[FUBAR-BDHR]

Planning on building a new system.  I never like building stuff that will be outdated quick (This machine for instance is going on 9 and it's still good enough for full MVPs) so of course I'm going top of the line.

Processor:  Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 980X 3.33 GHz Processor- Hexa-Core (part# BX80613i7980X)
Memory:  KVR1333D3N9K2/12G 12 gig initially.  May end up at 24 depending on cash flow. 
Video:  ASUS ATI Radeon HD 6970 (EAH6970/2DI2S/2GD5) 2048MB PCIe x16 Gen 2.1
Probably 2 hard drives have even checked those yet. 
DVD Burner of course
Like to put a floppy in it.  I think I have a spare IDE floppy or can swap for one with a machine that has one so either IDE or floppy interface.
Win 7 Ultimate 64bit but I may dual boot.  Of course I say that every time but never do.

So basically looking for a damn good motherboard to handle that. I'm thinking Asus (hence the Asus version of the 6970) as I have had issues with Gigabyte on more then one occasion (one was a serer board).  Unfortunately I haven't checked boards in about 2 years so haven't kept up with what the heck is what. 

[Admiral LSD]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/1

tl; dr version:

i7-2600K is 1/3 the price of 980X and is mostly faster.

[Fury]

Getting the very best is rarely from financial perspective a good idea. I'd focus more on getting real good value for your money rather than top performance. Particularly since at the end of it, there won't be much difference in when you find yourself in need of an upgrade or new PC, but you've saved yourself a lot of money. If money is not an issue, go ahead with what you have listed there. Otherwise I'd suggest you to re-think the setup.

LSD's suggestion of switching to i7-2600K is excellent. Personally I'd go for Intel Core i5 2500 myself. So that settles choice of motherboards to those that use the new Sandy Bridge chipset, such as Asus P8H67.

Radeon 6970 is a bit expensive too. You may want to consider the cards that are considered being top value right now, and those are Radeon 6850 and Geforce GTX460. GTX560 should be coming next week, which should offer great performance for value. So if you can hold out a week or two, I'd pick GTX560.

Settling for components that offer the best value for your money will end up saving you a lot of money in the long run, even if you end up having to upgrade an individual component for whatever reason, and that is usually video card.

12GB RAM should be more than plenty for very long time. I have 8GB RAM and I've never really used all of it at once. Just make sure you pick brand and model that isn't overpriced. Difference in performance is more often than not, minimal. KVR1333D3N9K2 seems to be Kingston Valueram, which should be excellent choice.

For HDD's you may want to consider Samsung SpinPoint F1, the 1GB model has great value and good performance.

[Admiral LSD]

Even if money wasn't an object the 980X still wouldn't be worth getting in the face of the 2600K because in the few tests where the 980X is able to come out ahead (mostly those that make extensive use of more than 4 cores) it's simply not by enough to justify spending 3x as much money on the CPU alone. It basically renders the 980X, and indeed the X58 platform as a whole, mostly redundant.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287
(Basically just a compressed version of the results in the previous review)

It's not listed there, but even the triple channel memory support (which was never of much use to CPUs with 4 cores or less anyway) of the 1366/X58 platform has met its match in Sandy Bridge with SB very nearly able to achieve on two channels what 1366 does on three. About the only thing X58 still has going for it is its 36 or so PCIe lanes, but even that's of little use to most people since beyond SLi (which isn't generally worth it anyway) there isn't a great deal you need so many lanes for.

As Fury highlighted though, the real value in Sandy Bridge lies in the i5-2500. It's not that far behind the 2600 in raw performance and is 2/3 the price making it an absolute steal.

One or two things to keep in mind though is if you're looking to buy a Sandy Bridge CPU and are interested in overclocking you not only need a K-model CPU (i5-2500K or i7-2600K), but also a P67 chipset motherboard. The former because you need unlocked multipliers to get any kind of overclocking headroom with SB since the ring bus topology inside it makes conventional bus speed overclocking largely impossible and only the P67 offers the ability to tweak the multipliers. The downside - if you can call it that, it depends on what you plan on doing with it - to P67 though is that it has no support for the IGP in all the SB CPUs. Although that doesn't sound like much of a loss, it means you miss out on the Quick Sync transcoding engine. The counter argument there though is Quick Sync only works when you're using the Intel Processor Graphics, if you use a discrete GPU you can't use it while that's active and since most P67/K-model buyers will be using discrete GPUs it's probably not that great a loss (unless video transcoding is a significant part of your potental usage model).

