Q Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 After nearly four years, I figure it's about time that I bought or built a new PC, and I need HELP in making sense of the myriad of options out there. I'm on a budget, so I thought I'd ask these questions here to see how much bang I can get for my buck (c. US$1000.00). First off: Is it cheaper to find a good deal on a name-brand system (from a reputable dealer, of course) on Ebay (or elsewhere) or build one from scratch? Which CPU/motherboard/chipset offers the best performance for the money? Which graphics card? -HDD? -Optical drives? Are LCD's worth all that extra $$$? (I have a GOOD CRT that I like) Which version of XP do you like? Answers to these questions, along with any other advice you can give would be GREATLY APPRECIATED! Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 If you want to buy a desktop, you can save about $200-$300 just by building it yourself. LCD monitors are better. _EW_ Edit: and if you use XP home, there is trouble with your head. Find a good psychiatrist. I think RH does a good Sigmund Freud impression... http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=132551&highlight=Sigmund+Freud Use Pro or Media Center, depending on which type of PC. Nevermind, I feel like my hand has been slapped. I dunno why, but I have always just had this thing - Linux > Media Center > Pro > Home. I Do, though, think that Media Center is better for the average joe than Home, if just for functionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 well, i have a couple of suggestions. first off, if you've never built a computer before, it can be a bit of a daunting task, but that's mostly due to the wiring. however, if you have the time and patience, building your own computer is incredibly rewarding, and you can get the exact parts that you want. when you build a computer, there are a couple of brands and technologies to take into consideration for various parts: CPU's or main processor: AMD is definately the clear choice for current generation CPU's. they generally run better and run more reliably than Intel counterparts. the AMD processors to look for are going to be the Athlon 64 series, 3400 or higher depending on the price. i would recommend the Athlon X2 (duel core) series since that's where desktop processors are heading, but those might be a bit too pricey for a $1000 budget. just make sure you pick one with the correct Socket. the Socket to look for would be Socket 939 compatibility. this is important later when you choose your motherboard. Video Card: some people might ask why i chose to mention the video card second, but it is now the only other deturmining factor for your motherboard. the main reason is how a motherboard can run two video cards at the same time. ATI has the Crossfire ability while Nvidia has the SLi ability. i'm not suggesting that you run two cards right away, as that will be quite expensive. rather, i'm suggesting that you keep the option in mind as you'll be able to upgrade cheaply later by simply adding another card to your system. since you're on a budget, i'll recommend either the ATI Radeon X1800 GTO or the Nvidia GeForce 7600 GT. Motherboards: this one is actually fairly simple once you figure out what video card you're going to use. if you picked Nvidia, you'll need to get an SLi compatible motherboard. if you picked ATI, you'll need to pick a Crossfire compatible motherboard. keep in mind that if you choose ATI, you'll have to get a motherboard with the Crossfire Northbridge, or you won't be able to run the Crossfire setup down the road if you upgrade. ASUS brand motherboards are usually about the only motherboard i recommend for a number of reasons but mostly due to overall reliability and excellent features. things to look for whenever you pick out your board: at least 2 DDR-400 memory slots, at least 3 PCI slots, and a Socket 939 compatible board. most of the other features on the board are gimmicky at best for casual users. Power Supply: the single most important statistic on the Power Supply is its max power output, measured in Watts. i recommend at least a 500W power supply from either Antec, Cooler Master, or Thermaltake. Case: yes, the case is something you're going to have to get as well. the most important thing to pay attention to here is the number of fans and the type of fans. in today's world of computers, airflow inside the case is everything since you have so many devices putting out a lot of heat. good airflow inside the case keeps things from overheating. i'd look for at least two setups: one 120mm fan and a 80mm fan setup or a setup with 3 80mm fans. this is to ensure the best possible airflow to keep everything cool. if you picked out a power supply earlier, then you might want to check to see if the case comes with a power supply or not. if it does, then just move on to a different case in order to save money. the features on the case are going to be up to you, but i'd recommend that you get a fairly tall case in order to accommodate your motherboard. keep in mind that more features is going to up the price. since you're on a budget, i'd recommend that you don't bother with windows, lights, or doors unless you can squeeze it into the budget. Hard Drive: my personal recommendation here is at least an 80GB