|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Building a Pc - Should I wait?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: SKYHN
I plan on building a PC very soon. I have never built one before, but I think I am up for it. I am going to spare no expense. I will be building the system to the maximum. Im going to go with an AMD Athlon, SCSI Hard Drives, GeForce 3 Ti500, Audigy Live, and all the other goodies. But what I want to know is, should I wait to build it? I have been hearing that new stuff is comming out, and I dont wanna end up, say for example: Get a Amd Athlon 1800 then a new, way faster athlon comes out 8 days later (incedentally, that is what happened with my Pentium III that I used to have, the athlon came out 2 weeks later! GAH!). Anyways, is there anything that I should be on the lookout for? I want to max this system out as much as possible. The only thing I havent decided on yet is what OS to use. I would like to use XP but a lot of people say 2k is faster and performs better, So I'm a bit confused about that. I will be posting back soon the exact parts I am going to be buying so I can get opinions on what is good/bad. This system is going to be used 90% gaming and 10% internet/personal use.
Also, I'm probably gonna be buying my parts from these sites:
Newegg.com
Pricewatch.com(find a few sites on there)
TigerDirect.com
If anyone knows of problems with any of those sites or any other good sites, please let me know.
One more thing, are there other SCSI devices besides Hard Drives? And if so, are they worth it?(i think I heard of SCSI dvd and cd roms)
Posted by: Outlaw
IMO, it's not very smart to buy the fastest things there are. The difference in price with parts just a little slower is too big.
If I would build a new comp now I'd probably take an Athlon XP 1600, mobo with RAID controller, no SCSI HD's but a few "normal" UDMA 100 IDE drives, SCSI is very expensive. I also wouldn't take the GeForce 3 unless it got alot cheaper first.
It will save you alot of money and the speed difference is probably not noticable (except for the GF3 maybe).
If you are going to take the parts you listed, I don't think its possible having the fastest CPU without a faster one coming out a few weeks later. 
The only SCSI devices I know are HD's, CD-rom readers/writers and DVD drives. I never had any of them so I wouldn't know if they're worth it.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
You must have a lot of money with nothing to do.
Best gaming rig IMO..- Athlon XP1800
- 512 MB's Mushkin High performance DDR-SDRAM (Or other low latency DDR memory with 2-2-2 timings).
- SB Audigy
- GeForce 3 Ti500
- Motherboard with a VIA KT266a or NVidia nForce 420 chipset
- ATA-100 hard drive 40GB's or larger. Possible ATA-100 RAID
- Plextor CD-RW. Because it's Plextor!
- Any DVD-ROM with latest PowerDVD software. Only good for movies on the PC anyways. 8X DVD speed or higher should be fine.
Notes:
- SCSI is nice, but it is overkill. You may load things a bit faster, but it's overkill and expensive when you consider you'll also need a good SCSI controller card.(Another 250$+ besides Hard drive)
- CD-ROM speed is highly overrated. Once you install a game and software, most CD's become nothing more than a lame copy protection checker. A top of the line CD burner still has decent speed as well.
- Tiger Direct= ass. Overpriced and I know people who have had problems with them and returns.
- A kick-ass gaming rig sucks in a plain case. You can order custom colored cases and peripherals from www.colorcases.com More expensive, but hey you said money is no object. I personally use the silver minion IMT4000 case. You also might want to check Canis Lupus's Black Athlon PC building guide for some info.
Going fully loaded with SCSI or more memory than listed above may boost performance a little, but we're probably talking about 5% at most for a hefty chunk of money. And I doubt you'll get better framerates in games although they may load a bit faster.
Posted by: Outlaw
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
Any DVD-ROM with latest PowerDVD software.
|
or WinDVD
Posted by: Null Actor
SKYHN: If you wait for the best before buying, you will never own a new computer
That said, when you decide you just want to jump in and buy the best... DO IT! Don't let people like sniper here stop you... he's just jealous (  ). When I last upgraded, I went all out, and ended up with an athlon 1400 and geforce 3. It's a good machine, and it hasn't failed me yet.
The biggest caveat is to get a good motherboard. I'd recommend something from Abit or Epox. Try not to get integrated sound, all it does is mess things up.
