Welcome! Register for a free account (or login) > How does it work?
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Oct 17 2009, 10:49 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
New Member ![]() Group: New Member Posts: 2 Joined: 17-October 09 Member No.: 88,422 Operating System: XP |
First off - I will be using the computer for gaming/watching movies/music/general internet use/video editing. I like to multi-task and have the ability to switch between windows quickly. Now then, here are a few of my questions: CPU: Is quadcore really worth it? Yes in theory they should be twice as good as a dualcore, but other than benchmark stress tests will I really see a noticeable difference in my day-to-day usage? If so how significantly? Also, AMDs seem to be a better value than intels, but I've heard people have a lot of problems with AMDs overheating, is this true for the newer products? PSU: How exactly do you go about figuring out just how much power your system will need? Can you simply add all the watts listed by the hardware specs or is it more complicated than that? Board: To me it seems like a good board is a good investment because you can always upgrade different components later, however at the same time a board only supports a specific set of hardware types, and won't support new CPUs or memory that might come out... if I opt for a cheaper board, how much would this effect my over-all system performance? Can a cheaper board essentially bottle-neck an other-wise good system? Also, why do all the cheaper boards seem to come with built-in GPUs? I plan to purchase a video card, so I don't want to be paying for something I'm not gonna be using. Sorry if this is a lot to ask, but that's where I'm at right now. Also feel free to get into details because I'm not exactly computer illiterate, just inexperienced with building systems. (I've been using the same IBM for the past 9 years) This post has been edited by VSL: Oct 17 2009, 10:50 PM |
|
|
|
Oct 18 2009, 08:33 AM
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Advanced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Visiting Tech Posts: 894 Joined: 15-May 09 From: UK Member No.: 85,793 Operating System: Win 98se, Windows 2000, xp Home sp3, xp Pro sp3, Vista Ultimate 32bit\64bit. |
I'm no expert, and can't answer some of that as deep as you may be looking for, but heres my input incase it helps.
PSU, I begin with this as it is the heart of your system, and seriously underrated in it's importance, people who spend £500 on a video card and then only want to spend £20 on a PSU are crazy, as when a PSU goes bad it can take your whole system with it, so although your looking for the amount of power you need for this build, I suggest a different thought. I recommend buying the biggest\best PSU you can afford, PCP&C are regarded as the best, I have a 1KW one, but they are bigger than other PSU's so make sure you have a big case, now the reason I say suggest this is 2 fold, 1st running a PSU that can easily supply your needs means it's runs much smoother\quieter than one only just supplying what you need, running at full speed reduces lifespan, think of it as running a formula 1 engine on tick over to an old banger screaming it's guts out trying to keep up. And 2nd, and more importantly, when you decide to upgrade in the future, getting the more powerful PSU now means it "should" see you through the next several upgrades with ease, and that means you will be saving money long term, because you wont need to upgrade the PSU with the rest of your kit. CPU, are quad cores worth it ? yes probably, will you see a marked improvement over a dual core ? probably not, the problem currently is software is not written to utilise the 4 cores, not on a big scale, top end applications may be, don't follow it too closely TBH, but as time moves forward, and software is written to make use of this, then the quad core will shine out over dual core without question, so I would go quad core, as long as it wasn't that much more than dual core. Board, will you notice the performance difference between a top end board and a lower spec one ? probably not TBH, not unless you started OC'ing it, my suggestion for a board is get the top end one in the middle range of a series, if that makes sense, do NOT go bargain basement, you definitely want quality, but look to a price range say half the cost of the top end board. Another point to note is some of these new video cards use a lot of space (2 sections on the backplate), as a result they can block use of the card slot under the video slot, so it you want to use a few cards in there as well be aware of this. Intel v AMD, I was a hardcore AMD fan as they walked all over Intel back then, but since Intel brought out the core2 upward they are pretty much the best out these days, some may claim AMD is better value for money, they may be right, but after working on a couple of the newer Phenom systems lately I found them very lacking compared to my core2, so currently I would go Intel. Video, buy high mid end boards means your unlikely to get video on it, thus leaving your choice of card free, just short list your boards and note what they come with, then reject any with onboard video, you should have plenty of good choices left. Case etc, this too is often under rated, todays high end video cards are massive, and a good case makes a lot of difference to the systems cooling, so choose a case with good air flow and space for your components, it will also help with cable management. Now you mention future upgrades, these can be cheap, but when there is a big enough jump in tech like now between the core2's LGA775's and the i7\i5 set up's then it cost a lot more, eg, LGA775 boards originally took core2 CPU's, but when they brought out the quad core they used the same socket type, this meant you could upgrade the CPU without touching anything else, ram is the other factor in this, often specific ram types such as DDR2 can be used in a few upgrades for as long as board makers use this ram, but when tech takes a leap like DDR3 then ram needs to be changed with the board, so worst case you would need to change the board, CPU and ram if the tech is that different. |
|
|
|
Oct 18 2009, 11:13 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
New Member ![]() Group: New Member Posts: 2 Joined: 17-October 09 Member No.: 88,422 Operating System: XP |
Thanks for the reply, I'm going with a 750W power supply which should be more than enough power for what I'll need.
I do have another question though, browsing new Egg I found that triple core processors seem to be the best bargain, and came across this combo deal which seems to be like a really good starting point http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDet...st=Combo.273353 Question is - how well do triple cores function? To me it seems once a program is coded to take advantage of more than a single core, it should have no problem utilizing 2, 3, 4, or 16 cores, assuming the application is of the nature where parallel processing will actually benefit it. Am I correct in this assumption or is it only worth it to go either dual or quad core? |
|
|
|
Oct 18 2009, 01:27 PM
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Advanced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Visiting Tech Posts: 894 Joined: 15-May 09 From: UK Member No.: 85,793 Operating System: Win 98se, Windows 2000, xp Home sp3, xp Pro sp3, Vista Ultimate 32bit\64bit. |
Yes that is a very good size PSU, I would not go for anything under that for a performance system, it should handle your needs fine, unless you go to push your system to the max, just make sure you get a quality unit, having a big number next to it doesn't make it a powerful unit, it goes far deeper than that, deeper than I understand, I just know the importance, and it's the amperage on the rail(s) that matter, some prefer multi rail, others single rail, having single rail means it's not trying to spread the power around, multi rails need to be balanced out in the extreme, but here are a couple of links to input your needs to gauge PSU power.
eXtreme Power Supply Calculator Lite v2.5 Asus Power Supply Wattage Calculator Deals such as that are good ways to start, but not always the best, I see nothing wrong in the one you have linked, but then I'm no pro, all I can do is go with my gut after using similar units, and compared to my core2 I found them lacking, but I dare say there are many supporters of it's value for money, but my gut says if you want performance your better off going Intel, although it will cost more, here are a couple of deals for you to consider:- http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDet...st=Combo.262080 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDet...st=Combo.270571 As to cores, it sounds like you have the same understanding as I do on them, when software is written to utilise them they will shine out, until then they will feel over shadowed, but I would still go for them, then when software does become more common place to use the full power you are then set, sorry I can't be more precise, but I don't want to steer you wrong, best advice I can offer to help you choose between Intel or AMD, is go to a store that has a selection on display that you can test, then you can get a true feel of the difference between them, hope this helps a bit anyway. |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Similar Topics
| Topic Title | Replies | Topic Starter | Views | Last Action | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
12 | km1234 | 185 | 16th March 2010 - 11:41 PM Last post by: Tomk |
|||
![]() |
86 | connemara22 | 3,653 | 8th January 2010 - 03:02 AM Last post by: oldman960 |
|||
![]() |
45 | Psymin1 | 2,493 | 18th December 2009 - 08:30 PM Last post by: LDTate |
|||
![]() |
4 | kart7ny | 397 | 10th December 2009 - 09:39 AM Last post by: CatByte |
|||
|
Time is now: 19th March 2010 - 07:29 PM |