SATA Seagate hard drive. you can get a higher capacity HD if your budget can fit it in. also, make sure you buy it OEM. if you buy it retail, you're going to spend a lot more than you need to. DVD Drive: most people want something that can burn DVD's. again, look for OEM packages as it will save you a lot of money. i recommend a couple of brands here: Plextor, Pioneer, Sony, ASUS, and NEC. Memory: the things to look for here are DDR-400 184-pin compatible memory and 1GB of it. recommendation: get a 1GB stick if you only have 2 memory slots. if you have more, try for a 2x 512MB bundle. brands to look for: Crucial and Kingston. and don't worry about registered or unbuffered memory. its not important for your system. you could opt for a soundcard if you want, but usually, the majority of motherboards come equipped with very good integrated sound. thus, that's not much of a concern unless you're an audiophile who wants the best possible audio. if you think that building a computer might be too tall of a task, there are reputable dealers out there that can get you a nice computer for cheap. i'd recommend an eMachines system. they (now) use reliable hardware, and they have pretty good tech support (if you need it). things to look for there aren't going to differ much from what i mentioned above with the exception of the brands, as you won't be able to pick those. specs to look for: AMD Athlon64 3400 or better PCI-Express 16x compatible (it doesn't have to come with a real video card as you can get one of those later. just make sure it has a PCI-E 16x slot) 1GB of Memory 80GB HD or better a DVD-RW drive its not too much to look for, but they are important if you want a good computer. about the monitor: if you already have a good CRT monitor, there really isn't much of a reason to get a new monitor, either CRT or LCD, as you'll be able to plug the old on in right away on the new computer. save yourself the trouble and the money and don't worry about a new monitor. another quick recommendation: don't bother getting Windows XP Pro or Media Center unless you think you'll need all the extra features. despite what other might say, XP Home will work just fine for just about everything. Media Center gives you more functionality in terms of hooking up TV's and stereos to your system, and XP Pro gives you a lot of more advanced features that are fairly useful if you plan on running a home network. otherwise, you don't really need Pro or Media Center, so save yourself the money. hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Which version of XP do you like? None. Do yourself a favor and get Ubuntu Linux. Stinger pretty much covered the rest. Though I prefer Intel over AMD, I think AMD is in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 ^^^^ and yet i find it hilarious at how my old Athlon 3200XP still runs better than majority of the Intel chips on the market. when you're on a budget, the latest and greatest is going to be out of range for your pocketbook. and in terms of budget-priced CPU's, AMD is the definative choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 Thanks, stingerhs et al! This is just the kind of detailed info I need to make an informed decision. Keep it coming, folks! Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Hey stingerhs, if I specified some things, would you build (put together a list of specific parts) a new pc for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Thanks, stingerhs et al! This is just the kind of detailed info I need to make an informed decision. Keep it coming, folks! Q do you at least have and Idea what you want. IE, speed, amount of ram, graphics capabilities, and the like. Hey stingerhs, if I specified some things, would you build (put together a list of specific parts) a new pc for me? with some specifications of what you want, it would be rather simple to compile a list of parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Hey stingerhs, if I specified some things, would you build (put together a list of specific parts) a new pc for me? sure. if you need stuff like that, just leave me a pm and i'll get back to you asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I think RH does a good Sigmund Freud impression... http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=132551&highlight=Sigmund+Freud Use Pro or Media Center, depending on which type of PC. Freud: You want zee neew koompooter bekaaz you vant to haav zex vis it bekaaz your mouther did not geev you enouigh attenzion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 After nearly four years, I figure it's about time that I bought or built a new PC, and I need HELP in making sense of the myriad of options out there. I'm on a budget, so I thought I'd ask these questions here to see how much bang I can get for my buck (c. US$1000.00). First off: Is it cheaper to find a good deal on a name-brand system (from a reputable dealer, of course) on Ebay (or elsewhere) or build one from scratch? Which CPU/motherboard/chipset offers the best performance for the money? Which graphics card? -HDD? -Optical drives? Are LCD's worth all that extra $$$? (I have a GOOD CRT that I like) Which version of XP do you like? Answers to these questions, along with any other advice you can give would be GREATLY APPRECIATED! Q