was really looking forward to the replacement for XP, I tried Beta's, the full original release, and Fista with SP1 - I now hate it as much as one possibly could, and mutter out loud when a Fista "infected" PC lands on my desk....... God I loved Windows 98 and all of its buggyness.


Andy

[smilingcrow]

As far as I understand the more programs you have installed, the more time Vista takes to boot up because it tries to cache everything there is.
He had loads of games installed, as well as AV, Firewall, iTunes, Skype and other stuff. I expect that you only have the minimal amount of programs installed. If you want to really evaluate it, install everything that you have on your XP PC and see how you do.

I’ve already installed all my major applications and utilities as that’s the only way to properly evaluate it. Overall I don’t find much difference in general performance although as you say it does take getting used to so takes longer to do certain things especially for the first time. At the same time Vista is certainly faster than XP for certain everyday tasks and I like it overall. I probably won’t make the move to using it at the moment due to a couple of minor incompatibility issues which are mainly down to software companies not supporting Vista fully with regard drivers.

I now hate it as much as one possibly could, and mutter out loud when a Vista "infected" PC lands on my desk....... God I loved Windows 98 and all of its buggyness.

You’d rather use Windows 98 than Vista!

[andyb]

You’d rather use Windows 98 than Vista!

Sometimes I would, but of course it depends on the machine, most Fista machines would be brilliant with 98, boot in seconds, be immune to most modern viruses, all problems are well know about. But then again, I would pick XP over anything, followed by W2K, then Ubuntu, then the difficult choice of 98 or Fista.

Some years ago, I used to dual-boot NT4 and 98, I did work on th stable platform, and I played on 98. W2K came along and replaced NT4, SP2 came along with decent drivers, and replaced 98. XP came along, and was soon replaced by W2K again as it was faster, XP SP1 came along and replaced W2K (hardware upgrade), SP2 came along......... SP3 came along......... Windows 7 will come along. As mentioned before I will only ever use Fista if a killer game comes out that ONLY runs on Fista (or perhaps SP2 for Fista allows me to change everything I dont like back to..... erm XP and the hardware at the time makes Fista a "real" upgrade, and not just a shiny broken toy).

Most end-users are very different from you and I, they want to use the internet, e-mail, play cards, write documents, crunch numbers with a spreadsheet, look at their photos, and play music/videos. They can do that slowly on a £400 Fista laptop, they can do that really quickly on a £400 XP Laptop, or they can do that really quickly on a £300 Ubuntu laptop. People dont have a clue what Ubuntu (or Linux in general) is - hell most people dont even know the difference between Windows and Office, they will buy whats sold to them, if they are sold Fista they are generally upset, annoyed and frustrated, everything that they are used to is different and its no quicker (and often slower) that their old PC/Laptop.

Most people will buy whatever looks like the best deal in the shops (cheapest), most cheap desktops and laptops are just horrible with Fista on them, even if they have 2GB of RAM they usually come with entry level HDD's and take longer to shut down than a lesser specced XP PC takes to load. Most people dont care about the features or the looks, but they really dont want to have to click on things again and again, or learn where MS hid the things they used to be able to find.

Essentially Fista is a downgrade for the average user, and not the upgrade that everyone was expecting, and to be honest it's actually increasing my PC sales, as lots of people are asking if I can build them an XP PC, because they simply dont want Fista.


Andy

[smilingcrow]

Sometimes I would, but of course it depends on the machine, most Vista machines would be brilliant with 98, boot in seconds, be immune to most modern viruses, all problems are well know about.

Any machine with 98 from my perspective becomes a toy rather than a serious tool; good for games but not for hardcore usage.
Having used NT since 3.51 I passed on 95, 98 & ME after evaluating most of them (didn’t bother with ME) and finding them seriously lacking. I can see why people perceive Vista to be flawed but to rate it behind 95/98 seems irrational to me. I’d rather pay the large premium and use OSX or Ubuntu for that mattter than use a free copy of 98.

[Quitch]

You have also missed one vital component to your PC - the screen, this is simply put: The MOST important component of your PC.
Andy

IMO the keyboard is the most important component, followed by the mouse followed by the screen.

Since the screen isn't related to the quietness of the machine, nor the heat output of the case, I haven't dealt with it here.

[andyb]

IMO the keyboard is the most important component, followed by the mouse followed by the screen.

Well yes its a good idea to have a keyboard and mouse that you like, but its easy and cheap to replace a keyboard and mouse that you dont like, whereas you dont really want to have to change your screen for a long time or have the expence of doing so.

Since the screen isn't related to the quietness of the machine

Some screens make high pitched noises (constantly) if their brightness is turned up/down too much, there are many people who have had this problem with their monitors and expressed them on these forums. Some people have even had monitors that are LOUDER than their PC - its well worth looking into before buying.

I can happily reccomend the Samsung 245B, its an excelent monitor in every way, and the 3 that I have used for long periods of time all turned up perfect (no faulty pixels or sub-pixels), and no squealing.


Andy

[tehfire]

</segue> I recommendeded the Thermalright heatsinks because they preform well and have a very good mounting system. I chose the HR-01+ over the Ultra 120 eXtreme because the HR-01+ has wider-spaced fins, which means that it could be better used passively or with a slow-spinning fan. The eXtreme will have a higher cooling capacity, but only with a faster fan. At slower air speeds, the HR-01+ will be better. Both should be well-suited to cool your E8500.