The PC Builder's Thread....

[The Succubus]

No, not that sort of PC. :smalltongue:

It has come to my attention that my venerable Alienware M17 is starting to show its age, what with only being able to run Skyrim and other games on their very lowest settings. So the time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things. Of video cards, of motherboards and complex wirings.

I have a budget of around £1200, which ideally would include a monitor but I could always use my HDMI TV I suppose. My problem is that I'm not sure what specs I should be looking for in a motherboard and I don't know which graphic card choice is the best option: ATI, Nvidia, single card or 2 in SLI/Crossfire.

Are the i3/i5/i7 the latest generation of processors? I'm assuming I should be looking for quad core minimum.

ANy PC geeks out there that could help fill in the gaps in my knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

[Tonal Architect]

I thought Skyrim was coming up next year... Oh well, I'm a little out of it, it seems, which makes sense, considering how much I hate Bethesda.

Well, back to topic, I guess.

[factotum]

Well, firstly, don't forget the cost of buying a Windows license--your lovely gaming PC ain't going to do much without an OS on it. :smallwink:

I'm a big believer in getting second-rank stuff, myself. Absolute top end gear costs a fortune and doesn't give you enough of an extra boost to be worth it, IMHO--this is why my current PC is an AMD Athlon II X3 @ 3.2GHz married to a Radeon 5770 graphics card, none of which is particularly high end! Web sites like www.tomshardware.com give you comparative benchmarks of how powerful different kit is, so I'd have a look there first to see the sort of current state of the art.

By the way, monitors are not that expensive--a 1920x1080 22" display can be had for around £100.

[The Succubus]

Well, firstly, don't forget the cost of buying a Windows license--your lovely gaming PC ain't going to do much without an OS on it. :smallwink:

I'm a big believer in getting second-rank stuff, myself. Absolute top end gear costs a fortune and doesn't give you enough of an extra boost to be worth it, IMHO--this is why my current PC is an AMD Athlon II X3 @ 3.2GHz married to a Radeon 5770 graphics card, none of which is particularly high end! Web sites like www.tomshardware.com give you comparative benchmarks of how powerful different kit is, so I'd have a look there first to see the sort of current state of the art.

By the way, monitors are not that expensive--a 1920x1080 22" display can be had for around £100.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not going for the bleeding edge of everything - I'm an impoverished medical technician.:smalltongue: That said, I'd like something that could run today's games on Very High/Ultra settings and have a useful life of 2-3 years.

[Brother Oni]

Are you completely happy with building it from scratch, or would you prefer a barebones or pre-made computer?

Pre-mades are usually the most expensive, guaranteed to work but have the least flexibility in options.

Some companies do a barebones package, with optional extras, which are a bit cheaper and more flexible.

Building it from scratch is the cheapest option, but only recommended if you're at least vaguely competent at mucking about inside your machine and don't mind getting inexplicable cuts on your hands.

If you let us know what you're after, we can suggest some websites to help, along with some hardware choices.

[The Succubus]

I've done a fair bit of PC tinkering in the past, such as installing new cards (sound/graphics), RAM, installed an OS or two and fitted hard drives. The only things I haven't done are installing a motherboard and processor, and sorted out heat sinks for processors.

So I *could* do a ground up build, potentially, although the prospect is a little daunting (and exciting).

Pre-mades....I've been using laptops for the past few years, sometimes with a little customisation in the build options (i.e. my M17 was a basic model, with a few extras plugged in for me by Dell), together with a self fitted second hard disk and RAM upgrade. It was very pricey though and I had to wait rather a long time before it eventually turned up. Now that I have a laughable semblance for stability in my life, I'm looking to get a desktop system now, as it will mean I have the ability to upgrade it further in the future, so a motherboard with a high degree of futureproofing is a must.

[tyckspoon]

Web sites like www.tomshardware.com give you comparative benchmarks of how powerful different kit is, so I'd have a look there first to see the sort of current state of the art.
.

Speaking of..
They do a regular series of system-build articles to help answer this kind of question. Most recent one was in September, so it shouldn't be terribly out of date; you're probably looking for something like the $1000 build (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-cpu-ssd,3027.html), with maybe a few economy cutbacks in choices to fit in the OS and your desire for a new monitor. There's also the monthly articles on recommendations for good values in Video cards (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fastest-graphics-card-radeon-geforce,3067.html) and Processors (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3052.html) which can help figure out if something you're looking at is an unusually good deal or not.

