Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Building a new computer, Some advice please.
dtritus
Member Posts: 139
OK, So I am building a new computer for myself. I have chosen to go with AMD. I have an Athlon 64 3000+ now, and have been using it for about 3 years now, and it's been great. My new comp. will have an Athlon 64x2 3800+. I'm not building a super computer, just one that is better than I have now for a budget of about $600 - $700.
I got a case, mainboard, and ram in last week. This week will see the arrival of the CPU and power supply. Later this month the optical drive, hard drive and OS.
My main question is which version of Windows to get. I have decided to go with Vista, as the computing world heads in that direction. I'm leaning toward Vista Home Premium, but not sure if I should get the 32 bit or 64 bit version.
I'll be running on a 64 bit CPU so it seems like a 64 bit OS would be the way to go, but I'm not sure how well it runs 32 bit programs.
My computer I have now has regular Windows XP and runs well on the 64 bit CPU. I would expect VIista to do the same. But I wonder if it would be a benefit to use the 64 bit edition.
Also, I plan to run on the on-board graphics card to start out with. The mainboard comes with nVidia 7050 on-board graphics. Has anyone else used this? What is it comparable to? I have an ATI x1300pro in my present computer and I am wondering how similar the 2 are.
Yeah, I'd do Betty....
But I'd be thinking about Wilma.
Comments
I've recently bought parts for a PC roughly around that price ($800) so here are my thoughts:
AMD isn't worth it right now. Looks like you're too late for that but intel 2 core duo's stomp all over it.
On board graphics are never worth it. Not only are you using up some more of your own systems RAM but they simply do not compare to an actual graphics card. Your x1300 pro will far outweigh and out preform that. I would recomend getting a 7900GS right now if you wanted a mid range comparable card.
If you aren't going to be using dx10 and won't be upgrading large for a bit stick with xp. I wouldn't recomend it with a minimum of 2gigs of ram, I'd want 4gb before I tried doing any good gaming on it.
this is what I put in the machine I'm building:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16811119129
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148140
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814130056
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16817153028
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16820145590
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16813188017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819115013
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835185038
Along with windows xp. I'm going to be overclocking the CPU.
Anyways don't forget a power supply as well. You want a good one because if it frys your computer will most likely fry as well.
I am currently running Vista 64, and all my MMOs run on it fine. The only programs that don't are Adobe software, like Photoshop, Acrobat (full version) and in Design. I was a little put out by that at first, but I still have my other computer for those programs, so I'm not complaining too loudly.
I agree with the post above regarding sound and video cards. Get 8800 GTX for video and a good creative gamer sound card. The way these cards run is phenomenal on my computer. Processing is handles on the cards themselves freeing up the main cpu and your ram.
______________
Mark E. Cooper
AKA Tohrment
Proud member of Damned Souls since 2007.
http://www.damnedsouls.eu
personally.. i'd stick with xp 32bit. i picked my self up a copy of vista 64 bit and i'm only really planning on using it to follow the progression of vista updates and play with 64 bit compatibility. i'm sure at some time in the future i'll switch over but i don't think that day will be real soon.
i think it's still just a little too early to switch over to 64bit for a main platform since it's still considerably underused and lacks full support from 3rd party developers.
____________________________
TheCore
I would not go for an 8800 GTX for a budget PC. First of all, it is too expensive. You need to get the 640mb model for it to be even worth buying -- anything less is poor.
As he said, get a good power supply. I have had power supplies go out on me and fry my system. I have not made that mistake again in my latest system which has a 650 w power supply. No problems!
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
Yup. For a budget system (something on a mid range card) a good 500w supply is well enough. Its in one of the links I posted, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16817153028 there actually. Very recomended brand.
I was thinking of waiting till a budget edition of the new ATI card came out. I read that was probably going to be happening soon. I would just pop the one I have now over but it's an AGP and the new mainboard is PCIx16.
Also thanks to the other poster for his parts list. I also buy from newegg, it's a great site.
Yeah, I'd do Betty....
But I'd be thinking about Wilma.
