New PC : build or buy ?

Remove all ads!

@DotW: Quit ranting about Intel vs AMD already. At the moment Intel is way ahead, no doubt AMD will catch up soon.

I have used a lot of Intel processors and never had any trouble. AMD processors on the other hand...

 

Well...I've personally used both Intel and AMD, and in my opinion, AMD tend to have a lot of heat problems...atleast, in the systems I've used. I'm talking AMD's 2800 here.

Intel on the other hand always seemed to be a reliable performer in the systems I've used so far. Of course, the higher end CPUs tend to be a tad more expensive than AMD.

Please note that these are my personal opinions based on my experiences with CPUs from both brands in different computers over the years.

SO NO FLAMING!

 

I'm not saying that Macs were immune to viruses, because that's not true. But now that you can run XP on a Mac with an Intel chip, I mean, what's the point of having a Mac? But even by running whatever Mac OS, there is still the same architectural flaws of Intel chips. Yeah, it would be the same with AMD processors. IMO, Macintosh should have remained with Motorola PowerPC processors. But that's just my opinion.

IIRC, you can get some DDR2 clocking at 1024.

 

BTA: the Asus motherboards I saw for the Core 2 duo were specified with DDR2 standard 800. I assume they need the faster memory type. Otherwise,I would not mind the slower one, especially since it looks like the 800 is quite expensive.

Actually, the system I described above is a bit on the high side. I think I could live with a lower performance one, however, if I stray from the Ars Technica reccomended system, the number of options becomes quite bewildering

 

Bah, I got the DDR2 800 memory, after all. It did cost a pretty penny ... but since the other components seem to be quite performant, I guess it does not make much sense to skimp on memory.

Jeez, now I have to find some fancy games to play on this computer

 

The only thing I would change on that system is the vid card, since the 7600GS is really a scaled down GT card. Consider the 7900 instead. For a few dollars more you can get a 7900GS card with the extra pipelines and 256 bit memory interface.

I'm getting ready to rebuild my old P4 Northwood system to the new Core 2 next month. Intel is making a special deal for a Core 2 E6300 with an Intel D965 mainboard. It's pretty basic for a Core 2 setup, but it does come with Windows Vista Ultimate. And the price is just over $200.00 US. I figure the top version of Vista is worth 200.00 alone.

With what I save I will spring for a new EVGA 7950GT 512MB video card, and 2GBs of OCZ 667 DR2 memory (must be 1.8 volts to run on Intel mainboards). Plus a new Cuda 320GB hard drive at 3.0GB/s with perpiendicular recording. And I may drop in a new 500 watt power supply to replace my old Raidmax 400. The upgraded parts should total about $900.00 US (with Windows Vista). But I will still use my old Thermatake tower, DVD drives, 21" Sony CRT monitor and logitech 5.1 sound system.

 

Vista is unimpressive. I have played with the RC1 version (my bro wanted to me to install it, so I did), and I'll sum it up in one word... *yawn*.

Plus, it's too heavy. Hell, I mean, Vista lags on a freaking P4. BTW, Chandos, ching the top version of Vista to 300-350 bucks.

Also, RC1 is also still pretty buggy. I'd recommend waiting at least six months before considering Vista.

But that's just my opinion. And what is the opinion of a Linux loyalist worth to Win(bl)ows fans?

Agreed. It's worth stashing the extra dough. I recommend the 7900GS as well.

 

I bought a 7600GS two months ago for my new "budget" computer. The computer built in this topic is higher performance than mine so I agree that a 7600GS looks like the weak link here. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with my 7600GS.
OTOH it might not be a bad idea to get the 7600GS as a temporary solution and plan on upgrading to a better graphics card next year after prices drop.

 

I don't see any point in installing Vista now. XP is buggy enough as is, I can only imagine what the beta version must have been.

For graphic card, I ended up getting a Geforce 7600 GT, for about $115 (with rebate). I know that's the weak point in my setup , but it should be enough for my needs (I hope so at least, although I hear that NWN 2 might require a 7900) and it's something relatively easy to upgrade. I decided instead to put the money in the fancy motherboard, core 2 Duo E6600, and 2 Gb of memory from Corsair

 

Incredibly laggy. It crashed when I plugged my freaking *flash drive* in it. Never mind getting it to start. Vista won't be stable until at least a year after it's initial release. Even RC1 still has issues.

 

I basically can see no reason to get Vista at this moment. I'll consider it if it turns out to be incredibly stable, or full of useful features, but just for the eye candy, I don't see the point.

 

Good, better than the GS. I will install XP PRO as the main OS on the main partition, and create a separate partition for Vista Ultimate. I really like XP. But, sooner or later most of the world will be running Vista anyway, so I may as well get used to it now.

 

Eh, in my case XP is a necessary evil since gaming in Kubuntu Linux is basically impossible, unless the game is in OpenGL, and those games aren't broadly available.

I don't feel the need to get Vista (and if I do, it'll be a cracked version), and I fail to understand all the hype surrounding it. Like I said, Vista = *yawn*.

 

It looks like an awesome board, and a good value also. But I hear that with Gigebyte mainboards it's kinda hit 'n miss regarding stability.

 

I run an Athlon X2 on a Gigabyte mobo and I never had any problems stability-wise. In fact, it performs better than my horrible P4.

Stability might vary by model and socket, though I've never had the shadow of a problem with Gigabyte.

 

Well, I finally have the new computer put together (posting from it actually ), and I would say that it's worth the money and time spent . It did end up costing a little bit more that budgeted (around 1,450 USD, not taking into account the OS), but that's because I went for the expensive processor and memory (could have saved around 200 bucks there easily).

With regards to the building part, the whole process went pretty smooth. I asked a friend who is more familiar with computers to help, and pretty much all I had to do was stay out of his way (I was actually planning to take a more active role in the actual plugging in things, but these computer enthusiasts are very hard to slow down once you get them started on something ).

All the components I bought came in fine (with the exception of the case, which somehow aquired a dent right on top). So far, all seem to be working in order. Memory is recognized, the processor runs cool, I don't have drivers problems (with WinXP at least, the Linux installer does not recognize the CD drivers, so I was not able to perform the install yet). All in all, the whole process was pretty painless and even kind of fun; and I would say this is the way to go if you want a new computer.