Build the Perfect PC! Step-by-Step Illustrated How-To Guide

Posted 02/11/2009 at 10:00am | by The Maximum PC Staff

29

Comments

Print

Maker’s Mark is of course the name of a fine Kentucky bourbon whiskey, but the phrase also applies to the stamp that skilled artisans apply to their creations. When you’ve finished building your custom PC, we’d encourage you to stamp it with your own maker’s mark; after all, the one-of-a-kind creation you’ll have wrought will have nothing in common with the mass-produced rigs that mainstream manufacturers churn out by the millions.

That’s one of the most exciting aspects of our hobby. Automobile buffs can tune and customize their factory-built cars and trucks, but computer geeks like us get to build something new and unique almost entirely from whole cloth. And it’s so easy that you have to wonder why anyone would buy a preassembled PC in the first place.

Thanks to the relatively open architecture that IBM stumbled into oh so many years ago (and has likely regretted ever since), we can rebuild and retune our creations again and again, boosting their performance and postponing their obsolescence. We do hit a wall every now and again. Intel’s new Core i7 CPU is a good example. Because the new processor features an onboard memory controller—a first for Intel, although AMD’s procs have had the technology for years—the company had to design a new socket architecture to accommodate the additional pins. That blocks the upgrade path for anyone using an LGA775 motherboard.

Intel has AMD on the run in the CPU front, but AMD is poking Nvidia in the behind in the graphics processor market. The result: ever more powerful, ever less expensive videocards. The two companies have shipped so many new parts that we expect things will stabilize over the next quarter or so, so now’s the time to find a great deal whether you’re building a new rig or retrofitting an old one. And if you’ve never experienced the joy and pride of building your own PC, click through to read our in-depth, hands-on guide.

Jump to:

Motherboards

Videocards

CPU Coolers & Cases

Build-It Guide

Overclocking Intel and AMD

It's a Good Year For CPUs

There’s a Dizzying Array of CPUs Available To Enthusiasts Today; But Choice is a Good Thing Whether Your Budget is $150 or $1,000

Stop. If you enjoy sitting and twiddling your thumbs as you watch the bar slowly creep toward 100 percent while creating your home video or converting RAW digital files to JPEG, don’t read this because it’s all about the CPU. That magical piece of silicon that still makes just about everything in your PC faster. Sure, the GPU guys continue to crow about their massively parallel parts, but to everyone in the know, it’s still the CPU that does the heavy lifting.

Fortunately times have never been any better for enthusiasts (and other people who don’t like slow things). Power-hungry users have three main families to pick from:Intel’s new Core i7, Intel’s older Core 2 Quad, and AMD’s Phenom X4.

If you want sheer performance, reach for Intel’s Core i7. This will probably insult Intel, but the new chip is like the brain of a Core 2 Quad combined with the plumbing of an AMD Athlon 64. The Core i7 features an improved design that makes it more efficient than the current 45nm Core 2 Quad and Extreme CPUs, too.

A new feature dubbed Turbo Mode, for example, will automatically overclock the chip. And in addition to the return of Hyper-Threading, these chips also feature an integrated tri-channel memory controller and a high-speed chip-to-chip interconnect.

Core i7 is the hot new thing and the new fastest chip in town. Intel has even made the pricing of its new chip somewhat attractive: From a high of $1,000 to a low of $300.

Intel’s Core 2 series still has some legs, too. They’re cheap, plentiful, and the ecosystem of motherboards is so common you can find them abandoned behind warehouses. Intel offers the chips in the quad-core Core 2 Quad/Extreme variations and the dual-core Core 2 Duo versions. As representatives of Power Users Local 187, we must advise you to stick with a quad-core—unless you’re handcuffed by a severe budget or just like to wait for things to happen. Quad-cores are cheap and far faster in multi-threaded applications than dual cores. Unlike the Core i7 chips, which are all based on the superior 45nm process technology, Intel has both 65nm and 45nm Core 2s available on the desktop. You can tell the difference by the first number of the processor number: sixes are older, while nines are newer. A 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad Q6700 is based on the 65nm process, while a 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad Q9450. The 45nm versions are faster, cooler, and preferred over the older 65nm parts.