You wasted a lot of money on an 8600gt
. Even though it is 'dx10 compatable' it runs the current dx10 offerings (in dx10 mode) at shoddy framerates.
i have an ATi Radeon x1300 and it does wonders for me...
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Vista probably isn't the best way to go unless you get an even higher end computer, but if you do want to do this try and have 2 GB of ram minimum. If you buy a retail version of Vista it tends to come with both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions in one bundle (at least mine did, I'm not too sure of which packages all come with both versions. I got an upgrade edition as well, though the 64 bit version doesn't upgrade, it must be installed from scratch)
64 bit and 32 bit versions almost run the same software equally for the most part, but for some things, such as the iphone, they seem to not have support for the 64 bit edition.
64 bit isn't worth anything anyway if you don't have at least 4 gb of ram, that's really the only main benefit you'd get from it right now.
I've bought 2gigs of G-skill ddr2 800 ram. The mainboard has room for 2 more should I decide I need it.
I don't have an iPhone but I do have an iPod. Is iTunes not compatable with Vista 64?
thanks to all who responded. I feel much more informed now.
Perhaps I'll pick up a $100 nVidia card for now and see how that goes. For some reason the ATI x1k cards are more expensive than the nVidia 7k cards.
Yeah, I'd do Betty....
But I'd be thinking about Wilma.
The only version of Vista worth getting is Vista Ultimate. Anything else cuts out too much of the good stuff to be worth anything.
Also, if you are going for Vista, do NOT get anything less than a 8xxx series NVidia card or ATI equivalent. Vista is the only way to get DX10 and you may as well go for a card that supports it.
no it's not. i read somewhere that it would be VERY unlikely that a 64bit version would be available anytime soon, if at all.
____________________________
TheCore
iTunes isn't even compatible with Windows XP x64. I used it for about 2 months till I couldn't get what I needed, so I dumped XP x64 and went back to the 32 bit version. The Windows world is definitely not ready for 64 operation. Too many third party developers won't make the proper jump to the 64 bit OS, so we are kind of stuck having to run everything in 32 bit.
The Nvidia 7050 onboard video by itself performs far subpar to an actual graphics card. I think the lowest grade graphics card can get 5x the rendering power of just onboard video. This is primarily because it must share system memory rather then offputting it to the card. System memory also doesn't run as fast as video memory.
The budget ATI DX10 cards are already out. But they perform worse then thier Nvidia counterparts. The only DX10 cards that are worth it from ATI are the 2900 XT and XTX models. The only one I can find on the market was the HD2400, which just by looking at the specs isn't a very good video card. Its memory and clock speed are definetly low and it would be hard to play games on them; still nice low price of $60. On the other hand, the only 8000 series card that would perform well enough for 3D games is the 8600 which costs $200. At that price you might as well spend a little more for the 8800 GTS or HD2900XT since they have better clock speeds and more memory. Which is why running 2 8600 in SLI isn't as good as running the 8800.
You can probably do the waiting game and get a cheap HD2400 which will probably run games out today until the next generation of graphics cards comes out and the price drops for the higher end cards to the $200 range.
If you are going for a budget processor, then I recommend using the Brisbane or Lima core. They both run very cool which saves on the electric bill, and range in price from $60-$160. Also it would work descently as a waiting processor until the new phenom processors are released later this year.
Below is a link the the CPU i have been eyeballing. The price is right and it benchmarks a little better than 2x faster than what I use now. (I looked it up on tomshardware)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103733
I'm not supper opposed to getting a brisbane core CPU I just don't know much about them. I understand the 65w CPU's run cool anyway.
I'm not placing the order till Friday so there is still wiggle room.
Yeah, I'd do Betty....
But I'd be thinking about Wilma.
This generation of cards are crap other than the 8800s.
The only cards to consider are the 8800 GTS 320 or 640. If you want a more expensive card you are better off waiting for the fall release of the new high end parts. The 2400, 2600, 8500, and 8600 are all craptastic cards that perform like donky doo doo.
