|
Building a PC on a low budget. Need some help
|
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
19. November 2008 @ 21:01 |
Link to this message
|
It's been a while since I kept up with PC components and my current PC just died on me.
What I have so far is a Case a DVD Burner, and a DVD ROM drive as well as some HDDs. All will be taken from my old PC.
Last time I was looking into PC building it seemed like AMD was the wiser choice, however, it is looking like Intel is the way to go now. Is this an accurate statement, or is it still a "depends on what you are looking for" type deal.
The processors I was looking at were:
AMD Phenom x4 9950 ~$200
Intel Q6600 ~$220
AMD x2 6000 ~110
Intel E8500 ~220
I am not sure if workstation class Opteron or Xeon work well in every day applications.
Also, Intel came out with the i7 architecture. Any advantage to those, or is it too early to buy since the prices are still high. I noticed the i7 920 is about $340, so I am guessing a full PC on that may get up to about $1200... Way over my budget.
As for budget, as you can tell, the price range for CPU ranges from $100 - $220. I am open to more recommendations even if the price is higher.
Most of the time the PC will be used for watching video. Some of it will be HD, but for the most part, it will be SD encoded with x264. On that note, there will be some encoding being done on it from DVD to H.264 via x264 (meGUI)or mainconcept. Also, I would probably be encoding quite a few DVDs using mostly mainconcept and TMPGEnc (v2.5).
I will be doing a little bit of 3D modeling with Cinema 4D (v10.5). Not too much on this part, mostly hobby type. I use Photoshop CS3 quite a bit (as well as Gimp), actually I have the entire Creative Suite 3 Master collection and I might consider doing some Flash video and using After Effects.
I do a little bit of web design/web building, but I don't think that is too resource heavy.
As for gaming, I do this very casually. I have games like Oblivion, but I don't play them often.
For a monitor, I use my HDTV, so it is only 768p, so any gaming would be done at that resolution.
So lets start with CPU. I am no longer brand loyal. I used to like AMD more because they were made in Germany. Now they're "diffused" in Germany...whatever that means... So, now that made in Germany is out of the picture, I lost my loyalty to AMD.
With Overclocking, I have never done that, so I probably will not do it, however, if overclocking can be done easily, I will consider doing it, so please include scenarios if possible.
Thank you
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
20. November 2008 @ 01:31 |
Link to this message
|
Really depends how budget is budget. The E8500 (And the even more popular E8400) is a monster overclocker and has a low price-point, as for the 6000 i'm not familliar with it so I won't comment. As for the Q6600 vs the 9550 it's a pretty close call depending on what tasks you are doing. You'll want to look at these benchmarks and see how they differ with applications that you use, and see if it's worth the price difference. Again if you are going to be overclocking the Q6600 will go much further than the Phenom.
Currently the software industry is only starting to utilize quad-cores. Chances are most things you currently use will only make use of two cores, which is why the duo-cores are still great value because they're not putting out all that extra heat and using the extra power for no benefit. However, things as software progresses look to see quad-cores to really get a workout. The C2D you're looking at (The 6000+ seems to have a 90nm and 65nm version of the same chip)is also running on newer tech with 45nm processes vs 65nm so they'll use less power and create less heat.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
21. November 2008 @ 17:34 |
Link to this message
|
Wow, thanks for that link! Very useful indeed. You can easily see from the results that most apps and games are in fact NOT optimized for 4 cores with the intel dual cores destroying the quad cores in most benchmarks.
You mentioned that quad cores are beginning to be utilized now. The C2D seem to be a better choice at the moment based on those benchmarks for most everyday apps, but when optimized it seems like the quads can offer around 30% increase in performance. What happened with the previous gen (1 core vs. dual core). Was there a single core CPU that was close to a dual core that now, would be blown away by that same dual core CPU?
My Budget is approx $600.
I got more updated prices:
C2D E8400: $165 - $182
Quad 9950: $185 - $204
C2D E8500: $188 - $207
Quad 6600: $190 - $209
So, the only one that is really cheaper is the E8400.
This would leave approx $400 left for motherboard, RAM, PSU, GPU, and cooling (am I forgetting something?).
The only component that I am pretty sure I will get is the GPU which is a 4850 at $145 after tax (do you pay tax when you buy online???). That would leave roughly $255 for Motherboard, PSU, RAM, Cooling and misc (can't think of what Misc would be though...).
I can't really look at a motherboard until I decide on a CPU and I am assuming RAM depends on that as well.
What are we looking at in terms of price of Motherboards for AMD vs. Intel. I do not know much about motherboards, so I would not know which way to go. If an Intel system ends up costing $100 less and has potential to overclock making it much better than the Phenom, then this will be obvious. If they are similar in price, then I will probably lean more towards the AMD since it seems like with Intel, there will be no real upgrade, but with AMD, the next gen can fit on their Motherboards. Also, I like the overclocking potential, but I will definitely not push any near their limits if I overclock.
