25th February 2004, 12:33 AM
Go with the deluxe for this one. Difference is less than $30 for this instance. Some deluxe boards can cost $100+ more than its lesser brothers.
Originally Posted by funksoulava
Get 2 x 512mb DDR 400 mate. Ram prices fluctuate quite alot so dont wait til it shoots sky high then decide you need more ram. Ram prices are quite ok now so just grab. Hehe.
Like i said earlier, casing dont need those fancy type. Simple one will do but you are gonna want a reliable power supply and they dont come cheap. Prepare about $80 for a reliable 350W PSU. When you go buy the casing just tell them you dont want the power supply that comes with it and they will deduct $10-$20 from the price of the casing. Oh and remember to get a case with some sort of ventilation. They're very common these days. Be it an exhaust or a blow fan. 2.8C can be pretty hot when under load. fast systems = HOT.
And you're most welcome.
Last edited by Twilo; 25th February 2004 at 02:45 AM.
25th February 2004, 12:55 AM
I'm going to be an ass and ask THE QUESTION. Why hasn't anybody suggested APPLE??? beats any pc config hands down.
Don't flame me k, i'm also a pc user.
25th February 2004, 08:33 PM
A few other experiences that you can consider:
1) Performance experiences
There's a lack of mention of user experiences. It helps u decide whether u r throwing ur cash into getting an over-specced or under-specced system.
Am using an Intel 865G??? series motherboard with Intel 2.6GHz HT, 800MHz FSB, 2 x 512MB DDR400 RAM. Fast(est?) Seagate harddisk 120GB SATA. Using integrated (on board graphics card) cos my 64MB graphics card from my previous system is problematic.
I dun bother to do benchmarking tests but based on my empirical experiences with Task Manager, much as I try, I seldom manage to max my CPU utilisation to 100%. Serious.
Which means that I have plenty of processing power in reserve usually.
Despite burning a CD-R at 24X using Nero (reading from my other data hdd 40GB), generating thumbnail reviews on ACDSee and doing batch sharpening on PS 7 concurrently, utilisation mebbe 90+% CPU usually. Most other times running ad-hoc apps, seldom even hit more than 50% utilisation.
Physical/paged memory etc. only goes up to 300-400MB even when I have 10 Internet Explorer Windows and such open at the same time.
Bottom line: the bottle neck is almost always the harddisk throughput, which is the slowest in the whole chain. The fact that I seldom hit 100% CPU utilisation speaks well of Hyper Threading compared to previous CPU technologies. In fact, the latest CPU/motherboards are way more powerful than most home/non-professional users' needs.
Unless you are a professional photographic/video house, speed is not even an issue.
It also means that if u do mainly 2D image processing, all the video cards in the world and any configuration better than what I have basically will count for zilch - performance wise. Graphics cards are supposed to help crunch 3 D image processing to relieve the CPU's load.
It also means that DDR400 Ram and 800MHz FSB really work well.
With the benefit of hindsight, I can also conclude that I could have made do with 2 x 256MB DDR400 and not see any worse performance based on the memory utilisation readings on task manager.
Go figure if u really wanna spend on 2 x 512MB.
2) Dual Channel RAM
Supposing you have 2 x 512MB DDR 400. When u open a 200MB TIFF file, theoretically 100MB of it goes into each piece of RAM chip concurrently.
With older (SDRAM etc.) RAM, if you have 2 x 512MB RAM, the 200MB goes into the 1st chip. Only when it is filled will data spill over and go into the second piece.
Its not quite accurate to call it doubling of memory bandwidth but you can see why its very helpful.
When you buy it at the shop, say buy at Cybermind and assemble at Fuwell or vice-versa what not... make sure that they give you the 2 pieces packaged in a SINGLE box. It looks like 2 x normal RAM pieces but packed together.
When I bought mine at one particular Indian shop, the boss juz picked up 2 separate boxes and placed it in front of me. Only after I reiterated "Dual Channel" did he hesitate and replaced it with the correct single box packaging.
Dual Channel RAM is produced from the same production batches at the factory. Semiconductors being what they are (like CPUs), different batches give differing performances, latencies etc. no matter how slight.
More importantly, they are quality tested together. Only then are they packed in the single package boxes.
Make sure the shops doesn't screw u over by giving u 2 separate ones. If you have one piece slower than the other, imagine what speed or error issues u may have.
Originally Posted by funksoulava
25th February 2004, 09:20 PM
That's where you are wrong. You should read Rob Galbraith's processing performance comparison between PCs and Macs.
Originally Posted by Poon
25th February 2004, 09:32 PM
There are a lot of good suggestions here. But guys he wants a reliable, fast system that don't cost a bomb. Get a P4 whatever you can afford, 64 MB Graphics (128 better), new motherboard, ram and casing. Use back your hard disk. Please avoid Dell. It is cheap but it uses on board VGA as well as Sound and network interface. Don't carry all your eggs in one basket.