CPU/Motherboard/RAM: I'd recommend that you wait for AMD's new socket AM2, then get a mid-range AM2 CPU and an nForce5 motherboard. I'll also have to side with stingerhs and recommend an ASUS motherboard as well. As for RAM, if you go with the AM2, go for DDR2-800 RAM, as it can be OC'd with the nForce5 BIOS to DDR2-1016 speeds (blazing fast). GPU: Personally, I like nVidia, they'll probably add the features that ATi has now (like simultaneous HDR/AA) in the near future, and I just like their drivers better. HD: Go for a 148 Gb, 10,000 RPM HD, the performance differance between a 7200 RPM HD and a 10,000 RPM HD is considerable. Optical Drives: Go for a combo drive, one that supports CD-R/RW/+RW and DVD-R/RW/+R/RAM at ~48x/~16x, respectively. LCD: Yes. OS: For Windows OS (which is almost a necessity for a serious gamer), XP Pro is the way to go, however I really like the Windows Vista Beta 2 (3D desktop goodness), although you'll probably want to wait for the retail version to get it. Case: As stingerhs said, you'll need to find a case to keep all of this equipment cool. Personally, I only work with full-tower cases, they're just easier to work with, and for the most part, offer superior ventilation. Most of them can keep the average computer sufficiently cool, so it's basically a matter of what looks good to you. Hardware/Software- http://www.newegg.com Cases/Case Mods- http://www.frozencpu.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 If you're planning on making alot of Cd's/DVD's and want them to look nice you could get a Lightscribe drive, but of course its still more of a gimmick than a need. Not to mention it will drive up the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 Revan the great: About the best benchmark I can give you to work with is this: The best deals I've seen on Ebay from anyone using Paypal (therefore BUYER PROTECTION) are: Dell XPS400: 830 (3GHZ) dual core CPU, 1GB RAM (533 MHZ, yeah, I know, the cheap stuff!), no SLI capability but with a 7800GTX-256MB for c.US$1100.00 incl. shipping. Dell XPS600: Same CPU & RAM (I think-well, close enough!), but with SLI support (Nvidia motherboard, I think-I know it has the Nvidia chipset, at least) and TWO 7800GTX-256(!) for c.US$1600.00 incl. shipping. Both had HDD's that were big enough for me that ran at 7200rpm. The cheapest 7800GTX I've seen is at least US$400.00. Neither came with a monitor, but that's not a problem since I'm probably going to stick with my good ol' CRT for now at least. (I just can't justify spending $400-$500 for an LCD that's as big as and has the display capabilities of my CRT!) If you can come up with something better for less I'm ALL EARS (well, EYES)! Jmac: I always wanted a 10,000 rpm HDD. Mine is SO slow! 148GB is PLENTY big for me. I'm also partial to Nvidia (Catalyst is a pain in the butt!) I'm a believer in big towers with big PSU's and even bigger fans. I'm also not in the least bit afraid to go with AMD: From what I've read they PWN Intel and seem to have more staying power in the long run (they've come a long way since the 386/40MHZ that they had to fight Intel tooth and nail to produce way back in 1991-GOD I'M OLD!). I'm also willing to wait a while longer and keep saving my pennies if something good is going to come out in the near future. I can soldier on with my Dell 8200 for now (if I can get these darn optical drives to work again!). Stingerhs: I've watched this SLI/Crossfire thing for a while, and I think it'd be great just to get one good VPU now, then buy its twin somewhere down the line. I'd be open to ATI, if they can offer more bang for my buck-and someone can show me how to deal with (tolerate) Catalyst! Thanks again for all the input! Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 EnderWiggin: and if you use XP home, there is trouble with your head. Use Pro or Media Center, depending on which type of PC. jmac7142: For Windows OS (which is almost a necessity for a serious gamer), XP Pro is the way to go What's wrong with Home Edition, and what would the advantages be to use use Pro instead? I've used Win XP Home Edition for the past two years and so far the only thing I've found myself unable to do is run IIS on the machine (making it a bit more troublesome to create ASP.NET apps in Visual Studio). I have a CD with Windows XP Professional I've downloaded from MSDN AA lying around, but haven't gotten around to installing it since I don't know if it would be worth the effort. What would be gained by doing so? None. Do yourself a favor and get Ubuntu Linux. What would the advantage be of using Linux instead of Windows? For a home user it seems to me they offer similar functionality, though Windows is easier to configure and use, and have more software and games available for it. Is there any real advantage for a "normal" home computer user like me to go with Linux that makes up for those shortfalls, aside from the fact that you can download it for free if you don't feel like you need any support for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Stingerhs: I've watched this SLI/Crossfire thing for a while, and I think it'd be great just to get one good VPU now, then buy its twin somewhere down the line. I'd be open to ATI, if they can offer more bang for my buck-and someone can show me how to deal with (tolerate) Catalyst! Thanks again for all the input! Q sorry if i didn't make things clear, but i was suggesting that you do exactly what you just mentioned: get a Crossfire or SLi compatible board but with just one card installed for the moment. then you could upgrade later whever you had the funding for it. as for dealing with Catalyst drivers, i have one easy solution: http://www.omegadrivers.net. i used them when i had my old Radeon 9700, and they both ran better and ran more reliably than the corresponding Catalyst drivers. and the interface is a lot easier to use than the Catalyst getup. oh, and something i didn't mention earlier is that in order to run a Crossfire setup, you'll need a Crossfire edition card to get things working properly. one advantage, though, is that you won't have any compatibility problems running, say, a Radeon X800 Crossfire Edition with a Radeon X18000 GTO. if you run an SLi mode, you have to pair up identical cards, or it won't work. its not that much of an issue, but it is an interesting note of reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 ^^^Oh, you were perfectly clear; perhaps I should have worded it better when I said that I thought that crossfire/SLI was a good idea. You can mix up DIFFERENT models of Crossfire ATI cards? Hmm... that's an attractive feature. Didn't know that one, Stingerhs! There's an alternative to Catalyst? Thats a REALLY attractive feature! Any thoughts on the systems I posted and their price tags? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 What's wrong with Home Edition, and what would the advantages be to use use Pro instead? Absolutely nothing Unless you're running a home network or a server.. there's no need to go to XP Pro... XP Pro does have a better backbone code for servers, server admins, I.T. specialists, etc (it's built off of Windows 2000 infrastructure)... but I would hardly suggest any "regular joe" user forking over the extra $100 if you're not going to be utilizing those tools... I run Pro, but only because my needs necessitate it (having 4 computers at home is indeed a networking must ) Before then though.. I ran Home edition flawlessly without ever 'missing' the extra functionality Pro provides.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordReserei Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I suggest you use a Dual-core processor, you can pick a decent one up for a couple of hundred dollars or less. expensive I know but what a gamers delight it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 What would the advantage be of using Linux instead of Windows? For a home user it seems to me they offer similar functionality, though Windows is easier to configure and use, and have more software and games available for it. Is there any real advantage for a "normal" home computer user like me to go with Linux that makes up for those shortfalls, aside from the fact that you can download it for free if you don't feel like you need any support for it?Well now that Ubuntu 6.06 was just released they will be offering what they like to call "long-term support" for it. Another thing is that it comes with almost all the programs you need, already on the computer, or on the "Add/Remove programs" list. You just check the box for the programs you want, and it installs them for you. Another great thing with the new version of Ubuntu is that is comes with VMWare, a software you used to have to pay for. What it is, is a "virtual machine suite," so basically you can run multiple OS's at the same time. The only drawback is that it does not support 3D games. Here's a screenshot of it, except it's running linux in windows instead of windows in linux: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Vmware.PNG/800px-Vmware.PNG Ubuntu is also great for people who have never used linux before because there is little to no terminal use required. I choose to use the terminal because it's easier for me sometimes, but you don't have to. I wouldn't necessarily say windows is easy to use than linux because the GUI is very similar and all the programs run the same way. And probably one of the biggest advantages: No spyware or virus's to deal with. So really the only thing that Linux is not up to par with is gaming. Some games run under linux no problem, other games run using a software called Wine, and some don't run at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 nother thing is that it comes with almost all the programs you need, already on the computer, or on the "Add/Remove programs" list. You just check the box for the programs you want, and it installs them for you. (snip) I wouldn't necessarily say windows is easy to use than linux because the GUI is very similar and all the programs run the same way. (snip) And probably one of the biggest advantages: No spyware or virus's to deal with. So really the only thing that Linux is not up to par with is gaming. Hmm... What can Linux do that Windows cannot? What does Linux do better than Windows? Would there be any reason to go through the trouble to switch from Windows to Linux if you already have Windows XP installed and properly configured and all the software and games you need and not a single virus or malware infestation to date? There is a fair amount of work involved in installing and learning to use a new OS after all, so it has to be worth the effort. Traditionally, the user interface has been the area where Open Source software has lagged behind (most**) commercial software the most noticably. Open Source developers have traditionally been good at producing software with good functionality and small resource footprint, but all too often the GUI has been horrible with systematic non-conformance to GUI standards, making otherwise good software a pain to use. Last time I had a closer look at Linux some years ago this problem was quite apparent. Have this improved in recent years? What it [VMWare] is, is a "virtual machine suite," so basically you can run multiple OS's at the same time. The only drawback is that it does not support 3D games. Does other, hardware dependant or resource intensive applications such as iTunes (to fill iPod and play DRM-protected AAC music), Win Media Player (to play DRM-protected MWA music), Photoshop, 3d modelling software or Visual Studio.NET work well to run via VMWare? What's the problem with games specifically? ** Notable exceptions of commercial software such as gmax/3dsmax with criminally horrible GUI design does of course exist on the Windows platform as well. It's just more common with free software, for understandable reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I have not yet tried out VMWare, but to my understanding it can run most windows software. I would guess it could run WMP and iTunes, but at least for itunes there is a linux alternative (gtkpod) that works fine but doesn't have the nice look of itunes. I guess really you'd have to try it out to get the feel of it, but in my experience there aren't nearly as many little errors like "illegal operation" errors and whatnot like you get in windows. Since linux distros are built on Unix, it's definitely more stable than what windows is built on. The linux community, especially the Ubuntu one, is very large, and is very helpful and always looking for and fixing bugs. The ubuntu forums are the largest forums for all linux distros. I haven't had any problems getting used to the UI or anything like you said, and I far prefer it to windows because it is so customizable. I don't know if you're actually considering trying it out or just wondering, but if you want to try it out, the CD for download at ubuntu's website is a live cd, and then it has the installer on the desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 There's no real difference between the two. Windows just costs a lot, whereas Linux can be had for free. The tradeoff is that there's limited support for most games and most mainstream applications in Linux and a lot of distributions are harder to use. In fact, the only reason I ever even used Linux was because I hated most 3rd party shells for Windows, which is now beside the point since I got a hacked uxtheme.dll file and a resource editor (I can edit the shell (explorer.exe) myself now). The bottom line is that the person who is using it likes it though, and, in this case, I'd recommend Windows because it's easier to use and because it's what Qliveur asked for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 I'll probably just stick with XP home edition. Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I suggest you use a Dual-core processor, you can pick a decent one up for a couple of hundred dollars or less. expensive I know but what a gamers delight it is In what way? The most you can do with a dual-core CPU is assign all your CPU tasks to one processor and your game's to the other processor. IMO this doesn't net one a whole lot in terms of performance gain. Game developers are still struggling to move from single-threaded games to a first phase of multi-threading today; gamers will only be able to take advantage of the added performance of additional cores, if multithreading makes its way into the game industry quickly. Richard mentioned that AMD is working "actively" with game developers to remove the secrets of programming multithreaded software.- From Tom's Hardware Guide http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/06/08/amd_to_offer_8_cores/ FEI - Intel to cut processor prices by 60% effective July 23 @ Qliveur - My 2 cents on the AMD vs. Intel - go with AMD if you want a more efficient processor that also performs better than comparable Intel processors with most games. I took the liberty of picking out some processors that I thought might fit your requirements. The comparisons are roughly equivalent in performance (the AMD processors still perform better on games like Doom III, Farcry, and Unreal tournament). When considering the single core you get better performace/dollar from the AMD processor. In the dual-core scenario you not only get better performance/dollar but you also get significantly less power consumption. It's disappointing to say that Intel has been getting their butt kicked the past couple of years. Single core comparison AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (TDP 89W) = USD$298* vs. Intel Pentium 4 661 (TDP 86W) = USD$402* Dual core comparison AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (TDP 89W) = USD$297* (Socket 939) vs. Intel Pentium D 950 (TDP 130W) = USD$340* * CPU prices from newegg.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.