Computer Build Advice

MacLeod

zeppage2 wrote: »

word

aside from the occasional bent pin (user caused, no doubt), CPU's are very resilient

Whats the old saying? 99% of computer problems are between the chair and keyboard.

I was told that about ausus....
Hm...I may do some looking around then on a better mother board that is close to what I have.

Asus, MSI, Asrock and Gigabyte all make excellent quality boards. Shop around and find the one that meets your requirements and is cheapest. Theyll be about the same in quality.

LOL...don't worry about it. They are both good and I'm sure there are pleanty of benchmarks that favor both...good luck OP on your decision.

Its not that easy. I always have to have the last word. Just ask my wife.

Here is a good review from Anandtech on the Phenom II X4 965 ($180). In every benchmark, it is at or near the top and is only beaten by CPU's costing twice and sometimes triple the price of the 965.

The benchmarks that it lost on werent by much. For games, the AMD and Intel procs are pretty close and basically even across the board. Windows Media Coding - yeah it 2nd to a $500 processor but the actual difference in time was 4 seconds. Divx encoding, $170 AMD takes 42 seconds to do the job - the $300 Intel takes 39 seconds. Data recovery takes the AMD 32 seconds and the $500 Intel 24 seconds. The Microsoft Excel test, the AMD takes 23 seconds while the $500 Intel does it in 12. Yeah thats a lot faster but Id rather save $330 and wait 11 seconds.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2819/7

Here is another review by Toms Hardware on the P2 965. Again, it gets beat a lot by the Intel i7's, but its by the same margins. The i7 is taking 3 minutes to complete a benchmark, the 965 is taking 3:45. The Intels also win the game benchmarks but again, only by a few frames per second.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-965,2389-8.html

These are just the 1st two I went to. Intel is definitely the performance leader and the fastest clock for clock. But on a dollar for dollar comparion, the AMD smokes the Intels. Offering 85-95% of the performance for half or less of the price. So like I said, Id rather keep $300 and wait 10 seconds more for encode a home movie. And when you consider the new Athlons that offer quad core CPU's for less than $100 or the new Phenom X6 6 core CPU's that start at $200, AMD is even more appealing.

PerfectCreature

Yeah I have always liked AMD more than Intel. Computers with AMD have been cheaper so I guess that is why I chose it...
I will take your advice on the 900 series AMD.
Thanlks.

PerfectCreature

I am curious how you unlock the 4th core?

Sherardp

Lasareath wrote: »

I'm currently building a new PC for myself, for hard drives I will be doing this:

C drive will be an Intel X25-M 80GB SSD

D drive will be a 600GB Raptor (10,000rpm)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd6000hlhx-velociraptor-600gb,2600.html




Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Excellent choice on that boot drive buddy :cool:

Sherardp

I will say looking at Cyberpower pcs and prices you can get some good bang for buck. Wow.

PerfectCreature

Yeah, I have read some rather nasty reviews though, so...That's what has always kept me away from them....

Sherardp

PerfectCreature wrote: »

Yeah, I have read some rather nasty reviews though, so...That's what has always kept me away from them....

Just build it, using Newegg/Mwave for parts. You should be able to find some good deals.

MacLeod

You can also do it by setting Auto Clock Calibration to AUTO in the BIOS but only certain motherboards can do this. Doesn't akways work though. A lot of times the extra cores are screwed up and that's why they're sold as dual cores. My Asrock board will unlock the 4th core of my Athlon X3 but its defective and runs about 3 times slower.

My advice would be if you want a quad core, spend the extra $20-40 and get one cause there ain't no guarantee that you can unlock your dually.

PerfectCreature

Yeah I read a few articles on it. I would rather spend the extra money to get a guaranteed one than not get one.

bdaley6509

Your point would be valid if the i7 was as much as you think it is, but it's available for $199.00 or less...I posted the links earlier.

MacLeod wrote: »

Whats the old saying? 99% of computer problems are between the chair and keyboard.



Asus, MSI, Asrock and Gigabyte all make excellent quality boards. Shop around and find the one that meets your requirements and is cheapest. Theyll be about the same in quality.




Its not that easy. I always have to have the last word. Just ask my wife.

Here is a good review from Anandtech on the Phenom II X4 965 ($180). In every benchmark, it is at or near the top and is only beaten by CPU's costing twice and sometimes triple the price of the 965.