Instead of the scsi, I'd suggest raid. But don't buy a motherboard with raid... they tend to have the occasional problem. Buy a raid card, and run two big fast IDE harddrives. A two harddrive raid 0 setup (fast) will only cost you about 500$ for 60 or 80 gigs. That much space and speed on scsi would probably cost you 5000$.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
- Tiger Direct= ass. Overpriced and I know people who have had problems with them and returns.
|
Yup, i have had some people order from there and they had lousy service. I have been told that TcComputers.com is a good site for hardware. They have good customer support.
Posted by: Lord_Buttplug
Acutally SCSI RAID would cost about 1200 for 80 GB of storage in a RAID 0 configuration with a RAID controller or you could get 320GB of storage for about 3600 with a RAID controller.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Absolutely forget about SCSI. I was a big afficianado a while back. But, SCSI is only good for servers. Drives are big enough now that you don't need SCSI. ATA-100's are as fast as your bus will run anyway.
Some suggestions if you have money to burn. Run Windows 2000 with Dual Athlon MP's on an AMD 760 chipset motherboard.
Try: http://www.googlegear.com and www.markonecomputers.com. Both have good service, prices, and I have bought from them.
Posted by: SKYHN
Thanks to Ion for the Custom cases. Id been looking for something like that for a long time, I didnt wanna buy some crappy plain white case.
And I think I wont go with SCSI, it is quite expensive. As for the dvd rom, I basically want it for when dvd rom games start comming out, I have been hearing that some new games will start being available on them.
I am going with the GeForce 3 Ti500. I wanna max the crap out of my graphics. Cost really isnt an issue. Since I consider the video card one of the most important parts, Ill spare no expense on it.
Ill probably be building this either in december or january/february.
Memory wise, Ill probably go with 512, but does any OS out right now support more than 512? And if not, why dont they?
Anyways, thanks for the tips.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Windows NT, 2000, and XP can utilize that much memory fine. Those same operating systems also support multiprocessor systems as well. For most people though, 256 megs of RAM is even overkill. I look for programs to start utilizing more RAM eventually though since RAM is so cheap. It's probably why so much bloatware is getting released lately.
Running games on a DVD drive really isn't necessary anymore. Hard drive real estate is super cheap and plentiful. And games will load a lot faster on a hard drive. DVD installation would be convientient though. I hate installing games with more than 3 CD's...hehe
Posted by: Chako
If your waiting for DVD games...then don't bother buying a DVD player right now. Like everything....the longer you wait on that particular purchase...the more you will get for your money.
As for maxing out on your video card...just remember that something bigger and better will come out every 6 months or so in the graphics industry. Just keep that in mind when you pay your $$$ for the biggest badest video card that today’s games don’t challenge..and when they can..you can probably buy a better video card for cheaper in the future. I know…I have been there so many times its not funny. If money is no issue and you need the best now..then go for it.
As for OS...it depends on what you want of it. I have always used 95/98/ME home operating systems and have just upgraded to XP. I think I am liking XP the more I use it. I have not noticed much of a performance decrease from ME, and sometimes, I have noticed performance increases. I have never touched NT/2000 except on school networks, networks that I was never given admin privileges to play around with (can you blame them...its hard to keep the system running good with the students let alone giving it over to the staff) 
I have never used 2000 so I am not able to make a comment on how much better it is then XP. You must remember also that several people who post onto this forum are IT professionals who are well versed with NT/2000, and they will be able to tell you the pros and cons between NT/2000/XP. From where I stand (and the limited knowledge of 2000, I think XP may be better geared towards home users wanting to play games and run as much software with good compatibility then 2000 can offer. I think you will see MS try to make 2000 its business branch and XP its home branch (regardless of XP pro). If you are more familiar with 95/98/ME operating systems...XP is much better (and is a worthwhile upgrade). If your on 2000...there is little incentive to switch over. I am thinking XP isn't that bad. I have played CS on the net with no problems (not slower then ME).. If I have one advice to you...before you decide..read up on both 2000 and XP, and then make an informed decision.
Yes...2000 and XP can use more then 512 Megs of ram. I haven't the faintest idea how much though..but I am sure someone in here will be able to quote numbers
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Windows 2000 can use up to 4 Gigabytes of RAM before any updates or changes are needed. It can even support more than this with some minor editing in the boot.ini file.