AMD’s Phenom X4 quad-core CPUs aren’t on quite the power curve of Intel’s CPUs, but they are dirt cheap and that matters to quite a few. The company’s fastest CPU, the Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition, clocks in at 2.6GHz and puts Athlon 64. All in all, these aren’t bad chips for budget buyers. AMD hopes to get back in the game at the end of this year when it finally releases its own 45nm-based quad cores.

If you’re confused by all this, just think of it this way: Core i7 gets the gold, Core 2 Quad gets the silver, and Phenom X4 gets the bronze. So what is it about Core i7 that makes it the gold-medal winner? Read on to dig into details of the chip and to see just how fast this puppy is.

Core i7 Cometh, and Kicketh Butt

Forget Moore’s Law and Amdahl’s Law; heck, just throw out the whole dang tech penal code. Ung’s Law dictates that the minute you buy something new, something better will come out the very next day. Well, that’s the story with Intel’s Core i7 CPUs at least. The sequel to Intel’s first 45nm CPU, Core i7 is a massive break from the past for Intel. Gone is the ancient front-side bus that tied all the CPUs together. Gone is the external memory controller. And gone is any possibility that Intel would turn back into its flabby old self and just coast now that AMD is falling apart at the seams. No, Intel’s Core i7 is a mean, lean chip that is here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And, as Roddy Pipper said, he’s all out of gum.

Read on for all the juicy details on the new chip, complete with the results of our hands-on benchmarks. 

Nehalem Q & A

What’s the big deal with the integrated memory controller?

One of Core 7’s most significant changes is the inclusion of an integrated memory controller. Instead of memory accesses going from the CPU across a relatively slow front-side bus to the motherboard chipset and finally to the RAM, an IMC eliminates the need for a front-side bus and external memory controller. The result is dramatically lower latency than was found in the Core 2 and Pentium 4 CPUs.

Why can’t the memory controller on the motherboard simply be pushed to higher speeds to match an IMC? Remember, when you’re talking about a memory controller residing directly in the core, the signals have to travel mere millimeters across silicon that’s running at several gigahertz. With an external design, the signals have to travel out of the CPU to a memory controller in the chipset an inch or so away. It’s not just distance, either—the data is traveling across a PCB at far, far slower speeds than if it were just within the CPU. In essence, it’s like having to go from an interstate to a bumpy dirt road.

AMD loyalists reading this, of course, are probably bristling at the thought of Intel calling an IMC an innovation. After all, AMD did it first. So doesn’t that make AMD the pioneer? We asked Intel the same question. The company’s response: One: An IMC isn’t an AMD invention; in fact, Intel had both an IMC and an integrated graphics core planned for its never-released Timna CPU years before the Athlon 64. Two: If AMD’s IMC design was so great, why does the Core 2 so thoroughly trash it with an external controller design? In short, Intel’s message to the AMD fanboys is “nyah, nyah!”

Naturally, you’re probably wondering why Intel thinks it needs an IMC now. Intel says the more efficient, faster execution engine of the Core i7 chip benefits from the internal controller more than previous designs. The new design demands boatloads of bandwidth and low latency to keep it from starving as its waits for data.

Is tri-channel better than dual-channel RAM? And what do I need to know about configuring it?

Yes, tri-channel is superior. First, Intel said it needed to add a third-channel because the the Core i7’s parallel design needs the additional bandwidth.

As for configuring it, just as you had to populate both independent channels in a dual-channel motherboard, you’ll need to run three memory DIMMs to give the chip the most bandwidth.

This does present some problems for board vendors, as standard consumer mobos have limited real estate. Most performance boards will feature six memory slots, but some will feature only four.

On these four-slot boards, you’ll plug in three sticks of RAM and use the fourth only if you absolutely have to, as populating the last slot will actually reduce the bandwidth of the system. Intel, in fact, recommends the fourth slot only for people who need more RAM than bandwidth. With three 2GB DIMMs, most enthusiast systems will feature 6GB of RAM as standard.

Although it may change, Core i7 will officially support DDR3/1066, with higher unofficial speeds supported through overclocking. Folks hoping to reuse DDR2 RAM with Intel’s budget chips next year should think again. Intel has no plans to support DDR2 with Core i7 at this point; and with DDR3 prices getting far friendlier to the wallet, we don’t expect the company to change its mind.