If you want a good idea of how the DX10 cards perform here is a review that compares the budget DX10 cards. Here are a few quotes:
"We had no problems expressing our disappointment with NVIDIA over the lackluster performance of their 8600 series. After AMD's introduction of the 2900 XT, we held some hope that perhaps they would capitalize on the huge gap NVIDIA left between their sub $200 parts and the higher end hardware. Unfortunately, that has not happened. In fact, AMD went the other way and released hardware that performs consistently worse than NVIDIA's competing offerings."
"Usually it's easier to review hardware that is clearly better or worse than it's competitor under the tests we ran, but this case is difficult. We want to paint an accurate picture here, but it has become nearly impossible to speak negatively enough about the AMD Radeon HD 2000 Series without sounding comically absurd."
"All we can do at this point is lament the sad state of affordable next generation graphics cards and wait until someone at NVIDIA and AMD gets the memo that their customers would actually like to see better performance that at least consistently matches previous generation hardware. For now, midrange DX10 remains MIA."
The choice is yours... have fun picking out parts.
I read an article in this months Game for Windows magazine that tested the ATI 2900 (It's in the car or I'd go look at the exact modle) and put it side by side with an 8800 nVidia and the ATI card scored about 30% better.
I think they said they were usding beta drivers on the ATI also.
I've used both brands over the years and I generally prefur to have an ATI. I just like the pictures they make better I guess.
Yeah, I'd do Betty....
But I'd be thinking about Wilma.
If you are having trouble with drivers go to Guru3d.com Thier forums are invaluable for discussing which drivers to use for which cards.
I prefer nvidia drivers. John Carmak has been quoted in saying that when developing games, "If it is a driver other than nvidia I assume it is an issue with their driver. If it is an issue with an nvidia driver I assume I made a mistake."
Edit: And yes the 2900 was MEANT to be better than the 8800s, they just couldn't get 3 or 4 sections of logic to work on the microchip. So they cut them out and released a gimped chip for a lower price.
Intel does this all the time. The extreme edition processors are the only ones where all of the microchip is working to specification. All, the rest have disabled cache, disabled cores, and lower clockrates.
I'd go with an 8600 over a 7900, simply because the 8600 is DX10 compliant, whereas the 7900 is not. They perform comparably performance-wise. As for the ATI offering, it's meant to compete with the mid-range cards for its pricepoint, not the 8800, which for now, is the fastest card out there.
As far as the future goes, AMD and Intel are both looking to do integrated graphics, but AMD has the jump right now in technology as a lot of stuff, such as the northbridge and memory controllers, is on the die of the CPU. With the acquisition of ATI, it also gives them the benefit of the graphics technology to integrate on die with the CPU. This will do several things. One, it will allow the ATI/NVidia graphics card to save room for other things, making cards smaller and less power-hungry. Intel has their own version of implemented graphics on the motherboard, but frankly, the Intel implementation has always been slower, because it either relied on the CPU or software to do a lot of the graphics work. They are supposed to have a new revision coming out soon that will improve upon their existing product line, but we will see how it compares.
So right now, the future is on the side of Intel and Nvidia, and rightly so. But 2 years ago, it was AMD and ATI. Another year in the future, and I'm sure Intel and Nvidia will both be trying to play catchup to AMD/ATI.
Nvidia has given me nothing but hiccups lately, for vista.
Sometimes you get constant TDR errors every 30 seconds in a game, that freezes it for 15 seconds constantly, sometimes you get a wierd scrammbled screen (Works fine in XP though)
While Nvidia Cards are in alot of ways better, ATI seems to have its act more together for vista so...
XP - Nvidia (at least for a few more months into they release some better vista drivers)
Vista - ATI
How much RAM are you getting? Because you might as well not even get Vista if you have less than 2GB. But is you have got 2GB, I would go for the 64 bit version. Also, dont go for the onboard video card. It is worth it just to buy a somewhat cheap PCI Express video card. Like one for around $100-150. Onboard graphics are almost always bad for anything 3D.
I got 2 gigs of G-skill ddr2 800.
Edited to add:
This looks neet.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814125065
I wish there were some customer reviews though. Also it is not listed on tomshardware. I imagine it is at least faster than an ATI x1300.
Yeah, I'd do Betty....
But I'd be thinking about Wilma.
This one may not look as 'neet' but.....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130086
I think it may do the job