- May 24, 2011
- 46
- 0
- 18,530
First, let me mention that I am using a 7 year old PC built on an Elite DDR mobo with an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ cpu. It has 3 gig DDR 400. I'm using the on-board video because my AGP card just bit the dust and I just lost 1 Gig of DDR which has also bitten the dust. It does have a SATA 3GB/s PCI controller card. I have two Hitachi SATA 3GB/s drives which are rather new and I will use in my new machine. The case is junk and the power supply is not compatible with current mobo's. The machine runs Windows XP Pro 32bit OS. I can continue using XP Pro 32 or upgrade to Windows 7 home premuim 32 bit or 64 bit if required to meet my objectives.
Amazingly, this old and slow PC has served me well and is actually plenty fast until I start opening a lot of browsers or applications. It actually streamed NetFlix well with the AGP card, but the on-board video is slow, choppy, and doesn't even have the resolution to fill the screen on my lcd monitor.
I mention the above because that means even the slowest machines are likely to perform better than the current machine.
Reusing the hard-drives and/or Windows XP will either reduce my cost or the money saved can be used for other items in this build.
I actually know a fair amount about this stuff and have built or upgraded many machines. I could give a theoretical university level lecture on computer architecture, but I have no idea about how to balance CPU speed, cores, RAM, and FSB speed to get the best overall throughput given the current products on the market - without doing a lot more work than I'm willing to do, especially since the folk around here are so helpful and knowledgeable about current products.
My GOAL is a nice, stable, mid-range performer. My questions have to do with balance. I want as few bottle-necks as possible. There's no point in getting the fastest CPU if all it does is wait around for the FSB and there's no point in the fastest FSB if the RAM can't keep up with it. Getting a good balance between the components is where I lack knowledge.
I want bragging rights for how little I spent to get good performance and quality.
I haven't decided whether to go AMD or Intel, but my impression is that in the budget range, ($300 to $600), that AMD is probably a better choice. I'm more familiar with AMD, so my questions are AMD centric, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't go for Intel if that gave me better performance for the same or less money.
CASE AND PSU:
I'm thinking of buying a good quality mini-tower microATX case, with good cooling characteristics, and a better-than-needed efficient power supply on the theory those will definitely be re-used when I upgrade the mobo and CPU later. Does that sound right?
I'm not wed to any format and would even go as large as a mid-tower ATX case and ATX mobo, but I'm thinking the stuff is getting smaller and a smaller case and mobo make sense.
I see a lot of microATX mobos and mini-ATX towers, so I'm guessing that's the most mainstream tradeoff between slots and bays for add-ons and case/mobo size.
The case will need to hold a SATA DVD burner, two SATA II 3.5 inch drives, and perhaps a SATA SSD boot drive. I don't have a need for any expansion cards unless I have to get a video card -- which I think is unlikely.
It seems to me that a case that can do a good job cooling with fewer fans is better than a case that requires a lot of fans to get good airflow.
Is a case with a large fan on top blowing hot air out the most efficient design these days?
Noise is an important factor.
Since I'll likely use on-board HDMI and the standard CPU heatsink and fan, I will rely on the case design and the case / PSU fans to keep the thing cool, unless there's an important reason to upgrade those items.
What about cases with cable management and air filters?
The one thing I'm absolutely clear about is that I do not want side windows and a bunch of lights! Silver, beige, gray, black, or red are fine case colors - as long as the overall design is simple and clean. (If I wanted to see inside the case, I'd use the ANSUS Skeleton.)
I'm more interested in elegant than cool! I'd be happy with a color other than black, but not-black is the lowest priority on my list. I'd prefer all red, all silver, or all black rather than a two-tone case.
If this case/psu combo, or something similar, would give me solid reliability and low-noise, it's cheap enough to replace it when I upgrade:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119195
I don't know if the above is a quality case / psu combo. It looked like a good deal for the price. Comments?
Unfortunately, I see no way I could put air filters on this case and I'm really sick of cases full of cat hair!! (I've seen the comments about using air filters in my home. I have air filters and they don't manage to keep cat hair out of the computers.)
So, easy to clean air filters are important to me unless I have to make too many compromises to have them.
Anyone care to recommend specific case formats or specific models? Same for PSU's if not included with the case!
CPU / CORES:
My impression is that for general business use, programming, some web graphics creation and editing, streaming NetFlix, and even some rare, but low-resolution video editing, that the current processors outstrip my requirements.