All the pricing information they do is for the US online market, tho, so I have no idea how accurate it'll be to UK shopping.

[Erloas]

Quad core processor and 8GB RAM minimum I would say. RAM mostly because its dirt cheap still. And quad core processors are pretty common and a lot of things benefit from more then 2 cores now.
You didn't say where you are from, but using a £ I can assume its not the USA, so I can't really say much about specific pricing.
Newegg.com is a great place to research parts, but its of limited use to you in actually figuring out what you can get and I know the exchange rate doesn't even come close to working for electronics costs.

There are several different i5/i7 groups of processors, Sandy Bridge being the newest. Something like the i7-2600 should be in your price range (the K version is only worth while if you are planning on overclocking it). The AMD chips are pretty good especially on a budget, but Intel is better and should easily fit into your price range (but just guessing a bit because of the price differences in the USA compared to Europe).

Video cards... there are a lot of options. While the prices aren't the same, this should give you a good idea of what to look for.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fastest-graphics-card-radeon-geforce,3067.html
I tend to prefer AMD for video cards.
I would pick out all of your other parts, see how much of your budget you have left, then get the best video card(s) you can afford, as that will have the biggest impact on gaming and how long the system will stay relevant.

[Ranger Mattos]

If you're preferring cheap parts over high-end, I suggest looking into AMD cpus. Their latest processor, the FX-8150 (unfortunately I can't provide a link right now, I'm at school) has a freaking eight physical cores, and therefore very very fast (or so I've heard). It's still over $200, but if you want to look for a cheaper option the Phenom line of processors are pretty good as well.

[The Succubus]

Thanks for the advice so far.

I could use some advice with regards to motherboards - what sort of slots should I be looking for, what does this ATX thing mean, what would be a good type that would last me a long while?

For our UK listeners - where do you source your parts from, and don't say PC World. :smallyuk:

[Erloas]

If you're preferring cheap parts over high-end, I suggest looking into AMD cpus. Their latest processor, the FX-8150 (unfortunately I can't provide a link right now, I'm at school) has a freaking eight physical cores, and therefore very very fast (or so I've heard). It's still over $200, but if you want to look for a cheaper option the Phenom line of processors are pretty good as well.
Bulldozer... it was a big disappointment really. In fact, clock for clock, it was slower then the Phenoms, which are slower then the i5/i7s. Sure, it has 8 physical cores, but in most real world situations, and even many synthetic benchmarks, it couldn't beat the Phenom and wasn't even close to the quad core i5/i7s. Low end go Phenom, high end go i7.


I could use some advice with regards to motherboards - what sort of slots should I be looking for, what does this ATX thing mean, what would be a good type that would last me a long while?

For our UK listeners - where do you source your parts from, and don't say PC World. :smallyuk:

ATX is the size of the motherboard. For what you are doing a normal ATX board is what you want, not the mini or micro atx boards. Main thing to look at is that it has the same socket as your processor (so you have to pick a processor first). I would make sure it has 4x DDR3 slots for RAM (and support at least 8GB which should be a given). And probably with your budget support for SLI/Crossfire, which will complicate things a bit but should be easy enough to figure out once you get other parts narrowed down.

[Ashery]

Side note: As I live in the US, I have absolutely no knowledge on how expensive gear is in the UK.

Be aware that hard drives will be quite a bit more expensive than they used to be due to the flooding in Taiwan. When I built this comp nearly three years ago, I got a 640GB drive for ~85$, but when I was checking prices a couple weeks ago, a nearly identical 750GB drive was ~150$.

With that being said, it shouldn't cost more than 8-900$ to build a solid rig that'll last for at least four years with only minor upgrades. This is without a monitor or OS, however, but you should still come in under your limit. There's also no reason you shouldn't build the rig from scratch, either, as you've got more than enough experience to do it.

One thing I would strongly recommend is that you don't skimp on your power supply. I'm not saying you need to buy a 1000+W power supply, but don't buy the cheapest power supply at the wattage you need (I've used Corsair for my last couple comps). Also, make sure your power supply provides the proper amperage for your video card. Ended up frying a video card due to exactly this mistake back when I was still inexperienced.

I've always found dual video cards to be over-rated for all but the highest end gaming rigs. A friend of mine buys a mid-range card when building his comp and then buys another a couple years down the road when they're dirt cheap as an upgrade, but I'm unsure of how effective that is. Taking out the SLI option will also reduce the price of your motherboard a bit.