Also, what are the effects of overclocking. Will the CPU die faster or will will it be unaffected as long as the overclock is done right.
And with PSU, there is a Hec PSU for $79 after savings of $70. Are Hec any good?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817339002
Thanks
|
Senior Member
|
21. November 2008 @ 17:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by JaguarGod:
will be doing a little bit of 3D modeling with Cinema 4D (v10.5). Not too much on this part, mostly hobby type. I use Photoshop CS3 quite a bit (as well as Gimp), actually I have the entire Creative Suite 3 Master collection and I might consider doing some Flash video and using After Effects.
I do a little bit of web design/web building, but I don't think that is too resource heavy.
For this reason I say go with quad core. That and as much RAM your board and preferred OS will see is what drives the speed benefits on the applications you describe. I googled cs3 gain with quadcore? and got quite a few replies.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. November 2008 @ 17:59
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2008 @ 20:15 |
Link to this message
|
No, Hec are not good. Stick with an Antec Earthwatts, Corsair (any model) or Zalman (any model)
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 04:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2008 @ 11:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by JaguarGod:
I was looking at motherboards, and so far I am having a hard time finding an intel board. What should I look for for the intel chips? X38/X48/X58 or something different? The cheapest X38 I see is $150, which is a little pricey.
As far as these Intel boards go, throw out the X58 because that supports the new I7 Nehalem CPU and not the 775 pin dual and quad cores you have already looked at.
I'm not sure the differences between the P45 board Sam just linked (good CPU+mobo combo for good price BTW) and X48 you mention without greater research aside from I think P45 is older.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2008 @ 11:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
P45 is actually newer, it's just a cut-down X48, and not much has been cut down.
|
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 11:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Glad I asked... :)
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 15:02 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the help. The Intel setup is looking better now!
Now, with upgrade ability for the intel, I would basically be forced to get a new Motherboard and CPU if I want to upgrade right? Or can one of those Xtreme series Quads (QX9770) fit in that Gigabyte board? Is there a benefit of the QX9770 vs. an overclocked Q6600? I read that the Q6600 overclocks very well. This is for the future however, if I would need a little more oomph from the system.
With the AMD, I read that the AM3 chips fit in the board in the future? Should I consider this when deciding Intel vs. AMD? However, if I do this would I need a motherboard with a DDR3 controller to get the most benefits from AM3.
There is one thing that never occurred to me... OS... I remember reading something in the past that Windows XP does not handle more 4GB of RAM and that is only reserved 2GB for applications. Does this mean that installing over 2GB of RAM is pointless on a 32bit OS? Does XP go well with Quad core CPUs? What type of performance hit will I take since XP is 32bit vs. 64bit.
I am asking because, I do not feel Vista is an upgrade, however, I am forced to stick with Windows because I have thousands of dollars in software that is for Windows. My friends who have Vista use an average of 1.8GB of RAM running idle!!! This is very far from XP which runs at 240MB idle and Windows 2000 which is 125MB idle. Is there an alternative to Vista? Like some non-eye candy Windows 2000 looking OS from M$? If not, can Vista be stripped to the point where it becomes Windows XP Pro, but still maintains full functionality?
Would installing a Linux OS and using Wine solve the issue?
What about Windows XP 64? Is that OS any good or is it like Vista?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2008 @ 15:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
A QX9770 is about as fast out of the box as a Q6600 is, overclocked to its limit, but you can overclock a QX9770, overclock it well. 4Ghz should be doable. Then again, QX9770s cost a thousand dollars at least, the Q6600 is less than a fifth of that. That motherboard should handle both fine.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 15:38 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks! This means that the Q6600 should be enough for quite a while.
What about the OS?
My apps are not easy (cheap) to replace:
Cinema 4D
Alias Maya
Adobe Master Collection CS3
Sony Vegas 7
Sonic Scenarist
Office 2007 Enterprise (complete waste IMO)
Oh, and another question with 64bit OS, this is something I am not sure of. Can I run 32bit apps on it, or will I still have to ditch my apps if I get a 64bit OS?
And, this time, I will definitely get a Linux OS on my PC in Dual Boot so I can start building a Linux collection of apps. I am unfamiliar with the different builds of Linux, so do you have any recommendations? Also, to get a dual boot, do I have to install it in a certain order, like Windows first then Linux, or visa versa, or does it not matter?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2008 @ 15:41 |
Link to this message
|
Unless you really think you'll need 4GB of RAM (very few programs do) your best bet is to stick with XP 32-bit to ensure compatibility.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 16:04 |
Link to this message
|
OK, sounds good. I'll probably triple or Quad boot between Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP Pro, and Windows XP 64. I might have XP 64 somewhere from an Opteron build a few years back.
