Computer Advice

Narcil · February 2008

Hey my mate wants to get a new PC, done some shopping around and this is what i have atm:

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3P
CPU: Intel Quad Core Q6600
RAM: Kingston DDR2 PC9600 2 x 2GB
HDD: 2 x Seagate 3.5" SATA-300 320GB 16MB cache
Video Card: MSI 8800GT OC 512MB (NX8800GT-T2D512E)
Optical Drive: ASUS IDE DVD-RW
Case: Antec Sonata 3 with 500W PSU
O/S: Vista Home Premium OEM

Total Cost: AUD$1559

What do u guys think and any suggestions on how to improve would be greatly appreciated.

MedHead · February 2008

My only suggestions would be to get a SATA DVD drive and perhaps an extra stick of memory. Otherwise, it seems like a solid PC.

Driadon · February 2008

I don't know why he'd need more RAM, 4 GB is more then enough <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Good system in my opinion.

KungFuDiscoMonkey · February 2008

What would he be using the computer for ?

Zaggy · February 2008

Looks like a very solid PC to me.

/me shakes fist at Nvidia for cheaper-but-faster-8800gt

Kouji_San · February 2008

2GB is more then enough, 4 GB is way more then enough.

Also get Xp pro instead <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />

Faskalia · February 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_San @ Feb 19 2008, 03:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>2GB is more then enough, 4 GB is way more then enough.

Also get Xp pro instead <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /></div>

That comment is misleading!

Most modern games require 2GB of RAM on XP and 4 GB of RAM on Vista, if you want to run everything on high and have good loading times.

Sad, but true!

lolfighter · February 2008

Considering that this is a rather beefy computer, four gigabytes of RAM isn't too much. No use in having a leet rig with no memory. Of course, if you do get Windows XP, some of that memory is wasted until you switch to Vista.

puzl · February 2008

Get faster hard drives. A WD Raptor or two will make this a system worthy of my envy.

Kouji_San · February 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 19 2008, 04:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670952"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Considering that this is a rather beefy computer, four gigabytes of RAM isn't too much. No use in having a leet rig with no memory. Of course, if you do get Windows XP, some of that memory is wasted until you switch to Vista.</div>
But Vista sucks J/K

Also I see way to many people buying cheaper ram, even though the better brand and performing ram is not that much more expensive. You do see a lot of difference in loading times and overall performance though when you go for the twin ram modules. But seeing as Kingston is in the list I'm not that worried.

If you get some crappy mem like crucial or other "standard" mem vs OCZ for instance you sure as hell will see a difference in performance <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

4GB crucial (friends pc) VS 2 GB of OCZ (my rig) both running XP pro, keeping in mind that the rest of his pc is also "superior" to mine with a quadcore vs core2duo. In this case I outperform the crucial mem every time in terms of loading time, especially in games...

Vista sure needs 4GB at least if you want to run the latest games and have the best performance. IMHO it's sad that a freaking OS needs that much mem... Sad indeed... I mean its a freaking OS, not a application, get back to OS duties instead of hogging the memory! Frikking Microsoft, also I want better support for older games, heck I want better support for newer games and RAID and so much more stuff...

Gah! Vista sucks <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />

Crispy · February 2008

Agreed. I'm staying away from Vista as long as I can, and if that means I miss out on the 'wow look at me I have big explodey things but tragically nothing else that sets me apart from any other game' titles, then so be it. Effing bloatware.

MedHead · February 2008

Pardon me, I misread the memory line. I thought it said only 2GBs of memory were being purchased, not 4. My mistake. I suggested 3GBs because 4 is pointless, as the video card and other system memory would end up taking up the extra gig of space (32 bit systems have a 4GB memory ceiling).

Oh, and Vista's great. A better interface and shell than XP (I like the "explodey" things) and handles my memory well (people who complain about it don't know how Vista works).