You *might* be able to squeeze in a smallish (~80GB) SSD to use for Win7 + Skyrim with your budget and just and use a larger standard drive for everything else. I haven't had my SSD long and I'm benefiting from a fresh OS install, but damn am I loving the load times.

Can't really comment on recent processors. I originally built this comp three or so years ago now and, at the time, DF was one of the primary reasons for upgrading (Yes, I built a new comp to play with my ascii dwarves). Because of that, my processor decision was pretty much already made: Buy whatever had the fastest individual cores, which at the time implied one of the higher end intel dual cores. That processor is still going strong and has absolutely no issues with BF3. Hell, I'm probably getting more out of having BF3 installed on my SSD than I would if I had used that money to buy a new processor.

Google should be able to solve any of your terminology questions. Once that's out of the way, you'll quickly realize that you've overestimated how difficult building the computer would be.

[Brother Oni]

Thanks for the advice so far.

I could use some advice with regards to motherboards - what sort of slots should I be looking for, what does this ATX thing mean, what would be a good type that would last me a long while?

For our UK listeners - where do you source your parts from, and don't say PC World. :smallyuk:

ATX is the form factor of the motherboard, which is a posh way of saying the shape. You need to pick a case and power supply that matches the form factor.

Since you know what you want your computer to do, we can start picking suitable components (seriously - the number of people I hear saying "I want a computer" then unable to answer that simple question drives me nuts).

Further advice, broken down into components:
If you decide to follow Erloas suggestion of a quad core processor, you'll need a fairly decent power supply from a reputable company since you'll need extra connectors for the motherboard.
Since you want to play Skyrim on top settings, you'll need a PCI-E graphics card, which also needs its own separate power connector.

There isn't that much difference between AMD and Intel chips at your budget range and is mostly personal choice. I prefer AMD, but others prefer Intel.

Picking a motherboard, RAM and cards:
Once you pick your processor, take a note of its socket type (again a posh way of saying shape). Find a motherboard that fits that socket type and can support enough RAM for your needs (as Erloas said, 8 Gb is probably the bare minimum you want).

RAM is tricky one to pick as the motherboard will usually state what types it fits (DDR2/DDR3) how many sticks and timings ( eg: 1600/1333/1066 etc) and maximum capacity. Pick RAM that your motherboard will support.

You'll also want to look at the extras it has - if it has built in ethernet, then you won't need a network card (not usually an issue), if it has a built in sound solution, then you won't need a separate sound card (see peripherals later).

All these cards fit into PCI slots, so if you want extra bits and pieces (like a TV tuner card, sound card, etc), then you need enough slots to fit them.

You'll also want a DVD drive at the least and take a note of its hard drives connectors (usually SATA, but you may find some old IDE types lurking about).

Graphics cards are entirely up to you. I'm a bit out of date with what's currently the best, but they'll fit into a PCI-E slot regardless. Take a note of what output types it has though (DVI, HDMI or VGA).


Picking a case and power supply:
Now that you have an idea of how many bits you want, you can pick a case - remember you have to pick one that your motherboard fits into. The standard these days is an ATX tower case, but if you're short of physical space in your home, you can go for a smaller form factor (micro-ATX for example), making sure that if you change your mind, all your previously chosen components still match.

I suggest a 600-800W power supply, depending on how top of the range your graphics card and processor are. The more top of the range, generally the more power hungry and thus the better power supply you need.

Drives and OS:
Hard drives are generally quite easy to pick - get the largest one you can with the fastest seek time (measured in milliseconds). They'll usually fit with a SATA cable to your motherboard (hence why we checked earlier).
DVD drives again aren't anything to worry about - only how they attach to your computer (usually SATA these days).

As Factotum said, you need a Windows OS, unless you want to try Linux (which doesn't work as well with mainstream games). You want a 64-bit OS - I use Windows 7 Home Premium, but others use various Ultimate flavours depending on what they need.

Peripherals:
All the other bits and pieces - monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers.

Mouse and keyboard is entirely personal choice. I prefer wired mice since I don't want to both with keeping a supply of batteries about and a standard keyboard works just fine for me.

You want speakers of some sort, but whether you want headphones or an external set is up to you. If you're spending less than ~£100 quid on speakers though, you'll probably don't want a separate soundcard as they won't be of a good enough quality to help you distinguish the difference between onboard sound and a high quality sound card.

Again, a monitor is entirely up to you, but remember the connectors your graphics card has. VGA is the old type and not really suitable for HD applications. DVI and HDMI are essentially identical, except HDMI cables additionally carry sound. Again not an issue unless the monitor you've picked has speakers built in, in which case you need HDMI.

I've probably forgotten a whole bunch of things, which others will probably pick me up on.

If you want further clarification on anything, just ask.


I bought my last computer from ebuyer (http://www.ebuyer.com/) and self assembled, which cost me under £900 last year.
I had a significant number of teething problems as I wasn't completely up to speed with the current tech but it's perfectly serviceable and will run Skyrim on high settings according to the released tech specs (can't guarantee it as I don't have the game myself):

Windows 7 64bit Home Premium
AMD Phenom II X4 955 processor
Asus M4A75TD-EVO motherboard
Corsair PC3-10666 1333MHz 2GB DDR3 RAM (x2)
Western Digitial 500GB SATAII WD5000AAKS hard drive
Corsair 850W HX Modular PSU
Samsung SyncMaster 2333 widescreen monitor
ASUS HD 5770 Cu Core 1GB GDDR5 graphics card


I've since upgraded it with an additional 4gb of RAM from Dabs (http://www.dabs.com/).

Aria PC (http://www.aria.co.uk/) does good barebone systems which are upgradable with whatever you like.

If you're interested in reading up more then the Micro Mart magazine (http://www.micromart.co.uk/) is very good for staying current.

Edit: almost forgot - PC World is all right if you need something NOW, but as you've noted, it's expensive. I find Maplin's good if you're hunting for connectors and cables.

[Archonic Energy]

http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/
I'd recomment them whole heartedly. as thay have Provided me with my Vortex II 15 which i currently run Skyrim on.

as for parts if you seriously want to build your own, case 800W psu can be got from Maplin without breaking the bank.
i'd suggest getting Motherboard & GPU from somewhere with more up to date choices

HDD Blu-Ray & Ram can also be got from Maplin but i'd recommend getting matched pairs for ram to help stability...

[Ranger Mattos]

Bulldozer... it was a big disappointment really. In fact, clock for clock, it was slower then the Phenoms, which are slower then the i5/i7s. Sure, it has 8 physical cores, but in most real world situations, and even many synthetic benchmarks, it couldn't beat the Phenom and wasn't even close to the quad core i5/i7s. Low end go Phenom, high end go i7.

Ah. Guess my sources were wrong. I have to admit that I haven't had any experience with the FX, as I have no money or need to upgrade my processor. Especially considering I would need a new motherboard as well.

[factotum]

One thing I would strongly recommend is that you don't skimp on your power supply. I'm not saying you need to buy a 1000+W power supply, but don't buy the cheapest power supply at the wattage you need

This man speaks the truth. The power supply is attached to pretty much everything else in the machine, and if you have a nasty cheap PSU that fails badly, it could blow all the far more expensive gear you have in the machine. A few quid extra on the PSU could save you money when things go wrong. I would also avoid getting the cheaper cases--really cheap computer cases are made of very thin metal and tend to have a lot of sharp edges, not to mention being often awkward to get into and actually fit stuff. I'd also steer clear of ASRock motherboards--they're cheap and nasty.

As for supplier, I've used www.dabs.com for more than 15 years as my primary supplier of PC parts. So long as you make sure to pick items they list as "in stock" delivery is good and prices reasonable.

[The Succubus]

So just to clarify, my building order should be something like this:

1) Processor

2) Motherboard

3) Case

3a) Power supply if case does not have one built in

4) RAM

5) Video Card

6) Hard drive

Optional) SSD for OS only

Optional) Soundcard

7) Monitor

8) Peripherals

How can I know whether a PSU is sufficient for my needs or not?

[ShadowHunter]

The video card will probably suck up more power than all the other components, so usually there will be recommendations that are associated with that

For example: http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-560ti-us.html

if you go to specifications and scroll down you'll see how much power the card actually uses (170 W) and how much it recommends for the SYSTEM (500W)

Also, there's more to it than wattage, a power supply can only push so many amps at a particular voltage.

