Looking to buying a new PC - Questions

[Shadrok]

I'm currently in the market to get a new computer, however it's been quite some time since I last bought one and need a little help in choosing. First to explain what I'm looking for in a new PC:

1 – To run graphic programs - For illustrations, animation, and video editing

2 – U-streaming - I want to start back broadcasting myself drawing

3 – Games - I have two games that I can't play due to my current PC being too old

4 – Life span - My current computer, a Dell Dimension 4600, I bought back in 2001 and although when it comes to surfing the web and doing graphic on my computer it's adequate. However due to its age and being a Dell some parts are hard to replace, namely the mother board due to tower space. So I want to get a computer with well enough specs that over the years it will still hang in there when it comes to gaming and be ok down the road to upgrade.

One questing though I do have is processors, should I go with Intel or AMD? I've always heard that Intel is the best but that AMD is right there with them. (basically they swap places every so often in the leader board) So does it matter which one I go with?

I'm not too tech savvy when it comes to computers, I know some things but don't feel it's enough to build one from the ground up. So chances are I'll likely go with a name brand.

Which brings me to my final two question, what's a good PC brand? And what's a good Graphics / Video Card? The card question I have no clue on so this is where I need the most help.

As for price range let's just say $1,500 - $2,000 Max.

[Tapewolf]

As I understand it, Intel holds the performance crown in their high-end products, but you'll be spending around $1000 on the processor alone for that.  For what you're doing, pretty much anything current from either Intel or AMD should be fine.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

If your current PC has lasted from 2001 to 2010, that's 9 years. That's about three times as long as your average company plans to keep desktops for.

If you're looking for that length of lifespan, you're looking way at the top end, and ending way at the bottom end. Which is well outside your budget, there. You might be better off just getting something reasonable, but not too excessive, and aiming for 5-6 years life on it.


Having said that - go heavy on the RAM. Most PCs get shipped with minimal specs on the RAM, just enough to get the OS up and going. And these days, you can get 4-8G in most desktops.


As Tapewolf says, the CPU is much of a muchness; the servers we have run Intel, but that's because we've tested the app we have on both Intel and AMD, and we get more requests delivered per amp of power with Intel servers; ie, we have a very specific load, and in that very very specific situation, Intel works better. For desktops, either will work fine. My laptop at home is Intel, but I'd rather have had an AMD. So it's much of a muchness...

My only suggestion is: don't get 32bit, either in the CPU or in the OS. It'll limit you to 4G of memory, and has issues with that, even, when you start loading it heavily.

[Drayco84]

I recommend going to newegg, buying each component, installing it yourself. (Or, asking your local geek to help put it together. (Learn from my mistake, do your research and don't get a crappy motherboard!)

I just don't like most mass-produced computers...

[superluser]

(Learn from my mistake, do your research and don't get a crappy motherboard!)

What he said.

I bought a Socket 939 in 2006, expecting to upgrade soon after purchasing it, so I bought a crappy motherboard.  This March, the computer started shutting down randomly, which I eventually discovered was my motherboard capacitors having exploded.  This was, of course, after replacing the power supply (which was probably fine, if too small) and the video card (the fan for which was obviously broken).

My present motherboard got a ton of good reviews on Newegg, and I'd recommend that you do the same (if you don't buy from there, you might at least want to check their reviews).  Also, their prices on CPUs are probably pretty good right now, since the unpleasantness.

If you go AMD, your best bet will probably be socket AM3.

Also,

My only suggestion is: don't get 32bit, either in the CPU or in the OS. It'll limit you to 4G of memory, and has issues with that, even, when you start loading it heavily.

From what I can tell, AMD no longer sells 32-bit, and Intel's only consumer-level 32-bit chips are the Atom Z and Atom N2xx chips.  VIA also sells 32-bit chips for consumers, but I doubt you can find them easily.