As far as motherboards go, I'm liking the look of a couple of the boards Intel are putting out right now. In particular, the DP67BG:

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/motherboards/db-DP67BG/DP67BG-overview.htm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121474

and the DH67GD:

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/motherboards/db-DH67GD/DH67GD-overview.htm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121478

(They do make a version of this one in full ATX, called the DH67CL, for roughly the same price, but all it adds is a pair of PCI slots to being it up to full ATX size so it isn't really worth it)

They're reasonably priced and offer all the features you want from either chipset and best of all, no legacy crap. I've pretty much settled on the DH67GD for my Sandy Bridge upgrade due to the lack of legacy crap and because it's slightly cheaper than the GA-H67MA-UD2H I was looking at before.

[MachManX]

While I do applaud the fact that you've kept the same system for 9 years, I can't help but wonder if it's due to the fact that you spent soo much money on it that you couldn't let it go.  9 years is waaay too long to hold on to a system...two Windows releases later!  Every 6 months something new comes out, so imagine 9 years!

No matter what you do, you'll NEVER have the top-of-the-line system.  Come to Taiwan and other such countries where they use Liquid Nitrogen to keep their processors cool and overclock the hell out of them...it's too much of a hassle to match them (while preventing yourself from freezing off important body parts...testicles anyone???).  I understand what you meant by "top-of-the-line" = high end system that will last you for quite a while.  But honestly, do you really need all that power?  Unless you run some heavy task like transcoding and the conversion itself was time and life dependent, you don't need all this power.

The idea is to shop smart.  I do agree with the above comments about the Core-i7 2600K, or even the Core-i5 2500K should be good (stick with the K versions...they can be overclocked better...for future reasons).  I doubt you'll see much Real-World difference between the two, but it will save you quite a lot on the wallet.  Or you can shop around for some decent CPU + motherboard combo deals and save big.  I got a Phenom II 550 dual core.  But it has two unlockable cores, thus making it a quad-core.  Board + CPU only cost me $70 from Frys (they no longer have combos, but other stores might).  I didn't get the best video card either.  Rather than fork out a few hundred dollars on the top or near top card, I watched for sales and got a high end card for like $100-150 (GTS 250...u can score a GTX 460 for this price now).  Everything else, just stuck with name brand items and looked for good prices.

Long paragraph short:  If you just go out and buy the top-of-the-line stuff right now, it might cost you $2000 or more.  If you play it safe and watch for prices, you can get a decent gaming system for $1000-1500.  If you sit down and figure out the uses for your comp and get a system that suits your needs (compare price:performance as well), you can end up with a decent gaming system for $500-750 and then upgrade when you need to.  I would say build a system that could last you at least 2 years, and then consider your upgrade options.  This will save you a heap of money...you can use it to make a bed quilt and smell it every night as you go to bed

Examples(current prices):-

Core i7 2600K + Asus P67 = $480

Core i5 2500K + Asus P67 = $370

Phenom II 560(Quad unlock) + MSI 785G = $100

Radeon 6850 = $150

GTX 460 = $100

[QuantumDelta]

If you bought a decent upgrade path computer 9 years ago you could easily make it last until now
Now, unfortunately if you go with either CPU manufacturer you wont get a decent upgrade path, 1155 wont last that long, and 1156 is already pretty much defunct (because of it), AMD would be a better bet on such an occasion, but it looks like the new chip will have a new socket.

Anyway, just to throw in, I would go for the 2600K too, I'd probably also consider Fury's advice of going for the GTX560, though if you can afford it there's no real NEED to get something other than the 6970.

I'm not really happy with any of the 1155 mobos yet though..

[MachManX]

Oh I'm sure you can...not doubting that at all.  Just saying that if he put up with the same computer for 9 years, then why is he bothering to get top-of-the-line when it'll become bottom-of-the-line soon enough?  It's like he's creating a contradiction of what he really wants.  Instead, upgrade a little every 2-3 years and he can stay current...and saving a LOT of money as well.

Also, I'm offering the AMD option because I don't like how Intel made 3 different sockets off the same name of processor...making the previous one obsolete in such a short time.

[Admiral LSD]

I honestly don't get the fuss about Intel changing the sockets all the time. It's almost never cost effective to upgrade a CPU mid-cycle and by the time you really need a CPU upgrade, a motherboard upgrade is usually necessary as well. The only really good thing about AMD maintaining the same (physical) socket for the past 5-6 years is that the heatsink retention mechanism hasn't changed meaning you can usually take decent coolers from one socket to the next without having to wait for or order a mounting kit for the new socket. Other than that it's useless because it perpetuates the idea that you're able to do justice to newer CPUs on the oldest, most decrepit boards. AMD changing the socket for Bulldozer will quite possibly be the second best thing they've done in the last 5-6 years (the first being Bulldozer if it turns out half-decent. At least for the CPU arm. Things get complicated if we start considering the ATi GPU wing as well ).