I'm thinking 3, probably 4 cores and that 6 is overkill. I'm also thinking that 4 cores at a slower frequency is probably better than 2 or 3 cores at a higher frequency -- but I have no idea how good today's software and browsers are at multi-threading. Years ago, before multi-core, I had a multi-CPU system, but I found that the OS wasn't really capable of making very good use of both CPU's, so I think it was a waste of money.
Also, I've seen conflicting reports on the importance of L3 cache. For general computing, is L3 cache important? Should I spend the money on a faster Athlon II with more cores or on a slower Phenom II with L3 cache?
GRAPHICS / CHIPSET:
I have no interest in multiple monitors. I've been through that phase and am now a one monitor kind of guy. I will run my monitor at 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200.
I'm thinking that on-board video rather than a separate card is the way to go as long as the chipset allows sharing a large amount of RAM and there's enough RAM installed on the mobo.
I do need HDMI.
Given the above, do I need the 890GX chipset, or would something less do the trick?
I'm willing to look at a separate video card, but my impression is that I just don't need it.
RAM:
I'm thinking I should go for mainstream RAM, which means 1333 (unless the mobo supports 1666, since there's not much price difference between 1333 and 1666 DDR3 these days.
Is it realistic to think that 2 years from now, when I'm ready to replace the mobo and CPU, that the RAM I buy today will be reusable???
I'm not even opposed to a DDR2 setup if it is cheap enough and meets my requirements.
FSB:
If I go with AMD, I'm imagining that the 2600MHz Front side bus is important to not create bottlenecks.
IN SUM: I'M LOOKING FOR SOLID RELIABILITY and GOOD PERFORMANCE FOR THE DOLLAR. To me that means a good balance between FSB speed, Chipset, SATA (II or III), processor speed, number of cores, RAM amount / speed / latency, and Disk Drive performance to get the best balanced throughput I can for my dollar.
So, What motherboard / CPU / RAM combination should I be looking at?
I don't know much about the relative quality, performance, and value of the various motherboard and RAM brands, so even if you don't have specific models to recommend, suggestions about what to consider and what to stay away from would help.
As I said, I don't object to looking at a DDR2 setup if I can get more performance for the dollar and I won't sacrifice other factors like HDMI or SSD support. Also, I know that DDR2 uses more power which means bigger PSU and more cooling.
SSD:
Since I already have two SATA 3GB/S hard-drives and don't need more space, I'm thinking about a 64GB SSD for the boot drive.
My thought is that even the fastest hard-drives are slow compared to the rest of the system. So, I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to buy a SATA 6GB/S mobo just so I can use one of the new SATA 6GB/S SSD's or whether I should save the money on the MOBO and just use a SATA 3GB/S SSD??
Does an SSD boot drive really give a nice performance kick? Should I spend that $130.00 elsewhere or just keep that money in my pocket?
BY THE WAY: Will Windows XP Pro support the SSD or does using an SSD boot drive force me to go to Windows 7 ??
SEVERAL FINAL QUESTIONS:
1. Am I approaching this from a rational perspective or making a mountain out of a mole-hill? I'm looking at this as a challenge to get the most bang for the buck, but I may be over-thinking it.
2. Do you agree with the concept of a little bit of overkill on the case, cooling, and PSU as the best plan for future upgrade?
3. Do I need to upgrade from Windows XP Pro 32 to Windows 7 to make the stuff work properly?
4. If I go to Windows 7, should I go 64bit or stick with 32bit? (Back when we went from 16 bit 286 processors to 32 bit 386 processors, half the 16 bit software didn't run at all on the 32 bit platform and the rest ran very slowly.)
5. If I go with Windows 7 64 bit, I see a lot of machines that only have 3 Gig of RAM. That just sounds wrong to me. I've seen lots of articles about how little RAM you can get by with on Windows 7 64 bit, but never one that states the amount needed for sufficient breathing room and to hit the sweet spot so the machine doesn't start thrashing on typical business / entertainment use.
Without any actual knowledge about RAM requirements, I'd want to see 6 or 8 Gig of RAM on a 64bit Windows machine.
Since I figure that I will want to upgrade the mobo and CPU in about two or three years, and given the current machine (AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 2.0GHz single core), should I be looking for a top performer in older technology?
If I can reasonably expect to re-use the RAM, I should stick with DDR3. but I'd even go DDR2 for a bargain that gave good performance and reliability.
FINALLY:
I know that my questions are rather AMD centric. That's because it is my impression that Intel is more expensive for the performance in my price range. I'd switch to Intel immediately if I could get more bang for the buck. So, if you have Intel suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
A SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC ASIDE:
I looked at the DIY combos at NewEgg and they're just strange: 6GBs SATA harddrives paired with a mobo that only support 3GBs SATA and 3GB's harddrives paired with a mobo that supports 6GBs SATA. I even found one combo that had 1600 DDR3 paired with a motherboard that only supported slower RAM. As a result, I don't have much confidence in buying one of their combos without someone more knowledgeable than I am looking it over.
