Reccomend specifications for a new machine

NeoQuixotic · Post by **NeoQuixotic** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:16 pm

post-it wrote:
anubisx00 wrote:.. That is why I plan to OC the Q6600 to 3Ghz and make it truly shine ^_^ .. SLI or Crossfire .. I'd suggest the Geforce 8800 GTS 640Mb card.
.. ? don't you mean the GeForce 8800 GTX card ??? .. the price was reasonable and I'm building around THAT framework ^_^

If you consider $500+ reasonable. My god, might as well go with two 8800 Ultras in SLI. It only costs $1200 for the video cards alone

.

I suggest the GTS model because you get top of the line performance, without spending half a grand on a video card. But hey, if you've got the cash, do it. Poor college students like me don't

.

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:42 pm

hehe
.. Crying out loud so hard my sides are hurting ;^___^; .. pay off your debts as quick as you can and get rid of that Student Loan Pay-Back Plan before you buy/build that newest Computer -- trust me.

.. take a real good look at that computer your building today ..
.. what could you afford six years from now ?
.. think twice, you can only be in debt for the rest of your life

or is there a better way of doing things at your age

.. I got out of college with only $120.00 to my name, a borrowed car from my parents and no debts of any kind! The hourly wages at that time were $2.35 per hour.
.. the year was 1981 and the Middle Class was starting to vanish. My first job was at KMSP TV9 behind the SouthTown Shopping Center.
( kmsp is no longer at that location! ) which is ok because neither am I

.. take a real good look at that computer your thinking about building ..
.. what could you afford six years from now ?
.. think twice, you can only be in debt for the rest of your life

or is there a better way to have lived by the time your my age

.. nobody can afford anything when they need it if something is holding you back!

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:08 am

JazzyDJ wrote:What do you guys think about the arrival of Vista?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't need it.

Also, this may seem like pedantry but I really think it needs to be pointed out: Windows NT wasn't really a forgettable flash in time -- its kernel is at the core of Windows XP.

As for graphics card, I was looking at going with one of the best just to be safe, but you guys tell me if it's unnescessariy... is getting a Nvidia Geforce 8800 GSX overkill? Will something like a Geforce 7950 suffice?

Do you have a more specific idea of what you'll be doing with your computer besides "a multitude of tasks"?

Both of those are fast cards, and will probably last you a while, but depending on your planned usage, you could be sinking money into the graphics subsystem that you could better apply elsewhere.

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:00 pm

Thanks to all you guys this thread is a wealth of knowlege and is going directly into my favorites. Thanks to you, I think I'm making better decisions in my plans to get this new PC.

There is one thing that has thrown me off, though, with the processors. Like I said, I was looking at the Intel Core 2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB), but I'm also taking a look and comparing that to the Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6700 (4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB) because it looks faster at 2.66Ghz, albiet it doesn't have the 4 cores. Which one would generally perform faster under those specs?

Also about that, what I don't quite understand is that Dell has the Duel Core 2 E6700 $150 more EXPENSIVE than the Quad Core Q6600. Does anyone know the reason why? I mean wouldn't they be relatively close in peformance or is the E6700 actually that much faster?

And how would the E6700 perform in Vegas compared to the Q6600 pre-render? (I know the quad core is 52% faster during rendors). Advice, please? I'm leaning towards the Q6600 because it seems like a better value (less expensive) but I really could use the most power and speed I can get for my buck.

The tasks that I'll be doing the most are
-Creating alot of videos
-Video dubbing (dubbing japanese shows into english with english speaking actors)
-ALOT of Audio editing and creation
-A decent amount of gaming (Mostly MAME/emulation type stuff)
-Alot of photo-editing (photoshop)
-Alot of web browsing/stream listening/viewing
-running security software at all times in the background.
-CD/DVD burning (gotta distribute my creations to my friends!

)
-Viewing/listening to media

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:01 pm

Oh yeah, I forgot to provide the link to the Dell page with that processor pricing I was talking about....

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/ ... WZK7&s=dhs

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:30 pm

Software design to make use of more cores is just taking off, so from a longevity perspective you're probably better off with the quadcore. Also, I know some of Intel's core2duo chips overclock really well (like 50%+ higher speeds with just air cooling), so those "slow" quadcores may not be as slow as you think. Most media creation related apps make use of multithreading, so the only major drawback to a system with more (yet slower) cores is in playing games that aren't designed for multiple cores. For instance, a new system I built in January 07 with a core2duo takes longer to load older games (and even WoW) than my former roomate's system that was 3 to 4 years older and ran a P4 (IIRC) despite the fact that I have 4 times as much RAM as he does and a much better video card.

NeoQuixotic · Post by **NeoQuixotic** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:45 am

BasharOfTheAges wrote:Software design to make use of more cores is just taking off, so from a longevity perspective you're probably better off with the quadcore. Also, I know some of Intel's core2duo chips overclock really well (like 50%+ higher speeds with just air cooling), so those "slow" quadcores may not be as slow as you think. Most media creation related apps make use of multithreading, so the only major drawback to a system with more (yet slower) cores is in playing games that aren't designed for multiple cores. For instance, a new system I built in January 07 with a core2duo takes longer to load older games (and even WoW) than my former roomate's system that was 3 to 4 years older and ran a P4 (IIRC) despite the fact that I have 4 times as much RAM as he does and a much better video card.