For example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371031

Go to details and scroll down to output. +3.3V@24A, +5V@24A, +12V@48A, [email protected], [email protected]

By far the most important "rail" is the +12 V rail, since your video card and CPU both use it. If you're ever curious, power = current * voltage (and current = power/voltage then). Using my example video card, it can get up to 170 watts, which is power, at +12 volts, which is voltage. So the current that must be supplied is 14 amps (though that's the PEAK power output, it won't pull that all the time). The higher end processors pull close to 100 W, so that's another 8 amps, then the 12 volt rail supplies other odds and ends so blahblahblah to be safe and not cutting it close, I think the current rule of thumb is over 40 or more amps on the 12 volt rail. You may also see multiple 12V rails, like +12V1@18A, +12V2@18A, +12V3@18A. As long as one of the rails can supply enough current for the video card, that's fine.

So: Enough power, enough current, and not cheap quality. Power supplies are notorious for dying randomly, moreso if they're cheap.


Build order may vary depending on the case arrangement. I think normally the power supply goes in first, but that doesn't really matter. Most likely it and the motherboard are out of each other's way. Some people hook up EVERYTHING on the motherboard, all the way up to actually firing up the (caseless) PC to make sure it works before installing the mobo. Some people put the mobo in first then add everything to it. You might as well do the CPU/cooler and RAM while it's out and easy to get to, but the video card is large, heavy, and bulky so you might wait until it is already in the case

Don't be daunted. Installing the motherboard isn't anything (you set it down and screw it on). The CPU, if purchased retail (i.e., not OEM) will come with the stock cooler, and I know Intel has pre-applied thermal paste so you just stick it on. If it doesn't or you need to apply your own for whatever reason, it is pretty easy. It used to be people suggested you spread it out over the chip, but now people have realized it works pretty well to just stick a small pea-sized dab in the middle of the CPU and just stick it on and let the pressure of the heatsink spread it out. It works better with aftermarket coolers that REALLY clamp down onto the motherboard, but it works good enough with stock coolers.


EDIT: Ohhh by build order you meant the order that you'll figure out the components you want in? I would think CPU and video card first because those are your major performance drivers, then motherboard (it really should be after the CPU and video card to make sure you meet your CPU/PCI slot needs), then power supply (which, as mentioned, depends heavily on the video card)

[Erloas]

So just to clarify, my building order should be something like this:

1) Processor

2) Motherboard

3) Case

3a) Power supply if case does not have one built in

4) RAM

5) Video Card

6) Hard drive

Optional) SSD for OS only

Optional) Soundcard

7) Monitor

8) Peripherals

How can I know whether a PSU is sufficient for my needs or not?

That looks mostly right, although there is a pretty good chance you'll do at least 2 passes over many of the components once you get prices more figured out.

For any single video card system, a good quality 430-500W power supply will be sufficient (key here being good quality). For an SLI or Crossfire solution it will be more but we would have to see which ones you've picked out to narrow it down for sure, 700W is probably about the range you would be looking at though.

Cases, there are a lot of choices there and I wouldn't worry too much about it, about all there is to look for there is a couple 120mm fans (quieter and moves more air then the 80mm fans, pretty standard now days though) and a standard ATX (mid tower) size. And for a quick reference, virtually any power supply that comes with a case is going to be crap, Antec is the only one I know that has a decent power supply with their cases, and even some of their cases have poor power supplies.

For power supplies... off the top of my head Antec, Silverstone, FSP, Corsair, SeaSonic and OCZ are generally good. I know there are a few brand name changes for supplies in Europe, but they are the same supplies, I just can't think of their names. Generally an 80 plus certified power supply is a good place to start your search (more efficient, but also its hard to get that sort of efficiency with cheap components).

Motherboards I like Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI. There are a lot of options here, and a lot of the cost differences comes at features. If you don't know what the features do or if you are going to use them, then they probably aren't worth paying for.

RAM just find an 8GB DDR3 kit (preferably 2x4GB instead of 4x2GB) and thats about it. Yes, someone else mentioned the type, but you would be hard pressed to find motherboard that doesn't use DDR3 and even if you did, you wouldn't want it. Things like latency and clock rate don't really come into play that much unless you're looking at pushing the system in OCing.

Hard drive just get as big as you think you'll need. They are really easy to add in later if you run out of space. Any of the 7200RPM drives (ie most 3.5 desktop harddrives) are going to have fairly similar seek times. A good sized pre-cache is about all there is to look for besides the size. I'm partial to Western Digital.

SSD: only if you've got budget left over. They are nice but not worth it if you have to cut corners in other places to fit it in.

Sound card: I wouldn't bother. Unless you are a hardcore audiophile you'll never notice the difference from the onboard sound card (which every motherboard I've seen in the last 10 years has had).

Monitor can almost be a topic of its own. I would actually probably move that way up your list and get an idea of how much its going to cost because that can be a big chunk of your budget. Also if you get some 22" monitor that isn't even 1920x1080 resolution then your video card requirements are much much lower then the monitors with that resolution (or higher, but higher isn't common until about 28"). You could also potentially look at a dual or triple monitor system, but I don't think thats in your budget.

[onthetown]

Out of date, and you can run Skyrim at all?

I can't even run Oblivion. :smallconfused:

[factotum]

Also if you get some 22" monitor that isn't even 1920x1080 resolution

Those are actually pretty hard to find these days. Cheaper monitors tend to use the same panels as TVs do for economies of scale (which is why they're so cheap), so the only resolutions you usually find are 1366x768 or 1920x1080. If you want a different resolution to those two you usually have to pay big bucks.

[thubby]

unless you're some kind of PC torturing monster, the i7 is overkill.

I have 6 gigs of ram, and it runs out before i can stress this thing in any way resembling sane use of a computer. and i like rendering audio/video

[Erloas]

unless you're some kind of PC torturing monster, the i7 is overkill.

I have 6 gigs of ram, and it runs out before i can stress this thing in any way resembling sane use of a computer. and i like rendering audio/video

Eh, its not much of overkill. Some games are much more CPU dependent then others, so they will benefit from it more. Skyrim doesn't seem to be one of those games though. They aren't that much more then the i5s, but yeah, if budget is a concern it is a very reasonable place to cut some money.

As for rendering audio/video, at least with the right codecs/converters you should easily be able to max out even high end multi-core processors and see a lot of improvements with an i7. Of course more basic codecs might only use 1-2 cores at a time.

[ShadowHunter]

My understanding is that current games don't really take advantage of 8 cores (hell, they are just now getting to where they can usefully use 4). Since the major difference with the i7 is hyper-threading, which gives you 8 logical cores, if you don't do things that take advantage of it then you basically just paid 100 dollars for 100mHz increase in clock speed. It can be considered future proofing, but cpus don't age particularly badly for gaming

[factotum]

I don't believe in the usefulness of hyper-threading full stop. Yes, it makes your 4 core CPU look like an 8 core one, but what benefit does that offer? If the 4 cores were genuinely capable of doing the work of 8 cores, just make them 8 real cores, don't mess around!

[Erloas]

Hyper threading helps if you have an application that can make use of the cores. Obviously it isn't as good as a true core, but it does speed things up. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the virtual core lets the OS assign threads to a core and lets the hardware control the multi-tasking and anything done in hardware is faster and more efficient then doing it in software. The hardware is able to switch between threads much faster then the software can.

Given, the difference between the i5s and i7s isn't that much right now, and they use the same motherboards and similar power. I don't think its a given choice either way, but the i5 does have the advantage if the build cost goes over your target.

[thubby]

hyperthreading is useless for 90% of people. games arent designed to exploit the extra cores, and most of the other stuff people do with their computer is trivial.

hyperthreading is currently only really put to full use by number crunching, photoshop, and video editing.

[The Succubus]

Trying to make the call between an AMD processor and an Intel Processor. Dabs is listing a 3.4GHZ AMD for about £100 and 3.4GHZ i7 for £230. I really can't puzzle out the difference.

[tyckspoon]

Trying to make the call between an AMD processor and an Intel Processor. Dabs is listing a 3.4GHZ AMD for about £100 and 3.4GHZ i7 for £230. I really can't puzzle out the difference.

Intel's chips are currently much more effective designs; clock cycle for clock cycle they get more work done. If budget is not a problem, you want an Intel-based system.

AMD, right now, is mostly surviving based on being a pretty good budget option- they're not as good as Intel's top line or even the mid line, but they're good enough and they're significantly cheaper, so if you are running into the limits of your budget and you have to choose between, say, that i7 and a better video card, you might choose to switch to an AMD platform and get the video card- in most games this will have a much more noticeable impact on performance than the difference between the Intel and AMD chips (not all, there are some games that lean far more heavily on the CPU performance, but enough that it's usually the better call for a general-use case.)