[RobbieThe1st]

These days, I firmly believe that if you want a PC that A, works excellently, B, lasts a good long time, and C, doesn't cost a rediculous amount of money - You have to make it yourself.
This isn't as hard as it seems; you simply need to assemble a dozen or so parts, stick your Windows CD into the drive, follow the on-screen instructions and you are good to go.
The parts even have highly descriptive instruction pamphlets; it shouldn't take more than an hour or two.
Heck, if you need help - there are plenty of us around here that can do it; I'd be willing to guide you through it if thats whats needed.

That being said...
Here's a full PC I designed for you, based on a AMD processor: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=18673788
It will come out to around ~$1300.
Now, two things: One, PC cases are somewhat 'personal' items - The ones you like may not be the ones I like. Some people like side windows,  some don't. And really, you'll spend $50-$100 for a decent case. I picked one that looked fairly decent, that would make installation easily, but you may want to look for your own if you don't like how it looks.
Two, if you plan on playing brand-new games at high resolutions on "high" settings, you may want to get a better video card than the one I've chosen - but if you want to do that, I'd wait a few weeks for the new Nvidia GTX400 series cards.
Despite saying that, I'm not sure you'd need it - I have a GTX260(Younger sibling to that build's), and I haven't run into any frame-rate issues on Windows(Gaming via Linux/Wine is a different matter, but thats just poor drivers).

Overall, I think this build would work excellently - I have the same motherboard, and the same class of processor, and I've had absolutely no stability or performance issues with it - I've had 0 hardware-related crashes, and only a couple of faulty-driver issues; for things -not- in your build, so I think you'll be fine.

Hope that helps!

-Robbie

[Bjalf]

My last 12-15 PC's I built myself, from dinky little Mini-ITX boxes to overclocked gaming rigs. Hand-picked components, silent running, OS of my choice (mostly XP), they are exactly how I want them to be. That said, I usually recommend "clueless" people to just get a Mac. They're not much more expensive than PC's of similar quality. Of course, you can get a crappy PC much, much cheaper than a Mac.

But a PC is preferable for gaming. So, build your own. There are dozens of how-to's on the 'net, like this one. Skip the overclocking. In later years, I've spent quite a bit of time and money on getting the noise level down. Well worth it.

I can't recommend any PC brand names, sorry. I bought my last pre-built brand-name PC sometime before 1995. But stay well away from the cheap stuff, you never get more than you pay for. No more Dell for you!   

[Tapewolf]

That said, I usually recommend "clueless" people to just get a Mac. They're not much more expensive than PC's of similar quality. Of course, you can get a crappy PC much, much cheaper than a Mac.

That's an idea, but it has a number of drawbacks.  In particular, I don't think he going to be able to upgrade the graphics card unless he gets a mac pro, which starts at $2500.

He'll have at least 9 years of software which there probably aren't equivalents for (and I would not want to re-purchase Photoshop if I had a licensed copy for Windows) so it's probably going to involve installing Windows 7 through Bootcamp or something.

Personally, I'm a little underwhelmed with the Mac hardware (I have a 2007-era Mac Mini with a lot of upgrades - RAM, CPU and disk), and Snow Leopard seems to have a lot of problems, especially with WiFi.

IMHO, assembling the machine himself is a good idea, though he will have to buy Windows 7 as XP has been discontinued, and the old version of Windows would have been licensed only for that machine.

[VAE]

Well, i would propose DIY as well. I think it might be possible to get used non-OEM Win XP on EBay as well.
Also one nice thing - for other uses than a load of gaming, two physical processors might not be bad idea.
It makes for a lower response time and much better at multitasking!

[Tapewolf]

Well, i would propose DIY as well. I think it might be possible to get used non-OEM Win XP on EBay as well.

Unless it's shrink-wrapped and unregistered, it's not going to be very legal.  See the rules

[VAE]

Well, i would propose DIY as well. I think it might be possible to get used non-OEM Win XP on EBay as well.