Thank you in advance for any knowledge you wish to share.
Amazingly, this old and slow PC has served me well and is actually plenty fast until I start opening a lot of browsers or applications. It actually streamed NetFlix well with the AGP card, but the on-board video is slow, choppy, and doesn't even have the resolution to fill the screen on my lcd monitor.
I mention the above because that means even the slowest machines are likely to perform better than the current machine.
Reusing the hard-drives and/or Windows XP will either reduce my cost or the money saved can be used for other items in this build.
I actually know a fair amount about this stuff and have built or upgraded many machines. I could give a theoretical university level lecture on computer architecture, but I have no idea about how to balance CPU speed, cores, RAM, and FSB speed to get the best overall throughput given the current products on the market - without doing a lot more work than I'm willing to do, especially since the folk around here are so helpful and knowledgeable about current products.
My GOAL is a nice, stable, mid-range performer. My questions have to do with balance. I want as few bottle-necks as possible. There's no point in getting the fastest CPU if all it does is wait around for the FSB and there's no point in the fastest FSB if the RAM can't keep up with it. Getting a good balance between the components is where I lack knowledge.
I want bragging rights for how little I spent to get good performance and quality.
I haven't decided whether to go AMD or Intel, but my impression is that in the budget range, ($300 to $600), that AMD is probably a better choice. I'm more familiar with AMD, so my questions are AMD centric, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't go for Intel if that gave me better performance for the same or less money.
CASE AND PSU:
I'm thinking of buying a good quality mini-tower microATX case, with good cooling characteristics, and a better-than-needed efficient power supply on the theory those will definitely be re-used when I upgrade the mobo and CPU later. Does that sound right?
I'm not wed to any format and would even go as large as a mid-tower ATX case and ATX mobo, but I'm thinking the stuff is getting smaller and a smaller case and mobo make sense.
I see a lot of microATX mobos and mini-ATX towers, so I'm guessing that's the most mainstream tradeoff between slots and bays for add-ons and case/mobo size.
The case will need to hold a SATA DVD burner, two SATA II 3.5 inch drives, and perhaps a SATA SSD boot drive. I don't have a need for any expansion cards unless I have to get a video card -- which I think is unlikely.
It seems to me that a case that can do a good job cooling with fewer fans is better than a case that requires a lot of fans to get good airflow.
Is a case with a large fan on top blowing hot air out the most efficient design these days?
Noise is an important factor.
Since I'll likely use on-board HDMI and the standard CPU heatsink and fan, I will rely on the case design and the case / PSU fans to keep the thing cool, unless there's an important reason to upgrade those items.
What about cases with cable management and air filters?
The one thing I'm absolutely clear about is that I do not want side windows and a bunch of lights! Silver, beige, gray, black, or red are fine case colors - as long as the overall design is simple and clean. (If I wanted to see inside the case, I'd use the ANSUS Skeleton.)
I'm more interested in elegant than cool! I'd be happy with a color other than black, but not-black is the lowest priority on my list. I'd prefer all red, all silver, or all black rather than a two-tone case.
If this case/psu combo, or something similar, would give me solid reliability and low-noise, it's cheap enough to replace it when I upgrade:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119195
I don't know if the above is a quality case / psu combo. It looked like a good deal for the price. Comments?
Unfortunately, I see no way I could put air filters on this case and I'm really sick of cases full of cat hair!! (I've seen the comments about using air filters in my home. I have air filters and they don't manage to keep cat hair out of the computers.)
So, easy to clean air filters are important to me unless I have to make too many compromises to have them.
Anyone care to recommend specific case formats or specific models? Same for PSU's if not included with the case!
CPU / CORES:
My impression is that for general business use, programming, some web graphics creation and editing, streaming NetFlix, and even some rare, but low-resolution video editing, that the current processors outstrip my requirements.
I'm thinking 3, probably 4 cores and that 6 is overkill. I'm also thinking that 4 cores at a slower frequency is probably better than 2 or 3 cores at a higher frequency -- but I have no idea how good today's software and browsers are at multi-threading. Years ago, before multi-core, I had a multi-CPU system, but I found that the OS wasn't really capable of making very good use of both CPU's, so I think it was a waste of money.
Also, I've seen conflicting reports on the importance of L3 cache. For general computing, is L3 cache important? Should I spend the money on a faster Athlon II with more cores or on a slower Phenom II with L3 cache?