[Fury]

Instead, upgrade a little every 2-3 years and he can stay current...and saving a LOT of money as well.

Well said. Value conscious buyer will end up saving significantly when he does his research and gets what offers best performance for the value. Upgrading every now and then is cheaper than getting best of the best, which is greatly overpriced for actual performance increase it offers.

The i7 Extreme 980X is a prime example of such waste of money. You can get equally performing CPU for third the price, or few percent slower and for fourth the price. It simply doesn't make any sense to get one of those. And like I said in my first post earlier, the performance advantage of the best performers won't carry you so far as to justify their price. When equivalent cheaper mid-range product no longer performs adequately, the same happens with high-end product not too long after, the difference of same generation mid-range and high-end products in performance isn't that much, in supported technologies even less if any at all.

[MachManX]

Well for you it may be fine, and for knowledgeable ppl as well. But how does the average joe or slightly higher go to the store and buy an i7 or i5 based computer based on the latest tech when they offer 3 different sockets under the same processor name?  i7 has 3 different sockets and i5 has two.  Unless you have available a knowledgeable person, you might end up buying older tech...and even get ripped off.  AMD = no confusion.

Don't get me wrong, I like Intel's offerings.  It's just a pain to try and recommend a good computer to other ppl when Intel makes things complicated.  While their technical reasons may be just, it's still confusing for the avg. joe.

Then again, if I was evil, gives me a way to rip off ppl >

[Spicious]

And I thought my new PC plans were splurgy: 2600 (no K, there's next to no stock in the country and it's $70 extra), P8P67 EVO, 8GB 1600MHz, FT02, AX750, 6950 and Xonar Xense.
Replacing a Q9450, 8GB 800MHz, 4850, P182, HX620.

[MachManX]

And I thought my new PC plans were splurgy: 2600 (no K, there's next to no stock in the country and it's $70 extra), P8P67 EVO, 8GB 1600MHz, FT02, AX750, 6950 and Xonar Xense.
Replacing a Q9450, 8GB 800MHz, 4850, P182, HX620.

Wow, your machine was already powerful enough...but I guess if you have the money.......

[zookeeper]

I'm also currently in process of building a new computer for gaming and modding. Here's the main specs and costs (shipping included):

AsRock 4CoreDual (LGA775) ~45e
Intel Pentium D 925 @3.0Ghz ~25e
2GB DDR1 333Mhz ~15e
N7600GS Silent ~45e

Totally sweet. I can't wait to get to play all the flashy new games out there!

[Fury]

N7600GS Silent ~45e

I can't wait to get to play all the flashy new games out there!

You might end up disappointed. That card won't be running any latest games at high details. The components are about as low as you can reasonably get, which in turn means you'll be stuck in continuous upgrade cycle if you go that route. Unless of course you can't afford better at which point you just get grumpy for being unable to upgrade.

[zookeeper]

Looks like I forgot the sarcasm tags...

[FUBAR-BDHR]

That computer is 9 years old this one is about 2 1/2.  I do upgraded every couple of years it's just I have like 12 machines ranging all the way from a Pentium 100 running Dos 6.22 all the way up to this one a Core 2 Quad.  The one I'm upgrading isn't the oldest but it is one of the 2 I use most and the only one in that location.  It's currently a P4 3.06 extreme edition with hyper-threading, 2gig of ram, Radeon 9800 Pro 128 AGP.  Even has that 1066 RDRAM that was way ahead of it's time speed wise until Rambus got sued and it was discontinued.  So yea I put about 2600 into that system not counting parts I already had.  Lasting 9 years I think it was well worth it.  It will most likely live on as a standalone server for FS2.  That Pentium 100 has been running non-stop (not counting maintenance and power outages) since I think 93.  It too was maxed out top of the line.  Case still says 99 because they hadn't even come out with 3 digit speed displays yet.  Guess that was a good investment too. 

Anyway my point is I plan on using this thing for years to come (even if it's not the newest at that time) and I would rather put the money in it now and not worry about upgrading.  So the original question still stands on the motherboard for the 980x. 

