New Computer Build (full write-up w/pics)

nice build, I build all my own computer myself. I just finished building a mATX Intel DuoCore HTPC so that I can watch and record shows on TV. It fits neatly under my TV next to the 360. My main PC is in a CM Stacker tower and weights 50 lbs with all the hardware installed. I put it on wheels so I can move it around when needed. It's about time for a complete upgrade on the tower PC.
 
Awesome writeup. Let us know how the OC results go..



I have that same case and I love how quiet it is and how much airflow you can get through it. Looks like we could both benefit from a company that sells black faceplates for cd drives, though. :(
 
truzoom said:
Awesome writeup. Let us know how the OC results go..



I have that same case and I love how quiet it is and how much airflow you can get through it. Looks like we could both benefit from a company that sells black faceplates for cd drives, though. :(
Click to expand...

LOL! Yeah, let me know if you find a place that sells those!
 
Nice writeup, I am in the process of planning a new build to replace my AMD 2500+. I am looking at the AMD 5000+ Black ed. and 6400 ram. I still have to decide on mb and video.
 
pgp said:
Nice writeup, I am in the process of planning a new build to replace my AMD 2500+. I am looking at the AMD 5000+ Black ed. and 6400 ram. I still have to decide on mb and video.
Click to expand...



Get the Core 2 series. I used to be an AMD fanboy too, but I recently built a new system based around an E4500. Got a 500 MHz easy, no sacrifice, nothing. Stock cooler. 2.7 GHz for free.



Still idles around 21 C! My 2500+ used to idle at 55. This processor is so incredibly efficient, too!



I just love these new processors. AMD truly is incredibly behind and probably won't catch up for at least another few years, if at all.



Of course, if budget is your #1 concern (as it was for me, but I decide to spend a little on the Core 2 Duo and I do not regret it!), then AMD still offers some very good processors, but really, I think the money is well spent onthe C2D or Quads or whatever. I got mine for $130 back last year.
 
It's been many years since I last built my own PC, and recently I've been wanting to get back into it except cost is the only issue as it can be an expensive hobby.



Here are my thoughts on your build:



1. Again, it's been a long time since I last built my own computer so my memory and knowledge may be a little off, but wouldn't it be best to put your memory into slot #1 and slot #2 so it can run in Dual Channel mode? Isn't that the reason why you got a matched pair of memory?



EDIT: Nevermind this comment, I just noticed in the pic the colored memory slots. I'm assuming in order to get Dual Channel mode you have to stay within the same color, which in this case makes sense if you did slot 1&3.



2. I think you could have better thought out your choice of components. I'm not sure what type of system you're actually trying to build because some parts seem to be for budget but some things you want for performance? It just doesn't make sense.



On one hand, you're talking about overclocking your system but what good is it when you have an old, outdated videocard? If bang-for-the-buck was your main concern, I would have at least gone with something like an Nvidia 8600GT or whatever ATI equivalent to that (sorry, haven't kept up in this field for awhile, especially ATI cards). IMO, that's $53 wasted that you could have easily spent towards a Direct X10 compatible card.



Second is your hard drive. It's 2008, hard drives are cheaper than ever! 250 gb is small for today's standard. My main PC that is probably more than 4 years old now has 160 gb. I recently purchased a new Maxtor 320gb hard drive from Fry's (had the choice of PATA or SATA) for $45. They have weekly sales on hard drives. For $74 you should have gotten a lot more than 250gb.



Lastly, I'm not familiar with how well, easily, and cheaply these newer Intel chips overclock, but IMO overclocking is overrated. Your system can possibly become unstable (depending on how much you overclock) and you're wearing out your components much quicker than normal (due to extra heat). For the extra money you have to invest in parts in order to overclock safely and properly, I just think you're better off buying the faster component from the start. No need to worry about special cooling (extra fans, better computer case, water cooling, etc.), high performance memory, bigger and expensive PSU, dealing with more noise, stability, etc. The only point I see in overclocking is if you are a benchmark freak and you have to have the bragging rights in having one of the highest scores possible, which IMO that becomes absurdly expensive.



Since you compared overclocking to strapping your car on the dyno and tuning it to achieve the highest HP, here's my take on it. You can pour all the money you want into a car and have it achieve HP numbers that are more than 1000 hp. But what good is that car when it's not really suitable for every day use and is more prone to breaking down than if you had left the car bone stock?
 
BlackElantraGT said:
It's been many years since I last built my own PC, and recently I've been wanting to get back into it except cost is the only issue as it can be an expensive hobby.



Here are my thoughts on your build:



1. Again, it's been a long time since I last built my own computer so my memory and knowledge may be a little off, but wouldn't it be best to put your memory into slot #1 and slot #2 so it can run in Dual Channel mode? Isn't that the reason why you got a matched pair of memory?



EDIT: Nevermind this comment, I just noticed in the pic the colored memory slots. I'm assuming in order to get Dual Channel mode you have to stay within the same color, which in this case makes sense if you did slot 1&3.



2. I think you could have better thought out your choice of components. I'm not sure what type of system you're actually trying to build because some parts seem to be for budget but some things you want for performance? It just doesn't make sense.



On one hand, you're talking about overclocking your system but what good is it when you have an old, outdated videocard? If bang-for-the-buck was your main concern, I would have at least gone with something like an Nvidia 8600GT or whatever ATI equivalent to that (sorry, haven't kept up in this field for awhile, especially ATI cards). IMO, that's $53 wasted that you could have easily spent towards a Direct X10 compatible card.
Click to expand...