GRAPHICS / CHIPSET:
I have no interest in multiple monitors. I've been through that phase and am now a one monitor kind of guy. I will run my monitor at 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200.
I'm thinking that on-board video rather than a separate card is the way to go as long as the chipset allows sharing a large amount of RAM and there's enough RAM installed on the mobo.
I do need HDMI.
Given the above, do I need the 890GX chipset, or would something less do the trick?
I'm willing to look at a separate video card, but my impression is that I just don't need it.
RAM:
I'm thinking I should go for mainstream RAM, which means 1333 (unless the mobo supports 1666, since there's not much price difference between 1333 and 1666 DDR3 these days.
Is it realistic to think that 2 years from now, when I'm ready to replace the mobo and CPU, that the RAM I buy today will be reusable???
I'm not even opposed to a DDR2 setup if it is cheap enough and meets my requirements.
FSB:
If I go with AMD, I'm imagining that the 2600MHz Front side bus is important to not create bottlenecks.
IN SUM: I'M LOOKING FOR SOLID RELIABILITY and GOOD PERFORMANCE FOR THE DOLLAR. To me that means a good balance between FSB speed, Chipset, SATA (II or III), processor speed, number of cores, RAM amount / speed / latency, and Disk Drive performance to get the best balanced throughput I can for my dollar.
So, What motherboard / CPU / RAM combination should I be looking at?
I don't know much about the relative quality, performance, and value of the various motherboard and RAM brands, so even if you don't have specific models to recommend, suggestions about what to consider and what to stay away from would help.
As I said, I don't object to looking at a DDR2 setup if I can get more performance for the dollar and I won't sacrifice other factors like HDMI or SSD support. Also, I know that DDR2 uses more power which means bigger PSU and more cooling.
SSD:
Since I already have two SATA 3GB/S hard-drives and don't need more space, I'm thinking about a 64GB SSD for the boot drive.
My thought is that even the fastest hard-drives are slow compared to the rest of the system. So, I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to buy a SATA 6GB/S mobo just so I can use one of the new SATA 6GB/S SSD's or whether I should save the money on the MOBO and just use a SATA 3GB/S SSD??
Does an SSD boot drive really give a nice performance kick? Should I spend that $130.00 elsewhere or just keep that money in my pocket?
BY THE WAY: Will Windows XP Pro support the SSD or does using an SSD boot drive force me to go to Windows 7 ??
SEVERAL FINAL QUESTIONS:
1. Am I approaching this from a rational perspective or making a mountain out of a mole-hill? I'm looking at this as a challenge to get the most bang for the buck, but I may be over-thinking it.
2. Do you agree with the concept of a little bit of overkill on the case, cooling, and PSU as the best plan for future upgrade?
3. Do I need to upgrade from Windows XP Pro 32 to Windows 7 to make the stuff work properly?
4. If I go to Windows 7, should I go 64bit or stick with 32bit? (Back when we went from 16 bit 286 processors to 32 bit 386 processors, half the 16 bit software didn't run at all on the 32 bit platform and the rest ran very slowly.)
5. If I go with Windows 7 64 bit, I see a lot of machines that only have 3 Gig of RAM. That just sounds wrong to me. I've seen lots of articles about how little RAM you can get by with on Windows 7 64 bit, but never one that states the amount needed for sufficient breathing room and to hit the sweet spot so the machine doesn't start thrashing on typical business / entertainment use.
Without any actual knowledge about RAM requirements, I'd want to see 6 or 8 Gig of RAM on a 64bit Windows machine.
Since I figure that I will want to upgrade the mobo and CPU in about two or three years, and given the current machine (AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 2.0GHz single core), should I be looking for a top performer in older technology?
If I can reasonably expect to re-use the RAM, I should stick with DDR3. but I'd even go DDR2 for a bargain that gave good performance and reliability.
FINALLY:
I know that my questions are rather AMD centric. That's because it is my impression that Intel is more expensive for the performance in my price range. I'd switch to Intel immediately if I could get more bang for the buck. So, if you have Intel suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
A SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC ASIDE:
I looked at the DIY combos at NewEgg and they're just strange: 6GBs SATA harddrives paired with a mobo that only support 3GBs SATA and 3GB's harddrives paired with a mobo that supports 6GBs SATA. I even found one combo that had 1600 DDR3 paired with a motherboard that only supported slower RAM. As a result, I don't have much confidence in buying one of their combos without someone more knowledgeable than I am looking it over.
Thank you in advance for any knowledge you wish to share.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram