Building a new computer Created 16 years ago2008-07-28 07:54:03 UTC by Spike

Hello, I'm going to earn my first salary on Friday. I have to buy a new HD because mine is broken.

1- Do you recommend me a 1000 rpm HD? Of course it's better but a lot more expensive.

I'm going to change the morherboard too, so I can build another pc for my parents and brother.

2-A 90 ?/141 $ is ok? I've seen Gigabyte mobo with double graphic card pci and it looks nice.

I'm going to buy new RAM (so my parents can have another computer).

3- Which one do you recommend me? 800 mhz? 1024 mhz? I don't want to spend too much.

And finally, I'm going to buy a new graphic card, I'm thinking on ATI HD 4870,why? because is one of the best at the moment, and it costs 230 ? with a 85% performance of the GTX280.

4- (I don't know how they are called on english), which "ensambler" do you recommend me?

1-If you want fast archive proccessing or a fast boot ar a good time response in modern games , yes , 10000 RPM is your choice .

2- Can't answer

3-1024 low latency . In fact I recommend you to buy Corsair memory . I have a dual channel kit - 2x1GB 800 mhz 4-4-4-12 .

4- Are you talking about the video card ? If yes you can make a choice : I don't know about other sellers or "ensambler" or what are you talking about but I know Gigabyte doesn't offer any bundle , but the video card has a lower cost .

Ensambler = processor?

No, I'm talking about the "sellers"(Asus, Saphire, Palit, etc). We call them "ensambladores" in spanish.

Oh, and I need opinion of the HD4870 too.

PS Oh yes, and I mean 10000 rpm, not 1000!

I personally prefer HiS cards because they generally have very good cooling without sounding too much. I have a Sapphire card in my stationary rig atm, and it sounds bloody awful.

Oh he's talking about the graphics card Assembler.
I can't really give good advice on that, but I hear Asus is a good one, and I had a Sapphire which worked really well for me.

I encourage someone to over-rule my knowledge.

I highly suggest EVGA for the graphics card.

They only sell Nvidia (which you should be getting anyways ) but they have great cards, really well built, and have the best customer service in the business.

If anything ever goes wrong, you'll be taken care of hand and foot by EVGA.
I love that company.

HDD:- 7200RPM
Motherboard:- Maximum US$100, only one PCI express slot for graphics is needed.
RAM:- DDR2 800 mhz
Graphics:- NVIDIA 8800GT OR 9800GTX. Anything higher is not worth it. Buy an AMD video card and you will regret it.

ASUS is probably the most popular video card manufacturer.

Graphics:- NVIDIA 8800GT OR 9800GTX. Anything higher is not worth it. Buy an AMD video card and you will regret it.

yeah but I can't run Crysis at Very high on 1680 x 1050 with a 8800GT or a 9800GTX, well... with the 9800 GTX maybe yes... but what about the games that are comming on the future? I just don't want to be buying a new graphic card each year.

What's wrong with AMD?

8800 GT is still one of the best cards on the market and definitely the most Bang for the Buck. If you wanted better, you'd need to go upwards of $500, and it's really not worth it.

I agree with PB in his recommendations. DDR2-ram is ridiculously low-priced these days even though it's still relatively fast compared to the newer DD3 models. You could probably get 4GB of 800Mhz for something like $100 - get it.

Motherboard-wise, SLi or Crossfire (eg. double graphic card slots) is just a waste. The performance boost of using 2 graphics cards is not worth the ridiculous price.
Just make sure you get something that will fit your CPU needs: Intel's Core 2 Duo series is very nice and not very expensive - the E8500 looks like a great buy. On the motherboard, don't get the new intel chipset (I forget its name), stick with the "old" P35 - it's still very good and much cheaper.

yeah but I can't run Crysis at Very high on 1680 x 1050

Unless you own a ridiculously sized monitor, that's not even necessary.

A 8800GT will run Crysis on very high at 1280 x 960, though. My brother does it daily.

You don't need a quad-core processor. In fact, no gamer needs one at this point. Maybe in the future.

I think 2 GB is enough for now. DDR3 maybe a good idea, so you won't have to upgrade the entire mobo two years from now when you want to upgrade memory.

Yeah. If you can stay relatively low-priced, you can still last years before you need a real upgrade.

I'd stick with the DDR2 for now though. 2 to 4 GB. I have 2 and I'm doing just fine. RAM is one of the easiest and one of the more inexpensive (as of now) to upgrade really, so that should be one of your least concerns. Get a decent GFX card, I too would recommend the 8800 or 9800, especially at the price they're at now.

2.5ghz or so dual core would be suffice for a long time. I'm running 3ghz dual core and i really dont have much as far as limitations.

And yeah, there is really no reason to need SLi or Crossfire. Most people don't have it, most people don't need it.

No don't get a quad core at all. The problem is that it requires alot of threading when using 4 processors and alot of old games simply can't handle and/or coodinate that amount of threading.

My new computer really rocks. I have:
Brand: Asus - Laptop
2.6 Ghtz Dual Core
3Gb Ram (You need at least 1Gb)
250 Gb Hdd (I don't know the speed) + 100 GB External
Nvidea Me 9500 Ge 512mb dedictated graphics card (try to get dedicated)
Widescreen 1200x800 Monitor + Keypad (why I don't know...)