The benchmarks that it lost on werent by much. For games, the AMD and Intel procs are pretty close and basically even across the board. Windows Media Coding - yeah it 2nd to a $500 processor but the actual difference in time was 4 seconds. Divx encoding, $170 AMD takes 42 seconds to do the job - the $300 Intel takes 39 seconds. Data recovery takes the AMD 32 seconds and the $500 Intel 24 seconds. The Microsoft Excel test, the AMD takes 23 seconds while the $500 Intel does it in 12. Yeah thats a lot faster but Id rather save $330 and wait 11 seconds.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2819/7

Here is another review by Toms Hardware on the P2 965. Again, it gets beat a lot by the Intel i7's, but its by the same margins. The i7 is taking 3 minutes to complete a benchmark, the 965 is taking 3:45. The Intels also win the game benchmarks but again, only by a few frames per second.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-965,2389-8.html

These are just the 1st two I went to. Intel is definitely the performance leader and the fastest clock for clock. But on a dollar for dollar comparion, the AMD smokes the Intels. Offering 85-95% of the performance for half or less of the price. So like I said, Id rather keep $300 and wait 10 seconds more for encode a home movie. And when you consider the new Athlons that offer quad core CPU's for less than $100 or the new Phenom X6 6 core CPU's that start at $200, AMD is even more appealing.

PerfectCreature

Yeah, but amd is cheaper and you can get about the same performance.
If I find a deal on the i7 I may get that but...I dunno.
I will check around a bit and see what deals I can find.

edbert

zeppage2 wrote: »

asus boards have strict memory compatibility, be warned

Interesting. Just curious, if you have memory installed that isn't on the approved list will it not run as fast as it should?

PerfectCreature

I think it wont reconize all of the memory. If at all.
You have to match them up...
Like DDR3 1600 if thats what the asus wants,....

concealer404

edbert wrote: »

Interesting. Just curious, if you have memory installed that isn't on the approved list will it not run as fast as it should?

It'll probably be fine. Asus' "approved lists" have historically been political, or just a list of memory that they've actually tested in their boards.

For the most part, RAM is RAM. I've used plenty of different memory that was never on their approved lists with no problems.

If you want to be sure and not worry about it, then just use what's on the list. But personally, i wouldn't think twice about using other stuff than what's listed.

MacLeod

bdaley6509 wrote: »

Your point would be valid if the i7 was as much as you think it is, but it's available for $199.00 or less...I posted the links earlier.

That link went to Microcenter sayin "sorry no results found".

The i7 920, 930 and 860 are $290 on Newegg.

AsSiMiLaTeD

bdaley6509 wrote: »

Your point would be valid if the i7 was as much as you think it is, but it's available for $199.00 or less...I posted the links earlier.

Two things:

1 - Microcenter is the only place that I'm aware of that has the i7 at that price. Also, last time I checked their CPUs are in-store only, so no shipping. Also, looks like the OP lives in Main, and I don't believe Microcenter has any stores in that state. So, ummm, no

2 - You're forgetting about all the OTHER expense that an i7 brings to the table. The memory and motherboard are going to be more expensive, at a minimum.

You're just looking at the cost of the CPU that's only available to people in certain locations and are not looking at total system cost.

I'm obviously a big fan of the i7 chips as I have one and it's badass, but they're not the best value, and they're not for everyone.

PerfectCreature

Yeah, Maine has very little stores. Unless you go towards Portland you don't get much selection. I mean within a 200 mile radius from my house...we have only walmarts and kmarts, and very little fancy specialized stores.
But yeah, AMD is much cheaper, and the boards and memory can be had for around 100 a piece for a decent board, and 4 gigs of ram.

edbert

concealer404 wrote: »

It'll probably be fine. Asus' "approved lists" have historically been political, or just a list of memory that they've actually tested in their boards.

For the most part, RAM is RAM. I've used plenty of different memory that was never on their approved lists with no problems.

If you want to be sure and not worry about it, then just use what's on the list. But personally, i wouldn't think twice about using other stuff than what's listed.

The only reason I wonder is because I am using 4gb of low latency Patriot memory(I know only 3.5 recognized at this point) but it just isn't as fast as I think it should be. This is running with Athlon 64x2 6000+, 320mb XFX 8800gts on an ASUS m2n-sli deluxe mobo. I would love to trade it out with some approved memory just to see if it runs any faster. Looks like I need to call a few friends to see what they have!

Oh yeah, and looking on ASUS website even some of the approved memory only works in single channel for each slot, some dual channel if you only use two of the four matching slots(color-wise) and some can use all for slots in dual channel. This is my main reason for wanting to try something approved. I could be running all my memory in single channel and be missing out on what I would assume to be a major performance increase by everything running in dual channel.

concealer404

Well, find out if it's running single or dual channel and report back.

If CPU-Z is still around, it'll tell you exactly what's going on.

edbert

concealer404 wrote: »

Well, find out if it's running single or dual channel and report back.