Unless it's shrink-wrapped and unregistered, it's not going to be very legal.  See the rules

Unlikely , but might happen. So my advice calculatedly falls in the grey area in between, just as i intended.
I would also consider proposing linux as Wine can run most "working" programs (although, one would have to look before) but that seems to be rather frowned upon as a solution here ...

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Unlikely , but might happen. So my advice calculatedly falls in the grey area in between, just as i intended.

Welcome to the grey area. We like rules lawyers. They make a funny squishing sound as we punt them out.

Would you care to reconsider your choices?


(Note: This is a subtle hint. It is slightly less subtle than Tapewolf's, as his seemed to go wooshing in one ear and out the other without touching anything on the way through.)

[VAE]

would  not be too good ... i have a suspicious feeling that my original post might find itself in the abandoned mine ...
Of course if i wanted to be a rules lawyer i would point out the rules only state posting links to warez is forbidden,  (most probably because of the important reason that the admins of the forum want to avoid legal problems and/or including disclaimers everywhere)
If this was a subtle hint though, then by extrapolation follows that one might not even experience a moderately obvious one due to not being around ...

[Jack McSlay]

You shouldn't really bother with WXP. 64-bit is THE way to go.
It's also an option to get Win7 Professional instead, as it comes with a virtualized version of XP with it, although it can't access the video hardware.

That being said...
Here's a full PC I designed for you, based on a AMD processor: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=18673788
It will come out to around ~$1300.

I'm curious about why you fans of the same size yet different brands... Besides, I don't see a reason for extra fans unless he indends to overclock.

also, only 4GB?

[superluser]

also, only 4GB?

Personally, I wouldn't recommend more than 4GB on a Windows machine until a few years from now, unless you know that your apps can use it.  All 32-bit apps cap at 4GB, and the improvement you'll see won't be that great until you can use more than that.

I would agree that you shouldn't bother with XP.  MS will stop supporting XP in 2014, and I'm not sure, but it might be a fee-based extended support by that time, as well.

[Jack McSlay]

Dunno how W7 handles memory for 32-bit programs, but it could be capable of giving a whole 4GB to a 32-bit app if that much is available.
Even if otherwise, under a virtualized XP, it's sure that the only ram spent will be that of the virtualized OS plus the program being run inside it, which is most definitely going to be more memory available than if he tried to run such programs directly, sharing the memory with his main os, browser, anti-virus, etc. under a 4GB system.

so I say 6GB+ and Win7 Pro to get the Virtualized Windows XP with it.


Also, Shadrok, seeing the budget has a ceiling of $2000, if might be worth looking at a LED monitor as well if you don't have one already. Seeing you want to work with graphics on it, It's a very good investment.

[superluser]

Dunno how W7 handles memory for 32-bit programs, but it could be capable of giving a whole 4GB to a 32-bit app if that much is available.
Even if otherwise, under a virtualized XP, it's sure that the only ram spent will be that of the virtualized OS plus the program being run inside it, which is most definitely going to be more memory available than if he tried to run such programs directly, sharing the memory with his main os, browser, anti-virus, etc. under a 4GB system.

Hmm.  I would agree inasmuch as I recommend against 2GB modules.  I recently bought one even though I didn't want to.  Buy one 4GB now, and more in succeeding years.  Though I don't disagree with your thinking, I don't know if I'm to the point where I would recommend it.

Also, Shadrok, seeing the budget has a ceiling of $2000, if might be worth looking at a LED monitor as well if you don't have one already. Seeing you want to work with graphics on it, It's a very good investment.

LEDs are awesome but expensive today, will be more awesome and less expensive in the future.  It's sound advice, but it will push your budget up, especially if you're looking for 3D.

[ShadesFox]

Nah, with how Windows works a program gets 2GB for its own private use in 32 bit, the other 2GB being reserved for Windows.  I don't see how this could really change in virtualization with out horribly breaking everything.

