So I am interested in a new pc that will be used for Video editing,Gaming and general web surfing. I am asking anyone and everyone if they see something that might not be compatible with what I came up with.
(Antec Twelve Hundred 750 Blue Black Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case 750W Power Supply - Retail 260.00)
(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129063)
Already have : 5.1 surround system,DDR2 3gb memory,OS Win xp home 32bit,17 inch monitor,I want to be able to run vista 64
later on when I can afford it.
Someone also told me about this:
(--Make sure that you get 2.2 GHz,512k L2 cahce A64 3200+, it's faster than 2.0 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache A64 3200+)
Refering to the WD 7200rpm rather than the WD 10,000rpm
Looks like a compatable build, I would drop the power supply and get a better quality, cheaper unit from Corsair. I would also drop the Lite-On Drive...if you need two burners, then get a pair of the LG drives. The onboard sound on that board is rather poor (just as all onboard audio is). If you are an audiophile, you would probably be better off with a PCI or PCIe sound card. I wouldn't spend $260 on a case for $650 worth of parts (I wouldn't even spend $100 on a case for such a system). You do not want to run vista...no one does. You want to run Windows 7 x64, and the parts listed will do so.
As for the last comment, I don't know why they would refer to an outdated CPU when talking about a hard drive, but I would not take advice from such a person.
As far as the case I just did not want to have to get another one down the road in case I did rebuild again. The remark at the end refers to the rpm of the Western digital hard drive 10,000 is faster than 7200 but there have been improvements over the past yr that there are 7200s that are just as fast as the 10,000rpm.
Thanks again.
The 7200 RPM drive will NOT outperform the 10,000 RPM drive. What they should have told you is the performance is nearly that of the 10K RPM drives, so much so in terms of bang for buck the 10K drives arent worth it these days. If you really want a fast OS drive an Intel SSD G2 is the best bet, but on a $750 budget your not going to work that into the build.
As for KillerBugs comment of Vista x64 vs Windows 7 x64, well in a way he does have a valid point. Vista x64 was a great OS imo. Its never given me any problems other then not being able to play 16 bit games which is based on it being an x64 based OS, rather then the OS itself. None the less, Windows 7 is being released on October 22 and is the better OS of the two.
CPU: 8/10 - Reasonably powerful for the low price. Poor at overclocking, but a good stock performer.
Mobo: 10/10 - about the best AMD boared you can buy.
GPU: 7/10 - Good card, not so good cooler. The stock cooler for the 4870 is fine.
HDD: 5/10 - Great for storage, poor for an OS. These are deliberately the lowest cost, quietest, but slowest HDDs you can get. You shoul;d not be using one to install windows to.
Case: 5/10 - Reasonable cooling, but terrible design. Get an NZXT Tempest instead.
PSU: 6/10 - OKish, but as previously mentioned, buy a Corsair unit instead, much better.
DVD drive: 9/10 - ignore the reviews, the ad software is a doddle to replace, the drives themselves are good.
Why two different burners?
I have no idea what the CPU cache and HDD speed argument is about - the two are completely unrelated. Faster clocked CPUs are faster for an entirely different reason than higher RPM hard drives. I'll explain more about that later if you wish.