If CPU-Z is still around, it'll tell you exactly what's going on.

Stop trying to throw logic in there as a way to solve my problem!!!!! I'm trying to find a way to try out new toys! Dangit, now I guess I should download CPU-Z and see what's going on.

bdaley6509

True dat about the Microcenter...didn't realize those were in-store only. The solution is now obvious...the OP needs to move closer to Microcenter.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Two things:

1 - Microcenter is the only place that I'm aware of that has the i7 at that price. Also, last time I checked their CPUs are in-store only, so no shipping. Also, looks like the OP lives in Main, and I don't believe Microcenter has any stores in that state. So, ummm, no

2 - You're forgetting about all the OTHER expense that an i7 brings to the table. The memory and motherboard are going to be more expensive, at a minimum.

You're just looking at the cost of the CPU that's only available to people in certain locations and are not looking at total system cost.

I'm obviously a big fan of the i7 chips as I have one and it's badass, but they're not the best value, and they're not for everyone.

AsSiMiLaTeD

^^^ Well that's what I did.

Actually we do have a Microcenter here in Dallas and it's very convenient, I prefer them over Fry's overall, even though they're not quite as convenient for me to get to.

vc69

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I didn't say Dell was crap, but if you're of the opinion that the parts inside a mass produced PC are of that same quality as one you can build yourself then there's really nothing for us to discuss.

Agreed... there isn't. My experience and knowledge base obviously differs from yours.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

You can do better by building it yourself. It's the same reason that we're all into this audio hobby. Sure I could buy a HTIB, but I'm going to get better sound if I pick all my individual components and do it myself.

Last I checked, this was his first foray into a build. While (as I said before) there are particular situations that call for a special build, MOST people will SAVE money and be quite happy with a Dell. Period.

Truth is, with regard to your analogy, the same holds true. Most people are quite happy with a HTIB. There are some good HTIB's out there that meet or exceed the requirements of those who seek to purchase them.

Not everyone wants (or needs) the hassle, or the power of a home build. Not to mention the cost. Sure, the hardware is cheap, but consider the OS and related software to perform whatever tasks he wants. Simply adding the cost of the OS to any home build make a similarly configured Dell within range. Add the perks of easy setup and a bullet-proof warranty and it's game over. I've done the math a thousand times, for a hundred different reasons, for a thousand different customers. Home-built rarely makes economic let alone practical sense.

PerfectCreature

Ok, well. If it's going to be a box build. Which dell computers should I look for for the most performance on a budget per se'
Also, anyone done any cyber power pcs?
I see they do laptops that you can customize as well....

ryanjoachim

PerfectCreature wrote: »

Ok, well. If it's going to be a box build. Which dell computers should I look for for the most performance on a budget per se'
Also, anyone done any cyber power pcs?
I see they do laptops that you can customize as well....

It depends on what you need. My school recently purchased a number of Dell Optiplex 780s, which have a 2.4Ghz dual-core cpu and 2GB of ram. They're perfect for someone who doesn't do much besides Office and internet.

PerfectCreature

I want it to be an audio/video rig. Stream youtube vids, play movies and I want to be able to find a PC game and play it if I like it....Kind of like that.
School work, word prosesing internet.

doctorcilantro

Lasareath wrote: »

people get scared of the of thermal paste

By a board with integrated cpu and gpu. Mine does 1080P MKVs over LAN. I'd say one is more likely to run into problems post-assembly, with software and driver compatibility issues. I have two of these and will actually part with one if you want details. I love the mini-ITX stuff; small footprint and can still handle multimedia.

ryanjoachim

PerfectCreature wrote: »

I want it to be an audio/video rig. Stream youtube vids, play movies and I want to be able to find a PC game and play it if I like it....Kind of like that.
School work, word prosesing internet.

For anything "recent" you are going to need a dedicated video card, which you CAN add in by yourself even if you get a Dell.

For HD video playback, right now the CPU is the biggest factor in lag/quality as Youtube and Hulu don't support gpu-acceleration (well, FLASH doesn't).

doctorcilantro

BTW - one build I didn't do was with a micro-ATX gigabyte board, new one with USB3 and DDR3, and the Antex HTPC case they made in conjuction with Silent PC Review. Always liked that case and almost used it. It's cheap too and comes with an Antec PSU I think.

Personal experience with Dell over the years. Desktops can be nice (work and friends and family); never had good experience with their laptops (friends and family).

bdaley6509

PerfectCreature wrote: »

I want it to be an audio/video rig. Stream youtube vids, play movies and I want to be able to find a PC game and play it if I like it....Kind of like that.
School work, word prosesing internet.

Spell checker...