posted
So it's time to buy a computer again, or at least it will be in a month or so when I have the cash on hand for one. Some of you may remember 6 years ago when I made my last thread, and ended up building my own machine from parts purchased on Newegg. It went pretty well, and with a few upgrades lasted me quite some time. This one is nearing the end of it's lifecycle, however, since the P4 is no longer good enough to run new computer games that expect a dual core or better.
This new computer would serve as both a development workstation for software development and testing, and for playing games on it. The games I play are mostly real time strategy, MMOs, and such. I'll probably be playing Starcarft and Diablo III on it short term, but I'd ideally like to play newer games that come out in a couple of years without stressing about whether my computer can handle them.
From my research, here are some things I've noted.
1) I saved about 300 bucks from building my machine rather than buying an assembled one last time. This no longer appears to be possible. From my initial investigation, it looks like I'd pay the same or more buying my parts on Newegg. Does this sound right, or am I not looking hard enough?
2) My main debate right now is whether I buy a very solid near top end machine for around 1200-1300, and hope it lasts for the next 4-6 years (with a couple of upgrades), or if I should buy a reasonable mid-range machine for around 600-750 with the expectation of replacing it in 2-3 years. Or something in the middle of these two extremes. Which is the better plan these days?
3) There are quite a few processors I am considering. Something like the Q9550 quad core at 2.83GHz seems reasonably priced for my higher end choice. I know most current games don't perform any better on a quad than they do on a dual core (at least from what I've read), but I'll be running application servers and databases (JBoss, MySQL, etc) for testing purposes, and for those the more cores the better (as the software is heavily multi-threaded). Since Gateway doesn't even offer a dual core option, I'd be hesitant to try and go with what appears to be being phased out. In a couple years I'd imagine all games will be written assuming they have 4 cores to work with. The AMD 4-core processors look to be far cheaper, but the reviews I've read say that Intel makes a much higher performing chip this go around. Is that true? The top-end Intel core i7 sounds great, but is out of my current price range I am afraid, with one exception (see below).
4) I see that DDR3 RAM looks to be emerging as the choice for top-end machines. Should I avoid getting a machine that only supports DDR2 so I don't get stuck with obsolete memory once it becomes standard for all computers? If games in 2-3 years expect DDR3 RAM, it seems silly of me to buy a $1200 machine that only supports DDR2. Getting DDR3 looks to cost considerably more, and for the pre-built computers it looks tied into the i7 processors. This seems to imply that if I get a computer with a DDR2 motherboard, I should expect to be replacing my computer in a couple of years, right?
5) For the higher end I was looking to get a GeForce 9800 GT with 1GB for my video card. For the lower end something like the Geforce 9500 GS with 512MB. Any opinions here? There's also the 9600 GS with 768MB as a middle ground. The ATI equivalent chips are also an option on the HP site, so if anyone has a preference here let me know.
6) So far I've compared building one myself, HP, Gateway, and Dell. For the most part, HP and Gateway look to be very close in price, with HP allowing customization whereas Gateway does not. Dell is something like 300+ dollars more expensive when I try to build an equivalent machine. Is it their warranty and tech support you are paying extra for there?
7) Gateway seems to have a couple of absolute steals based on their specs. One is Gateway FX6800-11 Intel Core i7 920(2.66GHz) 6GB DDR3 750GB NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150. It has a great processor, lots of DDR4 RAM, and a 1GB video card for $1300. However, it took a while for me to find out that the Geforce GTS 150 is a rebranded 8000 series video card. Not sure exactly what the implications of that are, but the deal sounds too good to be true, and I'm wondering if that's what makes it so cheap. They also have the Gateway LX6810-01 Core 2 Quad Q8200(2.33GHz) 8GB DDR2 640GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 120. It has a slower chip, but it's still a quad core, and 8GB for RAM is a ton. I'm not sure how well a 2.33GHz chip would work for gaming, but since this system is only $780, it could be replaced in a few years. Again, it has a rebranded 8000 series GPU.
Besides those two, here are some sample configurations I am considering:
quote: HP d5200t CPU: Intel 2 Quad Q9400 2.66 GHz RAM: 6GB (2x2048, 2x1024) DDR2 - 800MHz Video Card: Geforce 9800GT 1GB Hard Drive: 500GB, 7200 rpm
Price: $1079
quote: HP m9500z CPU: AMD Phenom 9850 Quad 2.5 GHz RAM: 4GB (4x1024) DDR2 - 800MHz Video Card: Geforce 9500GS 512MB Hard Drive: 320GB, 7200 rpm
Price: $719
So basically, I'm asking what you guys would do if you were in my shoes? Anything to be on the lookout for, or to avoid? Any advice at all would be appreciated. I don't often make large purchases, and I agonize about making the right choice.
posted
I'm also looking at monitors. I am going to be getting two identical ones, since I have dual 22" monitors at work, and developing on anything less than that is painful now.