I'm too drunk to be bothered to read everything in the thread, so I'll just put my own opinion out there without regard for what others have posted.

The one constant in all of your requirements is memory.  Get lotses of it.  You'll also want something 64 bit, so that an application can have more then 2GB of memory.  This won't help much in the gaming area, since they are all 32 bit anyways.  I hate game programmers, worthless bunch.

CPU is rather unimportant.  Something with two cores and the fastest memory interconnect.  Because your CPU is more worthless then Intel and AMD would have you believe.

Fast hard disk drives.  I don't care about capacity (I say this as I set on at least 6TB of disks <_<).  Fast disk drives are what you need.  I'm guessing your budget won't allow for the 10,000 RPM 3.4 milisecond seek time monstrosities that have come out recently, but shovel in something with 32MB of disk cache and you should be fine.

Then you have the graphics card.  Buy this last and buy as much as you can after optimizing the rest.  Go ATI if you get an AMD CPU or nVidia if you go with an Intel CPU.  

I made a list on newegg.  If it ever actually shows up on public I'll link it.  It has nice parts.  8GB of memory, a low end CPU, a decent end graphics card, and a nice fast and big disk drive.  Even has a case and 600W power supply for about $1000.  Doesn't have monitor/keyboard/mouse.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

would  not be too good ... i have a suspicious feeling that my original post might find itself in the abandoned mine ...
Of course if i wanted to be a rules lawyer i would point out the rules only state posting links to warez is forbidden,  (most probably because of the important reason that the admins of the forum want to avoid legal problems and/or including disclaimers everywhere)
If this was a subtle hint though, then by extrapolation follows that one might not even experience a moderately obvious one due to not being around ...

If you want to be a rules lawyer, I could point out Rule VI, Section A for your edification. Or Rule VI itself, for that matter.

Or the text at the top, where it says:

As common sense would dictate, these rules are subject to change and are not all-inclusive. There are bound to be some isolated situations that don't fall under these rules as they currently stand, but require moderator action, and we may alter the rules slightly or make additions to adapt to that as need be. Do not cry foul. Do not collect 200 dollars.

One would think that this was sufficient, but apparently not...

[Mao]

Honestly, despite all the opinions being given Shaddy I'm going to tell you something that I've discovered:  Choosing a computer 'brand' is about as personal and subject to personal experience as buying a car.  It's really something you have to get a good feel for on your own and decide what fits you best.  These folks have all pointed out some good facts based on their own personal experience but in reality, it's just as likely to go sour for you as it is to go well.  Given your wants and the seeming desire to stick with a brand, choose any brand but then focus on their gaming/business rigs.  Most of them will be geared pretty heavily.  It's still a gamble, but it's going to be a gamble that you make on your own.

[VAE]

If you want to be a rules lawyer, I could point out Rule VI, Section A for your edification. Or Rule VI itself, for that matter.

PWN3D
Is true i seem to be getting that.
Also it seems Mao will be laughing somewhere silently.... he knows why.

Or the text at the top, where it says:

As common sense would dictate, these rules are subject to change and are not all-inclusive. There are bound to be some isolated situations that don't fall under these rules as they currently stand, but require moderator action, and we may alter the rules slightly or make additions to adapt to that as need be. Do not cry foul. Do not collect 200 dollars.

One would think that this was sufficient, but apparently not...

Oh, i see that! Because if we slightly alter the above rule it gives possibility to alter the rules substantially BD
Now seriously - rule III's purpose seems to be to  keep the  forum work-safe and safe from legal action by companies (if people put in  warez and police/militia (if people put in porn). My post did not as far as i understand make any of the previous a problem - in fact from this way of looking even the links in the  "what are you listening now" thread pose a bigger problem
Of course is possible i am getting something by error, which then i apologise of, as i do not like to be creating problems for the forum, but otherwise it is definitely not apparent from the above.





Back to the topic at hand though. 64bit CPU's are a good investition to the future, but unlike what some folk say ,do not be all yippee into running 64bit OS simply because most of the stuff that runs still does not take too much advantage of that , so pretty much the only result often is higher memory consumption and no real speed gain (i even saw a comparison a few years ago)

On the other hand i think from experience if you have a lot of RAM fast hard disk is not so important as  the stuff can be cached into RAM and worked with in there (i remember running calculation programs on a sun in such way that we copied the data onto a device mapped to a portion of the ram and ran it from there)

CPU - is still important just that you need a balance - the thing you want to avoid is bottlenecks. I would not necessarily go for low-end. but instead of getting top of line, i would make sure to get as fast ram as you can stick in the sockets - RAM to CPU bottleneck can be a performance killer, especially for poorly written software.

Graphics cards - i would go for nVidia - they make better ,and better-supported hardware in my experience. Besides although not open, they at least bother to release drivers for unixes, unlike ATI

All in all, judge well, but do not get scared -getting good components is not such a difficult task

[Mao]

PWN3D
Is true i seem to be getting that.
Also it seems Mao will be laughing somewhere silently.... he knows why.

While I'm not *exactly* sure why, I assure you that my laughter is rarely silent.  It's normally heard loudly and clearly by most in proximity.. often leading to many strange looks as I either shut up or try to explain myself.

[superluser]

Back to the topic at hand though.

Back to the topic at hand, don't get XP.  Problem solved.

pretty much the only result often is higher memory consumption and no real speed gain (i even saw a comparison a few years ago)

A few years ago.  Well, a few years ago, there were no 64-bit apps.  Check out CNET's review of Win7 home premium.  Right now, the 64-bit OSes kick butt, especially in graphics.  CS5 (and Windows-based CS4) are 64-bit programs, and you will get the most out of them in a 64-bit operating system.

Outside of graphics and some high-performance, data-intensive, and programming applications, a 64-bit OS is not essential today, mainly because developers have been slow to port their code.  But with every new non-netbook/nettop having a 64-bit CPU, app developers are going to have every incentive to make those changes now, which means that in the next couple of years, it will be essential to have a 64-bit OS.

The IRS lists computers as having a class life of 5 years, meaning that businesses expect to pitch their old computers every 5 years in order to gain a benefit as a deduction.  I think Intel was offering 32-bit desktop chips as recently as last year, so you'll see a rapid change between now and 2014 where pretty much every software company will make sure that their software can use 64-bit OSes to their fullest extent.  It will seem to be in fits and starts at first, but by 2013, the question will be why you don't have a 64-bit OS.

If you're looking to future-proof, get a 64-bit OS now.

On the other hand i think from experience if you have a lot of RAM fast hard disk is not so important as  the stuff can be cached into RAM and worked with in there

Well, then you'd better get a 64-bit OS, because otherwise you'll be capped at 4GB.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Or the text at the top, where it says:

As common sense would dictate, these rules are subject to change and are not all-inclusive. There are bound to be some isolated situations that don't fall under these rules as they currently stand, but require moderator action, and we may alter the rules slightly or make additions to adapt to that as need be. Do not cry foul. Do not collect 200 dollars.

One would think that this was sufficient, but apparently not...

Oh, i see that! Because if we slightly alter the above rule it gives possibility to alter the rules substantially BD

Oh, we don't need rules. If you look closely, the rules boil down to "don't annoy the moderators".

See if you can guess what your wiggling about your post not technically breaching the rules is doing to me. Go on.

Technically, no, you didn't break the rules. You brushed up against them, however, and we told you to watch it. End Subject. Cease discussing. Cease prevaricating. Cease expostulating. You did it, we told you not to.

Do have a nice day, now.

Graphics cards - i would go for nVidia - they make better ,and better-supported hardware in my experience. Besides although not open, they at least bother to release drivers for unixes, unlike ATI

I'm sorry? Since when does ATI not make drivers for unixes? I ran ATI-supplied drivers on my desktop two years ago, when I shut it down to move house. I also ran them on it for at least the previous three years, if not more.

