Jump to content

Home

Official Hardware Discussion and Advice Megathread


Rogue Nine

Recommended Posts

Well, what are your preferences for processors? Intel will give you better bang for your buck, but if you can't splurge for it, there are a host of good AMD processors that will offer great performance. And will you be overclocking the CPU?

 

I'm thinking of a couple of options for you. One would be to get an AMD chip, probably an Athlon X2 5000+ Black Edition and pair that with an 8800GT. The other option is to get an Intel chip along with the new Nvidia 9600GT, which offers great performance at its price point.

 

Let us know on the processor and overclocking fronts and we'll be better able to help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'd be fine with getting a good base system and upgrading the RAM and Video Card, but not the processor.

Yes, this would be the best way since OEMs usually charge a premium for more memory and high performance video cards. They also charge a similar premium for the better CPUs as well, and most OEM systems have a locked BIOS that won't let you overclock a cheaper CPU, which sucks, IMO, so you might have to splurge a little to get a decent CPU.

 

Oh, and save yourself some headache and get an OEM copy of XP Home and set up a dual boot with Vista, so you can still play old games on your new system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might eventually pick up an OEM of XP, but to start off, I'll see how Vista works with all my games...from what I hear, it'll run most of my older games pretty well (including Grim Fandango)...it doesn't seem as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be.

Idk, Vista seems right for me.

 

Oh and btw...no, im not into the overclocking stuff...I really just want to get a nice CPU that will last me until I get my next computer. I'm running on a 2.4 ghz single core right now (P4), and it still meets the minimum req. for a lot of newer games even (That's right Bioshock). I also need to find a video card that will run with not a ton of power consumption (simply b/c I don't feel like upgrading the power supply again if I'm not the one building it in the first place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ibuypower.com/mall/lobby.htm

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/

 

Both of those sites will let you configure your system to your specifications. I was able to piece together a decent AMD system with an Athlon X2 5000+ Black Edition, an Nvidia 9600GT, a decent 600W PSU and Microsoft Vista Home Premium at both sites for about $800-$850, depending on the other parts you pick. Should you want to venture into Intel, the price inflates a bit to over $900. I don't know how tight you are with your budget, but there you go.

 

Play around with the configurations and see what suits you best. If you have any questions on any of the parts, feel free to post them here for feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've actually been looking at those two recently...both good sites.

 

I like your configuration...has a lot of power for minimal bucks...very nice recommendation...and they do all the building correct?

 

Also, I was looking at the customization...what is recommended when choosing cooling systems and motherboards? I'm really not great with the computer hardware stuff (I'm more of a software guy)...thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they do all the building and OS installation. They also burn-in (test for functionality) the system before shipping it.

 

As for the specs themselves, here's what I was able to come up with. I've only listed the major parts, you can decide the other things like cases, peripherals, etc. for yourself.

 

IBuyPower

Intel System - Rough Total: $950

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6750 2.66Ghz - Best processor for your money offered

Mobo: Asus P5N-E SLI or MSI P6N SLI-F

Processor Cooling: INTEL CPU Cooling Fan System Kit - If you're not overclocking, then you really won't need more than this.

RAM: 2GB Corsair

PSU: 600W Power Supply - I think the manufacturer is either Xion or NZXT, they don't say. :/

Video Card: EVGA Nvidia 9600GT

HDD: 320GB Hard drive - They use Western Digital Caviar drives, which are some of the best out there.

OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium

 

AMD System - Rough Total: $850

CPU: AMD Athlon™64 X2 5000+ Black Edition 2.6Ghz

Mobo: Asus M2N-SLI NVIDIA nForce 560 SLI Chipset

Processor Cooling: AMD CPU Cooling Fan System Kit - Again, if not overclocking, you won't need more than this.

RAM: 2GB Corsair

PSU: 600W Power Supply - Same as above.

Video Card: EVGA Nvidia 9600GT

HDD: 320GB Hard drive

OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium

 

CyberPowerPC

Intel System - Rough Total: $925

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6750 2.66Ghz

Mobo: Asus P5N-E SLI or MSI P6N SLI-F

Processor Cooling: Raidmax Maxcool Intel CPU Cooling Fan - Pretty much the same as the IBuyPower part above.

RAM: 2GB Mushkin

PSU: Cooler Master 600W Power Supply - A good, reputable PSU maker.

Video Card: EVGA Nvidia 9600GT

HDD: 320GB Hard drive - Not sure if they use Seagate or WD...

OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium

 

AMD System = Rough Total: $825

CPU: AMD Athlon™64 X2 5000+ Black Edition 2.6Ghz

Mobo: Asus M2N-SLI NVIDIA nForce 560 SLI Chipset

Processor Cooling: Raidmax Maxcool AMD CPU Cooling Fan

RAM: 2GB Mushkin

PSU: Cooler Master 600W Power Supply

Video Card: EVGA Nvidia 9600GT

HDD: 320GB Hard drive

OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium

 

You can tweak these builds as you like, they're just meant as a basic framework. You can cut more corners by lowering the HDD capacity or by going with the cheaper mobo. I wouldn't skimp on the PSU as getting enough power to your system is important and I definitely wouldn't skimp on the RAM because you need at the very minimum 2GB for Vista to run properly. I can vouch for the quality of the ASUS P5N-E mobo and the Intel E6750 CPU as I own both of them and they're pretty darn awesome should you decide to go the Intel route. If you find you can spend a little bit more money, then go with the Nvidia 8800GT, it will give you better gaming performance than the 9600GT.

 

Hope this all helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey,

I'm still working on getting a new computer...I haven't decided if I want a desktop anymore...we'll see. But I have one major question that's been bothering me. Is there a major speed/efficiency difference between the AMD Dual Cores and the Intel Core 2 Duos? If you can offer any answer, first-hand experience, or even test results, that'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the second post of this thread:

Which is better: Intel or AMD?

Quite possibly the most oft-asked question not only in enthusiast circles, but by everyday users and novices alike. The short answer is: Intel, by virtue of its line of Core 2 Duo/Quad chips which consistently outperform their AMD counterparts in almost every benchmarking test undertaken. Intel chips are fast, consume a conservative amount of power and run cool. This is not to say that AMD chips are not viable options as well; they are generally cheaper and many casual users and enthusiasts still use them, especially the Black Editions which are pretty much designed for overclocking. However, Intel has AMD beat in almost every way performance-wise.

Intel's newest chip, the 3.0Ghz E8400, runs on a 45nm manufacturing process, which means it can fit a larger quantity of small, efficient semiconductors onto a microprocessor chip. The end result is a CPU that runs cooler and more power-efficient than the previous generation of chips which uses a 65nm process. Right now, AMD currently has no 45nm chips on the market as they're still promoting their 65nm and 90nm CPUs.

 

So in summary, Intel is better in both categories you mention. Intel chips tend to have a higher stock speed than their AMD contemporaries and also tend to be more efficient as well, consuming as much, if not less power than their AMD contemporaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

Plus it'll do 4GHZ on air cooling.

 

@urluckyday: The general rule of thumb when comparing the Athlon64 X2 to Core2 Duo is that the 65nm (Conroe) C2D is about 25% faster at the same clockspeed than A64, and the 45nm (Wolfdale) C2D is between 5-10% faster at the same clockspeed than Conroe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and also tend to be more efficient as well, consuming as much, if not less power than their AMD contemporaries.

 

sorry niner, you cant make a statement like that without some testbed articles to back it up!!

 

Its one of the most contentious issue for those of us that are into power efficiency. The testing for this stuff is done in such specific conditions, its hard to fully extrapolate those into energy consumption per user year. Of course, not all homes contain pc that rip crysis for 3+ hrs a day either. ie. how do lower loaded CPUS handle prolonged vs intermittent use ?? The information on this type of stuff is scant.

 

It is also a *serious* joke when someone even mentions they are thinking about how wonderfully power efficient their CPU is when they are high load-duration users of full sized boards with SLI/XF ready 700-1500W PSUs!

 

To those buying a CPU, I'd look most closely at price rather than reported high level performance on a testbed you most likely will not have. There is a well demonstrated ceiling effect currently demonstrated in the way CPU v GPU are handling higher end games. You get to a certain level of graphical output and the CPU marks hit a plateux, whereupon the GPUs capabilities are the final telling factor of what you're system can handle.

 

If you are a professional video editor and the like, sure, a powerful system is always going to benefit you. 99% of the people Ive met that do that professionally are mac-users, tinkering away on teh wonderful Final Cut Pro.

 

So apart from lame bragging rights, a CPU that can be 'mad overclocked' is a waste of money(and power!)... put your money into a nicer GPU and some RAM< you'll have more fun on your rig!! >> I guarantee it.

 

mtfbwya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

cmon jmac, we all know that stuff!! Do you think we've not read the reviews as well ;) With our magnificent tech reporter NegSun, such tidbits will never escape us!

 

However, we used the SYSmark 2007 Preview suite as it represents the majority of workloads applicable to a wide user base, and also because it does include some idle time, which we believe reflects real user behavior pretty well.

 

"we" ?? The people at Toms are qualified to conclusively report on long term effects of consumer energy consumption profiles?? I haven't come across any report of a longitudinal study design of theirs to test this.. I doubt we ever will.. people who soil themslves at TRI-SLI setups and glowing case fans are less likely to be concerned about this issue at any further depth than a SYSmark test.

 

There are a number of initiatives research centres/energy providers are undertaking to look into this type of stuff. One of the most notable being Project NOAH(University Of California, Irvine) of course. There's some great articles analysing their methodology and the unique "AppTrack" software they developed.

 

One of the challenging aspects(from a research POV) of the IT world is the high rate of change for new hardware, due to ever improving engineering standards. This is perfectly summed up by Moore's Law which any hardware geek worth their salt will know intimately :p

 

A contiguous research model is something that is necessary to keep up with all this, which is an expensive undertaking for governments and energy providers, who are skilled at penny pinching :(

 

Now, I wonder if "Tom's Hardware" can meet that challenge instead?[/bollocks they can]

 

What it boils down to:

True, representative data about energy consumption for home computer use is complex to gather, requiring a specialised research methodology that will not only gather the data correctly, but also keep up with ever evolving computer hardware standards. The information reported in small scale hardware reviews, whilst interesting to read, can in no way approximate an adequate research design, neither in scale nor intention.

 

mtfbwya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because i'm biased towards amd i refuse to believe the test data from your article from a reliable source and their conclusion that in general, intel gets the most performance per watt words words words
Okay then. The fact remains that when Tom's Hardware ran their tests, most Core 2 Duos used less power than their AMD counterparts and that their tests were accurate enough for an argument on an internet forum.

 

And I ran AMD processors for most of my builds. In fact, the E8400 is the first Intel processor I've used in a build, so my bias is towards the company that puts out the best-performing product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they can answer simple questions like those posed in this thread. :p

 

No one asked for an academic paper on computer component power usage, just a general thought on CPU efficiency to aid in the purchase of one.

 

...a general thought? How informative are they! The greater the quality of information you give to people, the better they are armed to make a sound, informed decision.

 

People around the world ask this very question all the time...

 

Is there a major speed/efficiency difference between the AMD Dual Cores and the Intel Core 2 Duos? If you can offer any answer, first-hand experience, or even test results, that'd be greatly appreciated.

 

...and receive the stock standard answers, based on those limited test bed results. That's fine, but as long as people who rely on you for that information are told the limitations of what you are actually telling them. If you're not doing that than you really are no better than a slick salesperson :p

 

@jmac >> yes, we get all that stuff from Tom's etc. But it simply doesnt translate into real-world usage terms we can understand. If two almost identically spec'd pcs were used identically, what is the difference, both in terms of watt-hours and $$$ ?? This type of info is never given in such reports.

 

A report finding that has no practical relevance should carry little weight in terms of influencing purchase decisions.. however, when people report on/recommend a certain product(as you have done), giving testbed links is a trite way of backing up your recommendation as far as basing it on facts that actually mean something. Doesnt matter if its Intel/AMD or Ronald McDonald, those numbers and observations are simply not the "whole story"! I wish those testbed clowns would add a...

 

"*your individual results may vary, depending on overall component wattage and usage profile."

 

...disclaimer/caveat on their findings as far as power efficiency is concerned.

 

If people are making a query about energy efficiency, what is wrong with trying to arm them a fuller understanding of what pertinent factors are? I am thankful to the various persons that got me thinking about this stuff over the years. Ive been able to make changes that have literally saved me $100s of dollars a year as far as power bills are concerned..... surely thats more useful than a "general thought" ??! :p

 

so to urluckyday etc, from a power efficiency point of view, here are the basics to keep in mind:

*Your PC and peripherals are made of many current carrying parts. These coupled with the overall way you use them contribute to a more accurate description of your power consumption.

 

Rather than considering what the impact of one component will be on this energy consumption profile, you're better off thinking about:

 

Total power consumption of *all* your parts. Are their any particular parts you have that predispose your rig to being inefficient off the bat ? ie. why ask a question about power efficiency for a CPU when you have a 750W PSU, and an X2 gfx card or SLI/XF setup?

 

There are many online power supply calculators that will give an *approximation* of the wattage load ALL your components alone will be draining. if you are really keen on it, you can get meters that will *accurately* measure how much juice your pc is actually using. If you are really keen on seeing what changes you can affect that will impact on your power use/power bill, this is the best way. You can then change different variables, be it individual components, or (more usually) usage patterns to see what impact you will have.

 

Some quick n easy ways to make sure you are being power efficient.

1. Tweak your power management settings. Make a profile that is appropriate for the time you are actually on the pc

 

2. Not using the monitor? switch it off(or have your power management profile do it for you)

 

3. Game in shorter bursts. Helps naturally regulate temp of your whole system(not just the cpu)

 

4. Make sure there is good ventilation around the pc.. so many desk sets nowdays have a little cupboard or compartment the pc gets stuffed in.... these "pc incubators" do no favours to a pc as far as heat dissipation goes :(

 

5. Use Blackle! :D a truly great idea! lolz

 

I wont rabbit on about small form factor and energy star compliant kit, as Ive done that enough before :p They are worth considering though, if you are super keen on energy efficiency.

 

The great thing about optimising energy efficiency of your pc use is that it will maximise the lifespan of your kit(as opposed to thrashing and overheating it), and benefit your hip pocket with lower energy bills. The environmental benefits also go without saying ;) 'Tis a win-win

 

mtfbwya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there you go, urluckyday. Now that Astro has given his whole big dissertation on power consumption and what not, I hope you feel that much more informed.

 

And that laptop actually looks pretty nice for that price. Decent video card, fairly fast (for a laptop CPU) processor, reputable manufacturer. It has Vista on it, which isn't the greatest option for laptops, but it has 2GB of RAM, so it should be able to handle it. I'd say go for it if that's what you're looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who on earth got Astro started about power efficiency? :carms:

 

I agree with Niner, that laptop is very good value for money (especially when a laptop of that spec in the UK would cost you $2,000, I kid you not), and unless you want to slap Crysis on that, it should be able to handle pretty much anything you throw at it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one for the AMD list:

 

GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H (Newegg.com)

 

GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H (Scan.co.uk)

 

And an in depth review of the 780G chipset and the above mentioned board...

 

This is now hands down my mobo of choice as I'm an AMD fanboy and this actually doen't make me feel ashamed to say it anymore, with a low TDP, Hybrid Crossfire, integrated GPU that's better than some discrete GPUs and an insanely low price, I wish I could buy it this second cause I wouldn't hesitate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...