Here is the one I am considering most at the moment:
Just wanted to throw that out there in case anyone had ideas on that aspect of my decision. Mostly looking at that one because it's such a bargain, and has great reviews on Newegg.
posted
If you can reasoably afford the higher end, I would go with that one of the two. Building CAN be cheaper, but a lot of the prices have come down in regards to memory, so the price savings you have seen in the past aren't as much unless you plan on going completely bleeding edge for tech.
I would go with DDR3 for the higher end, simply because that way you are covered.....but I still run a DDR2 machine from 5 years ago and it will play anything, even Crisis....although I can't play it on the highest settings.
Whatever you do, if you build one for yourself spend the extra cash on the processor if anything. I am bottlenecked now....even though they still make APG video cards (despite predictions otherwise), my processor can't use any additional memory on the card because it is maxed out.
I went with a laptop this time around, a really good Toshiba with an ATI video card and the AMD chipset. I play videogames on it and everything and it works great....but I needed the portability for school.
AMD runs hotter than Intels do, and in laptops the P4 is considered the better ship for that reason....but I have heard the opposite it true of desktops. Heat is less of an issue in desktops, and the AMD chip is at least equal to if not a little better than the the Intel.
Here is some data on the newest shipsets for both. It's basically a draw....Intels are about 10% faster for highest-end gaming, but the Intel chips also require an expensive motherbord.
posted
Does that price on the ACER include tax? If it doesn't you can STILL get it for cheaper and CompUSA online. With shipping and taxes it was $161 for the exact same one.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think now is the wrong time to be buying a high-end machine. The reason is that there's no software on the market (including Crysis, actually) that can really tax a mid-range machine, and the cost/performance ratio delta between high-end parts and mid-range parts is much higher than in recent years.
Assemble a mid-range machine for $800, use it with joy for three years, then see what your needs are like.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to gently disagree (with the notion about getting a mid-range computer with a previous generation chip.) With the caveat that I just assembled an i7 machine about four months ago, so I'm probably biased.
That said, with the computer market in depression along with everything else, this is an excellent time to get a good deal on an i7 machine. Getting an i7-compatable motherboard makes it more likely that you won't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater if you want to upgrade a few years up the road, and the i7 line shows very favorable benchmark results compared to the previous quad-core line ( one example. )
Tiger Direct offers an i7 920 barebones kit for $750 after rebate; you can get a decent video card and memory from NewEgg and still come in for under a thousand.
And, yes, everything I've read confirms your suspicions about AMD's latest line. You can get the chip for much cheaper, but what I read suggests their best results often fall behind Intel's mid-range previous-gen Core2Quad line.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the input so far guys. One follow up question (more to follow probably):
When building my own machine (or going from a barebones kit like the one Sterling linked) it seems like the big thing stopping me from coming out ahead is buying the operating system ($260).
I don't own Vista, and I would think you'd need it to get decent performance from the 64-bit processors, right?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A reasonable point. You can get OEM (meaning, you have to provide your own technical support) versions of Vista Home 64-bit for $99 at NewEgg, or Vista Business 64-bit for $139. I've created a dual-boot system for my own purposes (XP 32-bit/Vista Home 64-bit). 64-bit architecture is somewhat outside my area of expertise; the differences I know about between the 32-bit and 64-bit two versions are a) 64-bit OSs can recognize significantly more RAM, and b) you can only use software optimized for 64-bit systems on a 64-bit OS. The 64-bit version may also have compatability issues with some 32-bit software (which was the reason for my creating a dual-boot system in the first place), but honestly, the only real difficulty I've run across is with City of Heroes. I don't know if the RAM or 64-bit software issue is a consideration in your case.
Everything I read warns in a loud voice to not, under any circumstances, install the 64-bit version of Windows XP.
I should also note, if you can afford to wait a while, that Windows 7 has been getting a lot of good press. Vista hasn't been bad to me, in all honesty, but I can't say it's had loads of features that impressed me with the idea that it was a must-have over XP; about the best thing I'd say about it is that it's been a lot better than XP in not being a grouch about programs that refuse to terminate when I tell it to shut down. Buzz is that 7 is sleeker, faster, and rumor has it that it can even run XP emulation windows.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Realistically, 64-bit doesn't give you much of a boost just yet. It does allow you to install more than 4GB of RAM, which is a massive plus, but there are very few programs written in 64-bit right now, and the ones that are are generally just re-written for 64-bit and not optimized for it.
Now, since you're building this yourself, you should also consider purchasing the OEM license for Vista. You can only activate it on one computer, and you'll have to jump through some hoops with Microsoft later on, but it's 100 bucks cheaper (And is the version that comes with just about every factory built system out there).