Posted by: SKYHN
All windows or just certain versions?
I always remember hearing that windows only supported up to 512 ram. Maybe I heard wrong.
Ill probably end up putting 4x 256mb PC2100 DDR chips in it, just for that extra edge
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I think Ion was referring to Win2K and later ... I heard Win98 can only "effectively use" 256MB RAM, and any more than that makes no difference...
Posted by: Kdr Kane
I recommend only using 512 MB of memory. Anymore is a waste. I've done performance monitoring on systems with large memory. It's only needed on servers running thousands of connections or huge applications like databases.
512 MB allows you the flexibility to use multiple OS's if you choose. I'm only running 256 MB and have never reached 50% utilization in games or browsing. My motherboard only supports 512 MB well. I'm going to get another 256 MB only so I will have it available years from now.
When you start getting into large memory situations, it becomes more of an issue as to whether the motherboard and BIOS support the particular operating system properly. You should check with the manufacturer.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
I heard Win98 can only "effectively use" 256MB RAM, and any more than that makes no difference...
|
Is that true? I have 192mb of Ram now, and i was going to get a stick of 256mb to add to my system
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Quote:
Originally posted by Bobaroo330
Is that true? I have 192mb of Ram now, and i was going to get a stick of 256mb to add to my system
|
It's true. It's damn true!
Posted by: Bobaroo
does it affect the system at all in a bad way if i go over 256mb?
I don't think it would but i am just wondering.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
That's the point .. it doesn't make any difference beyond 256MB in Win98 ... so while it will not hurt your system in any way if you go beyond 256MB, the leftover RAM is rendered worthless - would serve more as an expensive decoration rather than an improvement
Posted by: urhellishere
I maybe wrong but the reason win98 and ME cannot use beyond 256 ram effectively is the way vcache is setup in Windows--with a few lines in system.ini you can make your system effective use more than 256 ram--You can make the extra ram be used for the vcache.
Posted by: The-AoD
A new computer, you can certainly have a new computer! It's new to you.. :P
In my opinion, buying over 512mb ram is a good thing for some people, like major graphic creators and the such, but for gaming, I've not seen the simplest difference from 160 and up. I use 384, and that's enough for me. I could tell a difference from 128 to my 384 but it was, rather minimal. But when I changed from 64 to 384, there was a massive increase in frames and some loading times. I think 512mb ram is more than enough for quite a few years if you're just doing some games and other small stuff.
Video, god, I wish I had a better video card, this Voodoo 3 is to dang old lol... But in my opinion, it's always a smart thing to buy the latest at the best price, and start saving for the latest when that card has run it's life.
As for SCSI, EWW!! I hate SCSI for the fact of it's expense to the wallet. I love ATA setups more than anything, for thier "ease" on the price bucket. ATA/100 is fast enough to hold any modern drive, so what's the use of getting a mass SCSI system unless you want to blow out with a bunch of money for smaller drives and a little increase on loading? In my opinion, ATA or ATA Raid is the way to go in that situation.
As for cases. I love that Minion case Ion was talking about, though it'd be really sweet in black!
As for Operating system, I don't like the "rumors" I've heard of XP, but it may be a good OS. Though I'd rather stick with a 98/2k dual boot. 2k is a good idea if you really don't want to have to deal with "possible" unknown problems or whatnot. I'll stick with 2k, and the other thing is, XP costs damn near 200 dollars here, so, The wallet will stick with 2k as well .
My last opinion, on a gaming rig....
I, myself, would stick with an Intel processor, I've known Intel for well designed setups and ease. I've been looking at the AMD products, but I'm still worried about thier history of "poor" conditions. This would be my setup, if I had the funds for it.
P4 Fastest available
512+mb Ram
ATA RAID with Dual Maxtor drives ( I like Maxtor, so shoot me! Better than Seagate!!! :P )
Geforce 3 ( I'd have to study for which type)
And of course, the newest shibang of Creatives SB line
That would be my system, though it may not be what others like, I would enjoy it more than this P3 450mhz... >
|
|
|
|
|
