Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › New Computer - Spec Questions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Computer - Spec Questions - Page 5

post #61 of 65
Originally Posted by will33184 View Post
i agree that computers are much more powerful for what most people need.

theres only so fast a harddrive is though. I feel that even with ssd, unless you purchase the better ones, the speed you gain is minimal at best
Have fun everytime you click a button or load a program.

You feel wrong.
post #62 of 65
I'll go ahead and ask, why hasn't the OP named his most demanding apps? Tell us what you're using and we can tell you what you really need. Saying you're using basic programs and maybe whatever games it can handle doesn't really say anything. If games were your priority, I'd balance the build to be a little GPU heavy with a CPU that isn't too much of a bottle neck. If you're into video editing/encoding, I'd balance it to be CPU heavy. If you only use a browser and Outlook, I'd tell you to get the cheapest thing that wont fall apart on you in the next 5 years.

Without this knowledge, I can only give you more generalized advice. Don't neglect your PSU, as said before for the obvious reasons that a poor PSU will likely bring you to PC ruin(I recommend a 80+ certified from a reputable company, modular are a bonus). Get only as much RAM as you actually need. XP only really needs 2GB but Vista or 7 64bit would benefit from 4GB. Dual Core CPUs are absolutely fine as long as you don't run CPU intensive software like video editing, then you might want to bump up to a quad.

Spending more to get a i7 build when you aren't even into gaming/video editing/etc. to "future proof" is nonsense. I can't tell you how many times I jumped on the bandwagon of a new tech only to see it replaced or "upgraded" within a single year. It'll be at least a year or two before they start to really slow down production of LGA 775 CPUs. Not that it should matter to a non-gamer. Chances are, if you have to replace your CPU, you're replacing your motherboard too anyways. You can pretty much count on it. Every single time I tried to buy a motherboard with the intent of upgrading my CPU in a year or two, I had to buy a new motherboard to upgrade the CPU, for some reason or another. Even if i7 builds are still the thing when you go to upgrade your CPU, you'll probably find your motherboard doesn't support the bus speeds of the new CPUs or some other compatibility issue.

Cases are pretty much a personal preference. Find the case that holds what you want and looks like what you wouldn't mind working in and just generally suits your tastes(if you build your own).

Only go with AMD, if you're doing a super cheap budget build but your $650 budget can accommodate an Intel build. AMD is good for a budget Linux build and that's about it these days. Maybe there's some niche I missed but that's generalized advice for you. Also, it's possible AMD caught up to Intel somehow while I wasn't looking but I doubt it.

The thing about hard drives is you have to choose between cheap storage(those 1TB or higher drives), fast loading for apps(Raptor) or super fast loading and no moving parts(SSD). The Raptors are faster but they aren't so much faster that you can't live without one. Only get one if your budget has room for it. If you were building a dream machine(no real budget limits) then I'd say SSDs are superb because, if you raid those suckers, you can load stuff almost instantly(an entire DVD can be copied in only a few seconds). There's a video on youtube where some guy put like 40 high performance SSDs in raid and he was reading/writing so fast it was insane. The only thing about SSDs is the inherent problem of questionable longevity. They're made of ram and ram is volatile by nature. I don't feel like getting into detail about wear leveling or other such stuff since SSDs are out of your price range anyways(they're currently out of my price range too). I just know I drool at the thought of a raiding SSDs to put my windows install and all of my games on. There would be no loading time at all on a setup like that, even on the biggest maps.
post #63 of 65
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
m11a1; What I really meant here was the 1333MHz and 1066Mhz Bus speeds. They are not exactly changeable (at least not like the other ones). Do not argue with me about how you can actually change it outside of software aide.
It seems as if I can't argue, because you'd just cover your ears and shout insults at me.