That said, you may want to consider throwing down a little extra cash (if you have it) for a Technet subscription. Initial cost is 350 dollars, but you basically get a license for just about any Microsoft Software you could want. The caveat is that you have to continue to pay a yearly subscription fee (250 dollars) if you want to activate a Technet license after the first year runs out. If the software is already activated, it will never de-activate, though, so it's a pretty good deal if you're a crazy geek like me with two computers (Vista Ultimate + 2003 Small Business Edition + Office 2007 for 350 bucks is a heck of a lot cheaper than the alternative). In addition, you'll be able to upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out rather than having to buy it if you want to try it. More details here.Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: rumor has it that it can even run XP emulation windows.
It's a little bit more than just an Emulated XP session. Windows 7 is supposed to come with a Windows XP license to use with a Virtualized system. Whereas emulation works as a bridge between the OS and the emulated session, Virtualization allows actual hardware level access to a Virtual computer that does not interact with the Core OS. This is more secure, and has the added benefit of allowing Microsoft's software designers to just chuck the legacy requirements that have been bogging them down out the Window (*cough* unintentional first letter caps that I'm leaving for the obvious pun).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarification. I'm hearing that it's a promising feature, but they're still ironing out bugs... Hopefully by the time it's ready for full commercial release, the virtualized XP windows will be comparably stable to a dual boot.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
It looks like I could get a very solid mid-range system, with a 3.0 GHz quad core processor for only $701 (assuming $20 of mail-in rebates). It's an AMD, but from my reading over the last day or so the new line chips have gotten very solid reviews. That one there got the Newegg customer choice award for April.
I like that from building my own I can get two 2GB memory sticks, and have two empty slots to put new sticks when I want to upgrade to 8GB of RAM.
The OEM version of Vista looks like it could save me a lot of money until Windows 7 comes out. Thanks Sterling.
The AMD 2+ doesn't leave the room for growth that getting an AMD3 or i7 motherboard and chip would. However, if I can get it for around 700, I could replace in 3 years without feeling too bad about it I think. Niki would then have a very solid desktop when this one became hers.
The video card I haven't spent a lot of time researching. I don't know a damn thing about "Crossfire" enabled video cards, but it looks like it lets you have two video cards working together. That sounds crazy. I'll have to take a closer look at the one I've selected, and see if it's the best deal.
If you all don't mind I may bounce a few build configurations off the collected hatrack technical mind over the next couple of weeks.
Added: Does that power-supply / case look okay? Some power supplies alone are 150+ dollars, and I'd rather not splurge on one if I don't have to.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the power supply might be a little bit lightweight, especially if you want to add more drives later, and definitely if you go with Crossfire. (But I don't think Crossfire or the Nvidia equivalent provide a good value - you get a performance boost, but you don't really need it to enjoy gaming, and it's an expensive boost). If you wait for a sale (sign up for the subscriber emails) you can probably get a good 750W power supply for under a hundred.
But you should be able to add up the power requirements for all your components and if it comes in well under 500W, that one will probably work. Having had stability problems related to cheap power supplies that's one area where I splurged on my last build though.
The rest of it looks pretty good to me but I haven't done much shopping lately, just so you know.
One thing that drove me nuts with installing Vista: it crashed right away because I had more than 2 gb of RAM in the machine. You're probably getting a newer build that includes the patch for this problem, though. (In my case I just had to finish installation, patch, then reinstall RAM).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't go with a power supply that comes with the case. They generally use cheaper discrete electronics and are *very* prone to failure and can potentially damage your parts. Investing anywhere from 50 dollars to 100 dollars in a good, solid power supply is well worth it. The general rule for power supplies is that if it weighs more, it's better.
There are some very technical reasons this rule is true, and I'd gladly go into them if you want, but it would probably put you to sleep
edit: The PSU I have is similar to this one: here. It powers my system quite well, and should easilly handle your power requirements. I would highly recommend buying a case with a modular design, as it allows you to only have cables that you need in the case, which helps airflow.
[ May 19, 2009, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. That case looks pretty nice, and they have it without the power supply for 20 dollars less. So if I went with that case, and bought a 60-70 dollar supply it would bump the price to something like 750. Still quite reasonable.
Added: I'll be playing around with that wishlist for a while I think. The case and power supply are just placeholders until I research that more.
Added 2: Hadn't seen your edit, will give that one a look.
posted
The Phenom II x4 940 still only fairs decently in comparison with the mid-to-upper end of Intel's previous generation. Then again, working with DDR2 will save you some money, and this configuration should certainly see you through just about everything this generation of software has to offer, and probably for at least a couple more years after that (though maybe expect to turn down the "chrome" features in a couple of years.)
In the end, it's your nickel, of course. I wish I could unreservedly recommend AMD's latest CPUs; my previous two computers both had AMD CPUs, and were fine machines. Intel has just been doing measurably better this generation.
I'll second Boris' comments about power supply, and agree that I've found getting a supply where the power cords have some kind of modular (removable) system can make it a lot easier to make a tidy case.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