Faskalia · February 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MedHead @ Feb 19 2008, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670978"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Pardon me, I misread the memory line. I thought it said only 2GBs of memory were being purchased, not 4. My mistake. I suggested 3GBs because 4 is pointless, as the video card and other system memory would end up taking up the extra gig of space (32 bit systems have a 4GB memory ceiling).

Oh, and Vista's great. A better interface and shell than XP (I like the "explodey" things) and handles my memory well (people who complain about it don't know how Vista works).</div>

oO

Okay!

I run vista and xp systems. Vista: If I do not want to be bothered by a huge amount of popups I have to disable UAC. But with UAC disabled VISTA does not allow me to modify my hdd permanently! Way to go!

Vista is like a nice and shiny car, but with only 1 gear.

MedHead · February 2008

I keep UAC running, because I like it telling me when files are attempting to gain Admin access. Granted, it requires more clicking, but not having proper admin/user separation was what bothered me the most in Windows 2000.

locallyunscene · February 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Faskalia @ Feb 19 2008, 04:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670979"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I run vista and xp systems. Vista: If I do not want to be bothered by a huge amount of popups I have to disable UAC. But with UAC disabled VISTA does not allow me to modify my hdd permanently! Way to go!</div>
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> This... just is not true. Unless you and I have a different definition of write to the harddrive.

I don't have much love for Vista, but it's works for me now. It's about as tolerable as XP at this point. My advice is just go as cheap as you can. I assuming this is a gaming box, and in terms of XP vs Vista you're looking at pretty much equal compatibility. If you have the XP disc from your old box, use it. Oh and don't forget to go 64 bit if you want more than ~3.5 gigs of memory. Both vista and xp have 32 and 64 bit versions.

Thaldarin · February 2008

With the OC'd 8800GT I'd recommend a 600W two-rail PSU as a minimum requirement if you're going to be gaming, which I'd expect you will be.

lolfighter · February 2008

Three gigabyte sounds like a bad idea, since I can't think of any way of setting that up symmetrically, meaning you're cheating yourself of dual channel mode unless you've got a fancier-than-most motherboard (and no, I can't be bothered to check). Preferably, get two (or four) identical memory modules. And consider that you may want to upgrade later and may not want to throw out the old memory, so either get plenty right away or get two modules now and leave room for more later.

MedHead · February 2008

2 x 1GB + 2 x 512MB = 3 GB. Dual Channel. No wasted memory.

4GB sometimes goes slower on some systems than 3GB, so I wanted to bring it up.

lolfighter · February 2008

True, that'd work. Problem is, it'd fill up all his memory banks. Expanding his memory would mean throwing away old memory, and by extension, money. I'd say get 2x2GB and have two slots left for upgrades. It's what I did, so it has to be a clever choice.

Shockeh · February 2008

Considering the price difference, I'd for the 8800GTS 512Mb, so you get a G92 chipset card, instead of the (now being phased) G80 cards.

Faskalia · February 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Feb 19 2008, 10:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670981"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> This... just is not true. Unless you and I have a different definition of write to the harddrive.

I don't have much love for Vista, but it's works for me now. It's about as tolerable as XP at this point. My advice is just go as cheap as you can. I assuming this is a gaming box, and in terms of XP vs Vista you're looking at pretty much equal compatibility. If you have the XP disc from your old box, use it. Oh and don't forget to go 64 bit if you want more than ~3.5 gigs of memory. Both vista and xp have 32 and 64 bit versions.</div>

Exmple:
UAC off: I open an xls file, make a few changes and save it again. Then I open it again: My modifications were not saved.

UAC on: I open an xls file, vista sends me a popup, I click "Yes, I know what I am doing!" I make some changes, save them. Reopen the file and my cahnges have been saved.

Only problem with this behaviour is that they introduced it in a patch, so before that patch you could actually turn UAC off, without the whole PC becoming nearly worthless!

locallyunscene · February 2008

I have UAC off and I have no problem modifying old files or saving new files. I've installed plenty of applications too which would be more likely to be restricted if anything. Maybe there's another setting somewhere, but I don't remember clicking anything so it is probably obvious if there is one.

Computer Advice

Comments