This way, I can have XP and 2000 for my old (current) apps and XP 64 if I get some 64bit apps. Then I will have Linux so I stop relying on Windows for everything.
It looks like the setup is pretty much decided then. Oh, I forgot, the ram I chose for the AMD build:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220353
Will this be ok with the Q6600 and the Motherboard you recommended, or should I get different RAM?
Thanks.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2008 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 17:28 |
Link to this message
|
Awesome!!! Thanks
Oh, a question about rebate. Like the COrsair for example, it says no later than 21 days after purchase. Would I get the components in time from Newegg?
Also, I do not have a printer. Would this be a problem?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. November 2008 @ 17:31
|
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 17:34 |
Link to this message
|
I use the same RAM with my system...
Intel Q9450 2.66 @ 3.2~3.4OC'd
Gigabyte EX38-DS4
Nvidia 8800GT
and have been happy since I built it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2008 @ 18:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
You get the components within 5 working days or so, depending on where you live. It's the rebate that takes up to a month.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 18:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
And will they send a receipt or will I have to use someone else's PC to get a printed copy of the receipt to send in for the rebates?
|
Senior Member
|
22. November 2008 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Anyplace you order your gear from, Newegg included since you had links for them, will have an online option to print your receipt. When receiving your gear you will get your shipping (packing) list, not necessarily your receipt.
|
Senior Member
|
23. November 2008 @ 03:40 |
Link to this message
|
for linux i would recommend debian. it is one of the best and most stable distros there is.
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
if you have a good internet connection you can download the netinst cd. it will download any necessary files during installation so the disc is only about 150mb. if you need any help setting it up or installing you can go to the linux section of our forums.
http://forums.afterdawn.com/forum_view.cfm/163
why do you need to quad boot? win xp and linux should be enough for what you are doing.
GAMING COMPUTER - Intel q9550 @ 3.4ghz | EVGA GTX 260 core 216 | Gigabyte ds3l | 6gb Gskill DDR2 800 ram | Silverstone 700 watt psu | WD 640gb hdd | Seagate 300gb hdd | LG dvd burner | Samsung dvd burner | Antec p182 case | logitech 2.1 speakers | logitech g11 keyboard | Samsung 25.5in 1900x1200 monitor | 19in 1440x900 secondary monitor | Windows 7 64bit | SERVER - Gigabyte 785g motherboard | AMD Phenom 9650 | 6gb ram | three 1.5tb hdd | Seagate 1tb hdd | WD 750gb hdd | two 300gb hdd | Maxtor 200gb hdd | Ark rackmount case | CentOS 5.5
Steam name = "krj15489" alias = Jordan-k
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
23. November 2008 @ 21:52 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the Linux info! Would 1500 down be considered fast? I average about 167 kB/s download, so my connection is about 1350 kbps.
About the Quad Boot, I really like Windows 2000. It is much better for memory intensive applications as on average it uses 1/2 RAM as windows XP. I don't know why, but Cinema 4D for instance, uses about 350MB RAM on XP and 220MB RAM on w2k. Symantec Anti Virus uses approx 36MB RAM on XP and 12 - 24 on w2k.
I may not do it as XP is not that bad, just more of a memory hog. With 4GB of RAM, XP shouldn't be a prob. The XP 64 would be if I get some 64bit software. I could always install this later.
So I may just go Linux/XP and if I get some 64bit software, then XP 64 as well. The Windows 2000, will be a coin toss. I have some time to decide. Thanks for the input though. I do appreciate it :)
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
24. November 2008 @ 00:03 |
Link to this message
|
With the Video card, it looks like my money has not cleared into my account, so I will miss out on the weekend sale, unless the term "weekend sale" is a gimmick and it will last until later on.
I am not familiar with video card brands. I usually stick with Sapphire for ATi cards and PNY for nVidia (workstation cards). I think the 4850 series is the best price for performance.
For example, this Asus is $140 ($5 more) and has a higher core and memory clock:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121272
Is there any difference in terms of quality? Is this the same as the Sapphire only Overclocked?
If there is a difference with brands, what would the hierarchy from best to worst?
Also, the nVidia equivalent is the 9800GTX+ correct? Looking at benchmarks, it seems like they are about equal in performance, except that the nVidia has a PhysX engine. Will this make a difference? Also, the price will be on average $20 more for the nVidia. Is that too much of a difference for the PhysX?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. November 2008 @ 00:25
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
24. November 2008 @ 13:25 |
Link to this message
|
With 4GB of ram you won't have to worry about any OS memory overhead so installing windows 2000 with that build will just be a waste of space. Avoid XP-64 bit it's a mess. Vista-64 bit is great and debian has a 64-bit version as well.
|