[Davros]

its your money of course and you can spend it how you like but you do realise for the price of the fastest cpu + board ect you could buy one a little slower then in several years time buy a midrange cpu + board ect that is well faster than the fastest cpu +board ect today and actually spend less

for example by buying a p4 3ghz +board +ram then a few years later buying a core 2 quad +board +ram cost less than a p4 extreme edition +board +ram instead
I spent less and in the end got a faster system as well

as for best board if you dont plan on overclocking dont buy a board based on speed (the difference isn't noticeable outside of benchmarks) find ones that have what you need eg: enough sata ports, raid type usb ports, estata whatever and read some reviews

ps: you wont find one with a floppy port...
pps: i recommend getting a ssd

[FUBAR-BDHR]

I already do that but I have several systems to replace and I can't replace them all every few years.  I'd rather put the money into it now and not have to worry about upgrading it ever as by the time I need to it will be time to replace it. 

[MachManX]

Alright then, you have been advised

Don't go with the 980x when there's a better performer out there, aka the Core i7 2600K + Asus P67 Pro motherboard.  The 2600K is more advanced technology-wise since it has more processor extensions + the Quickpath technology that makes transcoding a breeze.  Oh yeah, the motherboard has the UEFI system now (took out the BIOS), so boot times should be improved + other improvements.

As for floppy, get an external USB floppy drive since you are willing to pay the money.  Floppy drives on newer systems will create quick slowdown jerks.  Dunno why, but had that issue with a Core i3 I built...maybe the system attempts to poll the floppy drive and since it is so slow, even with no disk, it still has to check on the floppy drive and thus the jerking is created...well, that's my theory anyway.  That's why it is wise to disconnect the device when not in use.  Oh, and very few modern boards out there have a Floppy port...don't eliminate a potential motherboard just because it has no FDD port.

[Admiral LSD]

Anyway my point is I plan on using this thing for years to come (even if it's not the newest at that time) and I would rather put the money in it now and not worry about upgrading.  So the original question still stands on the motherboard for the 980x.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3434#ov



I can't seem to get a firm price on that (it may have been discontinued), but it's somewhere in the region of USD$500-600, making it a perfect match for the 980X

Seriously though, I can't understand how you can still believe the 980X is even remotely worth it's USD$999.99 asking price when the 2600K spanks it in almost every test and where it is able to sneak ahead, it's nowhere near the 300% needed to justify the price. The largest performance difference I noted was only about 43% in the 7-zip test. Even the Cinebench test only comes out about 31% in favour of the 980X.

Well for you it may be fine, and for knowledgeable ppl as well. But how does the average joe or slightly higher go to the store and buy an i7 or i5 based computer based on the latest tech when they offer 3 different sockets under the same processor name?  i7 has 3 different sockets and i5 has two.  Unless you have available a knowledgeable person, you might end up buying older tech...and even get ripped off.  AMD = no confusion.

Don't get me wrong, I like Intel's offerings.  It's just a pain to try and recommend a good computer to other ppl when Intel makes things complicated.  While their technical reasons may be just, it's still confusing for the avg. joe.

Then again, if I was evil, gives me a way to rip off ppl >

When "Average Joes" buy a computer they usually just walk into Wal-Mart or wherever with the idea of buying either a Core i3, i5 or i7 and either buy the cheapest one they see or whichever one the sales drone says is best (which is either whichever vendor is paying them more to push their products that week, whichever product they need to clear out the most or both). They don't know, or care, about sockets, upgradability or any of that so there's little to no confusion on their part.

Actually, if you want to talk about being ripped off by being sold older tech then AMDs socket reuse is worse. By allowing their CPUs to interface with pretty much every chipset produced for them in the last 5-6 years it allows unscrupulous vendors to cheap out and pair a modern CPU with a decrepit old chipset that will never do the newer CPU justice (I've seen AM3 board designs using 6 year old nForce4-class chipsets, for example). It also means you can be lazier with your chipset design as well since without any real incentive to keep pushing the envelope you generally aren't going to.

I will admit that in this specific case not making 1155 backward compatible with 1156 CPUs is a bit of a dick move on Intels part considering they were able to launch at least two successive generations of Core 2 chipset (the 3x and 4x series after the 965 which launched with or around Core 2. 945, 955 and 975X were popular too, but they launched originally as Pentium 4 chipsets iirc, so don't count) on 775 without breaking backward compatibility (except when necessary, like dropping Pentium 4 support in the 3x series I believe), but to be completely honest I'd rather have that than a repeat of the 775 situation which saw dozens of board designs require updating or replacement because they couldn't drive Core 2 chips properly because Intel should really have changed the socket, but didn't.