I don't currently run them, because said machine is still in a box, due to me not having space to plug the darn thing in.

ATI does better at making drivers available for linux, more frequently updated, and are more responsive to the linux community than NVidia, at least in part due to the way they keep different drivers for different cards, thereby making the testing of drivers easier and less time consuming, I am given to understand.

The only reason I have an NVidia now, is that I couldn't find a laptop that actually had an ATI in it.

[VAE]

I'm sorry? Since when does ATI not make drivers for unixes? I ran ATI-supplied drivers on my desktop two years ago, when I shut it down to move house. I also ran them on it for at least the previous three years, if not more.

I don't currently run them, because said machine is still in a box, due to me not having space to plug the darn thing in.

ATI does better at making drivers available for linux, more frequently updated, and are more responsive to the linux community than NVidia, at least in part due to the way they keep different drivers for different cards, thereby making the testing of drivers easier and less time consuming, I am given to understand.

The only reason I have an NVidia now, is that I couldn't find a laptop that actually had an ATI in it.

Funnily enough i clearly remember reading just the opposite, and a load of complaints on ATI drivers on slashdot some time ago.
But as seen by the mention of 64 vs 32 bit it is possible my knowledge is somewhat obsolete.

[superluser]

ATI does better at making drivers available for linux, more frequently updated, and are more responsive to the linux community than NVidia, at least in part due to the way they keep different drivers for different cards, thereby making the testing of drivers easier and less time consuming, I am given to understand.

As of a couple years ago, it was completely the opposite.  I'm honestly not sure what's better these days for Linux video.  Kernel support for ATI may not be to the point where it is for NVIDIA, given their enormous head start.  Phoronix seems to think that NVIDIA still wins, though probably not for much longer.

[Lushin]

ok it you are gonna be getting a pre built system I would suggest ibuypower.com . If you are planning to build your own I would suggest getting a barebones system, that way you can get some of what you need in one package. Also barebone systems seem to be cheaper than buying all the part seperately.

[Jack McSlay]

CPU is rather unimportant.  Something with two cores and the fastest memory interconnect.  Because your CPU is more worthless then Intel and AMD would have you believe.

It isn't because he needs to work with graphics as well. GPU acceleration on 2d graphic editing is something slim today, and 3d programs usually make little to no use for it during renderings.
But what it depends on may not be on overall performance, he might need to check if the program he uses supports multithreading, if they doesn't, it would be ideal the processors with the best per-core performance, which may not be the best processor overall.

[Reese Tora]

Hey, guys?

Just want to point out here, it's still possible to get new, unopened OEM copies of XP from various e-retailers.  Just because MS has stopped producing new copies doesn't mean that the already existing copies ares going to suddenly become available.

Granted, the OEM copies require you to be the system builder, and are non transferable once installed, but they are available if you want to go that way.

Personally, I'm looking in to building a new computer, and I'm planning on putting windows 7 on it, if only to see how I like it. (The inability to make it look and function like windows 2000 will likely color my opinion. )

[ShadesFox]

Anyways, after sobering up and finding the list on newegg, here is the parts I speced out.  Not too bad considering how much booze was in me last night.

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=14520926

CPU is rather unimportant.  Something with two cores and the fastest memory interconnect.  Because your CPU is more worthless then Intel and AMD would have you believe.

It isn't because he needs to work with graphics as well. GPU acceleration on 2d graphic editing is something slim today, and 3d programs usually make little to no use for it during renderings.
But what it depends on may not be on overall performance, he might need to check if the program he uses supports multithreading, if they doesn't, it would be ideal the processors with the best per-core performance, which may not be the best processor overall.

Not really, no.  No matter what you do in photoshop even the bottom line CPUs you can get today will churn through the data faster then the memory bus can possibly provide.