Seriously, are you retarded? Read the post that I was replying to understand why I said what I said. That guy said: "My Q6600 is rock solid stable at 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz FSB" What does that mean? 3200 = multiplier x 1600 FSB, that means that the multiplier is 2. That's not possible for the Q6600 to achieve such a high clock with such a low multiplier.
Ah, now I understand. You're right. I didn't see that you were nit-picking at it. When I first read that I just understood it as 8 * 400. Indeed 2 * 1600 is impossible, so obviously he meant the former otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned that he's running it at 3.2.

That's actually my Q6600 running at stock, what's your point?
To guess why it was quoted and then he said he's going to sleep without bothering to point out absurdities.

A complete i7 setup can't be done for $650.

Barracuda 7200.11: 105 MB/s Sustained, 9.5ms write seek
Raptor 150: 84 MB/s Sustained, 5.2ms write seek
Velociraptor 300: 120 MB/s Sustained, 4.7ms write seek
OCZ Vertex: up to 230 MB/s, 0.1ms seek time

If drive speed is the concern, I don’t bother comparing capacities. You don’t have to get a 256 GB SSD just because it closely matches the Raptor’s storage. The Raptors are already so far behind in capacity compared to $/GB that capacity is not the issue. As long as you have a 20 GB base for the OS the rest doesn’t really matter. Find speed, set price, and then lastly see what size that gives you.
If the average drive is $100 for 1 TB, and you’re already spending twice that for a fraction of the capacity, might as well spend a little more for a substantial speed increase with SSD. You’re looking to buy speed anyways.
This isn’t much more than a VelociRaptor and would be A LOT faster. 60 GB is plenty for an OS and all your programs. And if you're gaming buy a second one to install the games on. Most gamers into Raptors buy TWO anyways to RAID 0 them. An isolated SSD for the OS and another for games would be so much faster than Raptors in RAID because of the seek time.

I personally do not use Raptors or SSD in my systems. I have nothing that time critical making the extra price worth it. I have 8 hard drives because I need the storage. But then I manage my computing tasks based on hard drives. OS goes to one drive, programs and games to another. If I download something it goes to a third drive and extracts to a 4th so that way the drive isn't reading and writing upon itself. I feel a big difference when the OS and minor applications have their own drive together. Big guys like Office and Photoshop go to the other drive. For me managing it this way has been plenty fast. Just make sure of the 8 that no one drive is given a major read and write task at the same time and nothing will bog down.

If you want speed that's seriously so fast that the SATA bus can't handle it, look here Fusion-io :: Products 1400 MB/s 0.005ms seek
Thats practical, hey everyone lets all put eight drives in our computers so we can be cool too. I do have a Raptor and it is much faster than the atypical 7200 so when building a sytem I would recommend you use a Raptor for a few bucks more. Its not Rocket science guys. Also need to mention that SSD for your OS is great as long as your apps are on the SSD as well. Otherwise they load as fast as what they are on. Copy and paste magizine specs untill your blue in the face. You buy a Raptor and your daily computer chores will run quicker. Please no telling me about specific crap like so and so runs faster on such and such. We are not talking exceptions here we are talking in general terms. I have an OS and about 100 gigs of documents and files and it is all duplicated on a network drive.
post #64 of 65
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post
Back in the dark ages, I was a gung-ho geek just like the rest of the folks in this thread. As time went by, the obsession waned....
Audio has a way of doing that, doesn't it? Around the time I got into audio, I stopped poking at the Athlon64 (single core) box running Linux. It's still running and still doing fine. Maybe I'll upgrade, maybe I'll wait for i7 prices to drop before upgrading. That, and a white MacBook I've had for a couple of years are what I use.

If one or the other died, I'd probably get another MacBook or whatever's on special at Fry's. I don't ask a lot from the machines and even the midrange stuff is hugely powerful today.
post #65 of 65
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
If one or the other died, I'd probably get another MacBook or whatever's on special at Fry's. I don't ask a lot from the machines and even the midrange stuff is hugely powerful today.
But to compensate for that huge power, we have Vista. Sucking it all up like so much vanilla icecream

I sure hope Windows 7 is lighter on the resource usage.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › New Computer - Spec Questions