Having multiple cores won't make older games load/run slower. They will only utilize one core, but of course the new Core 2 Duo is much faster anyways. Also, don't bother comparing MHz/GHz anymore. I have a 2.53 GHz P4, and my new processor wll run at 2.4 Ghz and be at least two to three times as fast; not to mention having four cores. CPUs are more efficient nowadays, unlike when Intel just kept ramping up P4 clock speeds until they burst into flames.

Sounds like your hard drive is slow as molasses. Defrag it and if it's still slow, buy a new one or consider a RAID setup. Hard drives are the slowest part in computers and don't seem to getting much of a speed increase anytime soon. Yeah SSD drives are nice, but still have only minor speed increases and a very high price tag for limited storage.

Technology, it's a love, hate relationship

.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:24 pm

anubisx00 wrote:
BasharOfTheAges wrote:Software design to make use of more cores is just taking off, so from a longevity perspective you're probably better off with the quadcore. Also, I know some of Intel's core2duo chips overclock really well (like 50%+ higher speeds with just air cooling), so those "slow" quadcores may not be as slow as you think. Most media creation related apps make use of multithreading, so the only major drawback to a system with more (yet slower) cores is in playing games that aren't designed for multiple cores. For instance, a new system I built in January 07 with a core2duo takes longer to load older games (and even WoW) than my former roomate's system that was 3 to 4 years older and ran a P4 (IIRC) despite the fact that I have 4 times as much RAM as he does and a much better video card.
Having multiple cores won't make older games load/run slower. They will only utilize one core, but of course the new Core 2 Duo is much faster anyways. Also, don't bother comparing MHz/GHz anymore. I have a 2.53 GHz P4, and my new processor wll run at 2.4 Ghz and be at least two to three times as fast; not to mention having four cores. CPUs are more efficient nowadays, unlike when Intel just kept ramping up P4 clock speeds until they burst into flames.

Sounds like your hard drive is slow as molasses. Defrag it and if it's still slow, buy a new one or consider a RAID setup. Hard drives are the slowest part in computers and don't seem to getting much of a speed increase anytime soon. Yeah SSD drives are nice, but still have only minor speed increases and a very high price tag for limited storage.

Technology, it's a love, hate relationship .

Didn't mean to sound ignorant there... "slower by comparison" is what I was getting at. As in, if the software was designed to only work on 1 core, older CPUs allow faster run times. Consequently, if an application was simply optimized for 2 cores, using a CPU with 2 cores that has a higher clock frequency than one with 4 cores (like what they're selling now) would run faster. It's not a significant reason for not getting a quadcore in the least but it is something worth noting for "full disclosure" of the facts.

As for my drives, they're fine - I do plenty of work on them to keep them running fast and (relatively) error free. When someone's running a late-model P4 @ around 3.6GHz it will run some aspects of an older game faster than a 2.13GHz core2duo - that's perfectly normal.

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:07 am

I have to say this thread has been extremely usefull. For the sake of time (need that PC now) & money, and the simple fact that I'll be running mostly older software, I'll probably go for a Core 2 Duo.

My big question now is AMD or Intel more reliable? Especially when doing video editing...

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each brand?

I've only ever owned an Intel P4 (1.5Ghz) in a HP PC and that has been extremely durable and satisfactory for me. It doesn' over heat and I can leave it running 24-7 and not have any problems. My dad on the other hand has had a AMD in a machine he bought at one of those PC flea market convention things and it malfunctioned permanantly on him within the first year or 2. But I think that may be more of a case of where he got his machine.

The big thing that I was noticing with AMD processors is that their specs rating is a little bit higher and has a higher FSB rating for a lower cost than any Intel Processors with equal Ghz ratings (and also all the intels are half the FSB).

What do you all think?

Kariudo · Post by **Kariudo** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:43 pm

Reliability is determined by many components of your computer including your motherboard, ram, power supply and cpu (so your dad's problems most likely were because of where he got it)

If heat is the only factor you're looking at in terms of reliability, then the core 2 duo's would beat the Athlon64 x2's
(the way the core 2 duos are made means that they use less power. less power used = less heat generated)

you can't really compare AMD and Intel by clock speed and FSB/HT.The architectures are different...which is part of the reason why the Athlon64's running at 2.0GHz were as/more powerful than the P4's running at 3.4GHz.

(I'm assuming that you're building this pc yourself)
If you want to lower your rendering and encoding times as much as possible, then you want a core 2 duo.
If you have a budget, then you should get an Athlon 64 x2

I don't know any specific strengths/weaknesses of amd and intel atm...but AMD dominated the last generation because of their on-die memory controller. This meant that information could get to/from the cpu/ram faster, a problem that intel was running into by using an off-die memory controller and using the FSB to communicate between the cpu and ram.
Intel has since overcome the wall that they hit, and by doing that they eliminated the biggest advantage that AMD had over them.