[factotum]

Clock speed is not everything. I know from experience that a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo walks all over a 2.8GHz P4, so you should use benchmarks to compare the two chips, not just their clock speed. Going back to Tom's Hardware I see they have a comparison of various CPUs normalised to how well they'd perform as a single-core 3GHz chip, which shows the difference in performance between these CPUs quite nicely:

Linky (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/x86-core-performance-comparison/benchmarks,128.html)

Overall, AMD is around the same performance per core/clock as a Core 2 Duo--it's not quite exact, because AMD does better in some benchmarks and worse in others, but it's in that ballpark. The original Intel i3/i5/i7 series are faster than Core 2s clock for clock, and the new Sandy Bridge i5s and i7s are faster still. Whether you consider the extra performance the i7 offers worth paying more than double the money is a decision only you can make, of course!

[Arminius]

Hello thread, my Mom has an old g5 mac that is beginning to show it's age. Me and my dad are planning to build a replacement for her. It is going to be used mostly for browsing the internet, playing music, and occasional word processing. I've only built one computer, and that was over a year ago, so I'd like to run the current build plan by you guys to see if there are any glaring deficiencies or possible improvements to make.

Case: NZXT GAMMA Classic Series GAMA-001BK (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146061&Tpk=NZXT%20Gamma%20GAMA-001BK)

Power Supply: Antec EarthWatts Green EA-380D (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371033)

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-H61M-S2-B3 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128522)

CPU: Intel Pentium G850 Sandy Bridge 2.9GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116397)

Memory: Crucial Ballistix sport 4GB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148435)

We would like to salvage the hard drives and optical drive off the g5. I am not sure if they will play nice with windows, but I can't think of any theoretical reason they wouldn't. If anyone knows anything about this, that would be great to know.

Hard Drives: 2xWDC WD1600JS – 41MVB1 (http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1340/~/specifications-for-the-160-gb-second-generation-serial-ata-drive-%28model)

Optical Drive: Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-110D (http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Professional/Computer-Drives/DVR-110D)

I've already got a copy of Windows 7 to install on it once built, so the main concern is to get the hardware. It isn't going to be used for much beyond internet browsing, but I would still like to make sure my Mom has a solid computer that will last her a few years. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks in advance.:smallsmile:

[Erloas]

I haven't actually seen how the Sandy Bridge integrated video cards work. But I would think that for a budget build you would go with AMD instead, as their integrated video is almost always better and at the low end they tend to have better price/performance. You should be able to get a quad core AMD for the same price or less.
Also I would think you could get 2x2GB of RAM for the same price, at then it will run in dual channel mode, not sure if its something you would really notice though, and really I've seen a lot of 8GB kits lately at around $35 that its probably worth the upgrade.

The only problem I see is that your motherboard choice doesn't have the old ATA connector, so you couldn't use the DVD/CD drive from the old computer with it (at least without an adapter, probably not worth the effort).

And as for reusing the old hard drive, I probably wouldn't. Hard drives, having about the only mechanical parts in a computer, also tend to have the shortest life expectancy of parts. They are one of those things that might last 10 years without issue but 5 years is more what you could expect. So you're probably better off keeping the old computer in tact and usable and get a new HD, as it is at the point where it could fail at any point. Though I realize they have went up in price a lot lately because of the earthquake in Japan.

[factotum]

I'll echo Erloas's comment about the hard drives. If you do decide to go new, and the machine is genuinely only going to be used for light word processing and web browsing, I'd look at getting an SSD--low-capacity ones (e.g. 32Gb) are in the same price range as a new one of those 160Gb mechanical drives at the moment, and the performance is an awful lot better!

[The Succubus]

My PC project is in limbo at the moment - I may be moving soon, so the spare money might have to go on the deposit for a new flat. :smallannoyed:

However, once the move is done, I'll have the monies to proceed again and I suspect I'll have a greater need for a new PC in a month or two. :smallsmile:

[Brother Oni]

My PC project is in limbo at the moment - I may be moving soon, so the spare money might have to go on the deposit for a new flat. :smallannoyed:

However, once the move is done, I'll have the monies to proceed again and I suspect I'll have a greater need for a new PC in a month or two. :smallsmile:

On the downside, you won't have a new computer and may have to scout out new components if the ones you're looking at become out of stock.

On the plus side, if they're still in stock, they're probably going to be cheaper (barring outside events). :smallbiggrin:

[Arminius]

Hokay, here is the revised build:

Case: NZXT GAMMA Classic Series GAMA-001BK (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146061&Tpk=NZXT%20Gamma%20GAMA-001BK)

Power Supply: Antec EarthWatts Green EA-380D (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371033)

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-H61M-S2-B3 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128522)

CPU: Intel Pentium G850 Sandy Bridge 2.9GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116397)

Memory: PNY Optima 8GB (2 x 4GB) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820178333)

I am still trying to sort out the processor, so I left the orignal CPU and motherboard in the build plan. The only AMD quad cores in the same price range on new egg don't seem to have integrated graphics. How important would having integrated graphics be for someone who doesn't game anyway? Ones with integrated graphics seem to involve a $30 jump in price, which, as far as future proofing goes, may be worth it. Thoughts?

Without integrated graphics: AMD Phenom II X4 925 Deneb 2.8GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103940)

With integrated graphics: AMD A6-3650 Llano 2.6GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103943)

As to the hard drive, the old computer has 2 identical hard drives, so I think we might set up a raid1. This would mitigate the risk of data loss due to age(and give me an excuse to try setting up a raid). When one breaks down, we will bite the bullet and buy a new hard drive. SSDs are cool, but the computer will still need to hold her music collection, which iirc, last clocked in at ~20gb, and it has almost certainly grown since, but 160gb should be enough room so that she doesn't feel cramped.

[Erloas]

I am still trying to sort out the processor, so I left the orignal CPU and motherboard in the build plan. The only AMD quad cores in the same price range on new egg don't seem to have integrated graphics. How important would having integrated graphics be for someone who doesn't game anyway? Ones with integrated graphics seem to involve a $30 jump in price, which, as far as future proofing goes, may be worth it. Thoughts?
Thats because up until this last set of processors, the video card is integrated into the motherboard rather then the processor. I'm not sure how the new integrated graphics in the processor compares, I think its better but not by a whole lot. Its pretty much a moot point though because if you want to do any gaming you need a standard graphics card and if you aren't it doesn't really matter what you have for integrated graphics.

The motherboards with integrated graphics are no more expensive then the other motherboards, in fact they tend to be cheaper.

As to the hard drive, the old computer has 2 identical hard drives, so I think we might set up a raid1. This would mitigate the risk of data loss due to age(and give me an excuse to try setting up a raid). When one breaks down, we will bite the bullet and buy a new hard drive.
That would work, though RAID 1 isn't as common on less expensive motherboards, so you have to check for that on the motherboard.
And at this point thats probably a pretty good idea. There have been a lot of issues for hard drive manufacturers (natural disasters destroying their facilities) lately and what used to be a $40 hard drive is now $95.

[Arminius]

So you think I'd be better off getting the Phenom II with motherboard integrated graphics or the A6-3650 Llano? They are both quad cores, but the Phenom II has a higher clock rate and seems to have a better cache. Though I must confess this is nearing the limits of my understanding, as I've only a vague idea of how caching works.

[The Succubus]

So you think I'd be better off getting the Phenom II with motherboard integrated graphics or the A6-3650 Llano? They are both quad cores, but the Phenom II has a higher clock rate and seems to have a better cache. Though I must confess this is nearing the limits of my understanding, as I've only a vague idea of how caching works.


motherboard integrated graphics


motherboard integrated graphics

No, no, a thousand times no. I use laptops a lot (I think my last desktop ran Windows ME :smalleek:) and the fastest way bar none to ensure graphics problems and a complete lack of driver support is to go with an integrated chip. :smallsigh:

Always go for a good quality graphics card.

[Arminius]

Well, it isn't intended for gaming, so a weak gpu isn't much of a concern. Did your problems occur during gaming or general use? I have a tablet with integrated graphics. It isn't very good at gaming, but seems to work fine for general use.

[Erloas]

No, no, a thousand times no. I use laptops a lot (I think my last desktop ran Windows ME :smalleek:) and the fastest way bar none to ensure graphics problems and a complete lack of driver support is to go with an integrated chip. :smallsigh:
This is a machine for Arminius's mom who's most demanding game will probably be flash based. Its not going to be a problem. And if it becomes a problem, being a desktop, a video card can be purchased and added in later.


As for the new Llano processor vs the older Phenom II... A few quick benchmarks show that the new APUs are actually fairly capable, not for a dedicated gaming system, but for some light games it might do well.
I think though that in the end, without gaming being a consideration, I doubt you'll really see any difference between either processor.