It's about cost... you just can't get an 8600GT for anything near $50 bucks! Triple that at best (refurbed). Like I mentioned in the blog, this card is just a place holder until DirectX10 cards comes down in $$.



BlackElantraGT said:
Second is your hard drive. It's 2008, hard drives are cheaper than ever! 250 gb is small for today's standard. My main PC that is probably more than 4 years old now has 160 gb. I recently purchased a new Maxtor 320gb hard drive from Fry's (had the choice of PATA or SATA) for $45. They have weekly sales on hard drives. For $74 you should have gotten a lot more than 250gb.
Click to expand...
Se above comment. $$$ Where do you draw the line. Yeah 350 is cheap, but then so is 500, heck 1tb is cheap!



BlackElantraGT said:
Lastly, I'm not familiar with how well, easily, and cheaply these newer Intel chips overclock, but IMO overclocking is overrated. Your system can possibly become unstable (depending on how much you overclock) and you're wearing out your components much quicker than normal (due to extra heat). For the extra money you have to invest in parts in order to overclock safely and properly, I just think you're better off buying the faster component from the start. No need to worry about special cooling (extra fans, better computer case, water cooling, etc.), high performance memory, bigger and expensive PSU, dealing with more noise, stability, etc. The only point I see in overclocking is if you are a benchmark freak and you have to have the bragging rights in having one of the highest scores possible, which IMO that becomes absurdly expensive.



Since you compared overclocking to strapping your car on the dyno and tuning it to achieve the highest HP, here's my take on it. You can pour all the money you want into a car and have it achieve HP numbers that are more than 1000 hp. But what good is that car when it's not really suitable for every day use and is more prone to breaking down than if you had left the car bone stock?
Click to expand...
Core 2 Duos are the most overclockable cpus ever. VERY stable and safe especially when you have a gooh after market cooler like mine. Reason: You are saving money on your cpu purchase. Basically, rather than buying a better cpu, you buy a cheaper one and OC it.
 
So you spent $40 on an aftermarket heatsink/fan when you already had one that came stock with your retail boxed cpu in hopes of overclocking a system that will be bottlenecked by your video card? What's the point in that?



You've already went over your original budget of $700, so why not wait a little longer just to save that extra $100 that could have gotten you a decent videocard that will hold you up a lot longer until your next GPU upgrade? I personally would have used that extra $40 towards a bigger hard drive, instead of dealing with the hassle of upgrading that down the line. It's easy swapping out components but cloning your hard drive onto another one is a bit more involved and takes a bit of time compared to replacing other parts within a computer.



From previous experiences, I've come to learn that you should always do something right the first time around, even if it means it'll cost a little more upfront. Otherwise, you'll end up paying more for it down the road.
 
BlackElantraGT said:
So you spent $40 on an aftermarket heatsink/fan when you already had one that came stock with your retail boxed cpu in hopes of overclocking a system that will be bottlenecked by your video card? What's the point in that?



You've already went over your original budget of $700, so why not wait a little longer just to save that extra $100 that could have gotten you a decent videocard that will hold you up a lot longer until your next GPU upgrade? I personally would have used that extra $40 towards a bigger hard drive, instead of dealing with the hassle of upgrading that down the line. It's easy swapping out components but cloning your hard drive onto another one is a bit more involved and takes a bit of time compared to replacing other parts within a computer.



From previous experiences, I've come to learn that you should always do something right the first time around, even if it means it'll cost a little more upfront. Otherwise, you'll end up paying more for it down the road.
Click to expand...

I do this stuff for a living (Engineering IT - Daimler Trucks North America) so I am somewhat credible when I say I don't think it is a bottleneck. So many times people use a "one size fits all" strategy when configuring / building PCs. You have to look at what the application is for the hardware. Although at work when I am configuring workstations, I spend at least as much on the GPU as I do on the rest of the system ($1,500+ video cards), at home there is no need for that. At work, the workstations I am putting together are being used by engineers running Pro/Engineer (high-end 3D CAD) that relies heavily on GPU performance. At home this GPU's work load is limited to displaying web pages, office documents, and Visual Studio .Net applications as best. The data pipeline on a computer is not a "single highway" running from one place to another. Rather, it is a complex network of data highways built to get data from the human interface, through the processing network and back to the human GUI as quickly and as efficiently as possible (more like a Google Maps snap shot of the roads between the NJ / NYC border!).



My point is, when I am not rendering complex visual data on my home computer, the GPU is running at very low loads normally. It's only when the system is asked to render complex models and graphics that I would benefit from more HP in that area. That need will come up when I want to run the Vista aero interface... at which time I will upgrade.



As for the hard drive... 250GB is MORE than enough for me mainly because of the way I handle data. 75+% of the time I use remote storage. I work frequently through a Remote Desktop session on a hosted server that has more storage capacity than I could ever need. A lot of my data gets stored there. Additionally, I utilize several web services (SOA) (i.e. Fotki for all picture management which is a large part of everyone's local storage needs) rather than the traditional model of using local (locally installed) applications. This prevents me from having to update software, buy software, pay for storage, etc.



Thanks.
 
Sometimes processors are actually 'under-spec'd', so overclocking can be like.. reclaiming the loss. It seems to be a cheap way for AMD or Intel to offer a line of processors that range from 'value' to 'premium'.



As for the components wearing faster, true if there is a lot of heat, but that's why you have pure copper heatsinks and 120mm fans :)



Can't dan just config his system the way he wants?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top