With this I can run CSS perfectly at absolute maximum graphics level with no lag and averaging 35 fps

I already have the processor runing on my computer, a q6600, so I'm not going to change it, I have a good cooler too. So maybe I'll overclock to 3.0 GHz

With this I can run CSS perfectly at absolute maximum graphics level with no lag and averaging 35 fps

This isn't very good... You should have +90 fps to be ok. Because if you have 35 fps on css means you will get 1 fps on crysis.

This is true but to prevent overheating I lower the maximum processor power to about 75% and fps can only match your monitor's refresh rate. Mine refreshes 60 times a second which means I can have a maximum of 60fps.

60fps+ is what you really need though...

Also nothing wrong with having Quad Cores for future proofing.

The eye can't even see frame rates higher than 60 FPS or something like that. Anything above is completely redundant.

The eye can't even see frame rates higher than 60 FPS or something like that. Anything above is completely redundant.

Yeah, but having 60 fps on CSS means you will get -25 on new games. That's why it's important.

You can disable multiple threads on a per application basis though, which can help for a lot of old games.

The eye can view up to 72 frames to the center, and a tad bit faster through the sides(rods cone thingy). A high framerate in twitch games IS important, not because of what we see, but because of how the engine updates, one update cycle lasts one frame, so a game will update player positions, hit detection etc, slower then if it runs on 100 or 200 frames.

I cannot tell the difference between 60 fps and 90 fps. I don't think the engine cares either.

30 fps does suck though.

I'm looking at new computers too. For video cards i'd like to get the nvida 8800m or the 9700m series cards. I agree with most people that these type of cards are more that sufficient for most games.

Some laptops i'm looking at with these cards have a 600Mhz FSB and some have an 800. Is there quite a performance increase with the faster bus?

Most core 2 duo processors i'm looking at with these machines are only about 2Ghz though, and though i want a faster processor, they are substanially more expensive... Is this speed range processor going be a huge hit to the gaming does anyone know?

getting a laptop for gaming is a stupid thing to do. you can't upgrade it, it costs three times as much as the equivalent desktop, you don't get any options in terms of hardware customisation, and most of the time the drives aren't up to speed, and you have a very small hard disk. unless you want to pay five times as much as the equivalent desktop.

laptops are for work. desktops are for gaming. (and work)

While I agree with you, i frequently go from my mom's my dad's house, and a desktop is not an option right now. I could buy two desktops I guess for the cost of a medium-range gaming notebook? = )

that would be a better idea. get a portable hard drive to transport your files and junk.

i know that you can make a computer like mine that will play everything, for under $1000. most decent gaming laptops cost at least $2.5k.

i recommend:
motherboard < $100
dual core AMD or cheap intel CPU (don't spend over $150, it's seriously unnecessary)
graphics 8800GT
ram 2GB DDR2 800
HDD 200GB
case, power supply, etc blah blah

if you shop around you should be able to make something like this yourself for under US$800 (i'm in australia and it'd cost me around AU$900, but our tech is overpriced)
EDIT: i just repriced that and it was under AU$800. also, just so you know, this rig can handle crysis on high settings at 1680x1050. monitor is not included in the price.

don't buy premade desktops, they are a waste of money. building it yourself is really easy and you save a bunch of cash.

Plus you get individual warranties for each component: something I find highly preferable to buying desktops, where you can't even open the fucking case without voiding the warranty.

Why can't you travel with a desktop? It's not as big as a washing machine or refrigerator. It's relatively portable.

Just buy two monitors, two sets of keyboard (which are really cheap), and two mice.

Why can't you travel with a desktop? It's not as big as a washing machine or refrigerator. It's relatively portable.

My computer weights at least 8 kg . It is very portable

Oh PenguinBoy , Ati Video cards don't suck . They just can't handle it right with OpenGL . Anyway , the 8.7 Catalyst appeared and most of the problems I had are now over , excepting Hammer 3.5 :/ ...........
I'm playing Colin Mcrae Dirt at 1024 resolution (I don't know exactly the other number) with Ultra details . The average FPS is 30 but I reached 42 FPS.

Isn't that cool ?

60 would be cool.
42 on 1024 isn't.

HD4870 gives 30 fps Very High DX10 1680x1050 for 300 $

42 on 1024 isn't.

At least it's important I don't see the image in slow motion and my eyes can be happy of all the detail . The budget limits me

8800 handles the same with 60fps and costs less, Spike. ;>

I never heard of a nvidia card to cost less than the same performance ati video card .

ATI is now owned by AMD, which is a company dealing with great financial difficulties.

They just cut the majority of their R&D department.

I expect Intel to dominate in the future. ATI is just going to go down the drain with AMD.

I never heard of a nvidia card to cost less than the same performance ati video card .

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention lately. Note that the 4870 is a relatively new card - the 8800GT had been the dominant player in the market for quite some time. If the benchmarks and prices agree with you, by all means go with the HD4870.

Nvidea is also getting a small amount of support from Microsoft too so I would recommend a Nvidea. And you can upgrade some laptops, it depends. I bought an Asus and it has the capabilities to upgrade the Hard-Drive and Ram. Mind you, with Hard-Drives, you are much better off buying a large external drive and installing your data on that. You save yourself a few hundred bucks when buying a new computer, you can easily transfer all your files easily from one computer to another with little fuss, as long as you plug it into a USB2 port you don't suffer much from speed slowdowns and last of all you provide a good place to create a ghost or virtual copy of your operating system to save your computer in the event of unfortunate circumstances.