New Computer

[azzaman333]

I'm getting a new computer, and I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on it, especially thoughts on whether I'm getting value for money and whether the parts will all work when put together. (all prices in Australian dollars)

Intel E6750 2.66GH - $227
Gigabyte P35-DS3P - $165
4GB DDR2 RAM - $120
2x320GB HDD - $200
Inno3D PCI-E 512MB 8800GT - $335
20x DVD RW - $38
Windows XP Pro - $175
Antec P182 PSU - 195
850W TruePower Quattro PSU - $275
Benq 22" 222W 5ms DVI Wide Screen - $286

 

[Zelig]

Don't buy XP, there's no reason to get it for new computers unless you're running specific business or academic programs that don't work on Vista. 4GB of ram won't work in a 32-bit OS in any case.

The rest looks fine, prices seem high, but I don't follow prices for electronics in Australia.

 

[azzaman333]

Don't buy XP, there's no reason to get it for new computers unless you're running specific business or academic programs that don't work on Vista. 4GB of ram won't work in a 32-bit OS in any case.

The rest looks fine, prices seem high, but I don't follow prices for electronics in Australia.

Every time I look in a PC magazine, it consistently says that XP will outperform Vista for just about everything. So why should I get Vista over XP?

EDIT: Also, Wiki seems to suggest that 4GB is the limit for 32-bit OS, not 2GB.

 

[MarineCorps]

Every time I look in a PC magazine, it consistently says that XP will outperform Vista for just about everything. So why should I get Vista over XP?

EDIT: Also, Wiki seems to suggest that 4GB is the limit for 32-bit OS, not 2GB.

4GB is the limit. However memory is not just those ram sticks you installed. It includes all the memory in you computer. Got a Graphics card with 513MB of memory? Down to 3.5GB of memory left. Not to mention XP gets hincky with that much memory IIRC.

 

[Zelig]

Every time I look in a PC magazine, it consistently says that XP will outperform Vista for just about everything. So why should I get Vista over XP?

EDIT: Also, Wiki seems to suggest that 4GB is the limit for 32-bit OS, not 2GB.

The media loves bashing MS, the press on Vista has been far worse than it deserves. Similar to XP, and Vista was in far better state when launched than XP was when it launched, not to mention how much Vista has improved in the past year.

If you look at benchmarks done with modern hardware and drivers, XP and Vista are neck and neck, I doubt magazines have good hard numbers claiming otherwise.

Performance advantages of Vista are only going to increase with more cores and memory, it deals with multithreading and large amounts of memory far more effectively than XP does.

MarineCorps answered the 4GB question, in a 32-bit version of Windows, you'd likely have a little over 3GB available with that setup. Furthermore, the OS forces a 2GB memory allocation (not used memory, but simply memory that is allocated for potential use) limit per program. This will cause problems in certain applications and games. Supreme Commander with settings cranked up and enough units passes the 2GB mark, and tends to crash on 32-bit systems after that.

 

[azzaman333]

The media loves bashing MS, the press on Vista has been far worse than it deserves. Similar to XP, and Vista was in far better state when launched than XP was when it launched, not to mention how much Vista has improved in the past year.

If you look at benchmarks done with modern hardware and drivers, XP and Vista are neck and neck, I doubt magazines have good hard numbers claiming otherwise.

All the benchmarks I've seen have had Xp slightly ahead of Vista.

Performance advantages of Vista are only going to increase with more cores and memory, it deals with multithreading and large amounts of memory far more effectively than XP does.

So, to get significantly more out of Vista than XP I'd require more upgrading?
I just don't see how getting a significantly more expensive OS for slightly less performance is beneficial?

MarineCorps answered the 4GB question, in a 32-bit version of Windows, you'd likely have a little over 3GB available with that setup. Furthermore, the OS forces a 2GB memory allocation (not used memory, but simply memory that is allocated for potential use) limit per program. This will cause problems in certain applications and games. Supreme Commander with settings cranked up and enough units passes the 2GB mark, and tends to crash on 32-bit systems after that.

Well, a) I don't have Supreme Commander, and b) I don't think I have any games that I expect to be consistently pushing the 2GB mark.

 

[Zelig]

All the benchmarks I've seen have had Xp slightly ahead of Vista.

Well, since you haven't searched for good reviews...

This is from months ago, drivers for Vista have improved since then, drivers for XP haven't changed much: http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/nvidiavistaxp/index.php

What the graphs don’t show is how the performance deteriorated much faster in Windows XP though. While the game remained playable at all times, it only took a few hundred units (played against 2 supreme AI opponents) to almost halve the framerate in Windows XP, whereas the Vista installation took a significantly less noticeable drop.

The performance in Oblivion was virtually identical on both operating systems... On the other hand, all in-game loads (fast travel, loading a savegame) were slightly faster in Vista. This once again proves that Vista uses some very efficient memory management algorithms, something that will most likely prove to be very important in the future when games will require more and more memory space.

So, to get significantly more out of Vista than XP I'd require more upgrading?

Significantly more performance, yes.

I just don't see how getting a significantly more expensive OS for slightly less performance is beneficial?

Vista has better features than XP, and will have better hardware and software support in the future. I see Vista Premium 64-bit OEM on sale for $154 including GST on one of the first googled results for Australian computer stores, that's cheaper than your copy of XP.

Well, a) I don't have Supreme Commander, and b) I don't think I have any games that I expect to be consistently pushing the 2GB mark.

Not expecting to get any new games either?

If you buy XP now, it's comparable to deciding to buy Windows 2000 in 2003, rather than XP at the time.

 

[illram]

Your PSU might be much more than you need. This website is handy for calculating how much power you'll be using. Also, why two PSUs on the list?

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine

Also check out these forums where there are about a million new PC build questions exactly like this one:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-31.html

 

[kuukkeli]

Intel E6750 2.66GH - $227

Unless you're in a hurry I'd wait for the new 8xxx Core 2 Duo's that are supposed to be published later this month. They should cost about the same as the current ones do but offer better performance.

4GB DDR2 RAM - $120

If you'll stick with XP don't get 4GB memory. Reasons have already been given.

Inno3D PCI-E 512MB 8800GT - $335

Just make sure that you get 8800GT that has some other cooling system than the original reference cooler (unless you want to piss away the warranty by changing it yourself).

Windows XP Pro - $175

I have a mixed feelings about this. I'm not nearly as positive about Vista as Zelig but in a way buying new XP would still annoy me. At least find a shop that sells XP cheaper.

850W TruePower Quattro PSU - $275

IMO overkill. Take a good 500W - 550W PSU for about half that price and will easily be enough.

 

[azzaman333]

Vista has better features than XP,

Examples please?

and will have better hardware and software support in the future. I see Vista Premium 64-bit OEM on sale for $154 including GST on one of the first googled results for Australian computer stores, that's cheaper than your copy of XP.

What about comparing the most expensive version of XP to the most expensive version of Vista? Which XP is at least $100 better off.

Not expecting to get any new games either?

Not particularly. I only get a couple of new games a year for PC, unless thre is something really appealing about it to me.

If you buy XP now, it's comparable to deciding to buy Windows 2000 in 2003, rather than XP at the time.

What is so great about Vista that I should upgrade to it now compared to XP? Extremely marginal performance gains? A new interface? Something else?

 

[Zelig]

I have a mixed feelings about this. I'm not nearly as positive about Vista as Zelig but in a way buying new XP would still annoy me. At least find a shop that sells XP cheaper.

I'm not particularly positive about Vista, just negative about XP.

I'd happily recommend a Linux distro if I thought that one would offer what he was looking for. However, Vista is competitive with modern Linux OSes and Mac OS 10.5, XP is a six year old operating system which is showing its age.

illram: The Antec P182 is a case, PSU is probably just a typo.

 

[Zelig]

Examples please?

Lots of examples.

What about comparing the most expensive version of XP to the most expensive version of Vista? Which XP is at least $100 better off.

What features does Vista Ultimate have that neither Home Premium nor Business have, that you might want? Vista Business is approximately equivalent to XP Pro, and is still cheaper than XP on the site I normally use.

What is so great about Vista that I should upgrade to it now compared to XP? Extremely marginal performance gains? A new interface? Something else?

Performance gains, the features at the wiki link (including the new interface, if you like it). Longer support, and better compatibility. You're going to see support for XP start to drop long before support for Vista, same as Windows 2000 support dropped.

 

[kuukkeli]

What is so great about Vista that I should upgrade to it now compared to XP? Extremely marginal performance gains? A new interface? Something else?

Personally I don't know if there's enough benefits to upgrade to Vista yet (I haven't). Anyways IMO the main reason to consider Vista is its superiority over XP when comparing the 64-bit versions and their driver support. If you believe that you really need 4GB or more memory then 64-bit Vista is the only way to go. Other than that I'd personally prefer XP but I can see why some others are preferring Vista. It's a tough choice.

 

[warpus]

Intel E6750 2.66GH - $227
Gigabyte P35-DS3P - $165
4GB DDR2 RAM - $120
2x320GB HDD - $200
Inno3D PCI-E 512MB 8800GT - $335
20x DVD RW - $38
Windows XP Pro - $175
Antec P182 PSU - 195
850W TruePower Quattro PSU - $275
Benq 22" 222W 5ms DVI Wide Screen - $286

That motherboard doesn't support SLI... which is the only reason I can think of wanting a 850W PS.

You could save yourself $150 on that powersupply.. get a good one though! Just not that good It's a waste of money.

 

[azzaman333]

Personally I don't know if there's enough benefits to upgrade to Vista yet (I haven't). Anyways IMO the main reason to consider Vista is its superiority over XP when comparing the 64-bit versions and their driver support. If you believe that you really need 4GB or more memory then 64-bit Vista is the only way to go. Other than that I'd personally prefer XP but I can see why some others are preferring Vista. It's a tough choice.

I don't really need the 4GB of RAM, but will get it because its not much more expensive (relatively) for 4GB than 2GB. Plus, I'm comfortable with using XP, and don't really want to deal with these issues.

That motherboard doesn't support SLI... which is the only reason I can think of wanting a 850W PS.

You could save yourself $150 on that powersupply.. get a good one though! Just not that good It's a waste of money.

SLI was part of my vision down the road for the computer, actually. What motherboard would you recommend instead?

 

[Zelig]

I don't really need the 4GB of RAM, but will get it because its not much more expensive (relatively) for 4GB than 2GB. Plus, I'm comfortable with using XP, and don't really want to deal with these issues.

UAC takes about 30 seconds to permanently disable when you first boot into Vista.

I'm not sure what problem you have with DRM in Vista. There is nothing, media-wise, that will work in XP that doesn't work in Vista.

 

[illram]

Sorry to threadjack but I had a Vista DRM question for you Zelig-

If I am trying to play a copy protected DVD on my PC on a HDTV that doesn't have whatever DRM related permissions (maybe its old) does that mean Vista will prevent the DVD from playing? In other words, do the new Vista enabled DRM stuff mean some older hardware won't be able to play newer DVD or media? Just curious, I have an HDTV purchased in 2005 that I use as a monitor and don't want to upgrade to find that some content won't work.

/end threadjack

To make this relevant to the OP, there is also a TomsHardware forum dedicated to mobos as well... there is actually pretty much a forum dedicated to every piece of hardware imaginable at that site and its really invaluable for hardware questions, such as good SLI compatible mobos. Also read the Newegg reviews.

 

[Zelig]

Sorry to threadjack but I had a Vista DRM question for you Zelig-

If I am trying to play a copy protected DVD on my PC on a HDTV that doesn't have whatever DRM related permissions (maybe its old) does that mean Vista will prevent the DVD from playing? In other words, do the new Vista enabled DRM stuff mean some older hardware won't be able to play newer DVD or media? Just curious, I have an HDTV purchased in 2005 that I use as a monitor and don't want to upgrade to find that some content won't work.

If it currently works in XP for you, the same system would work with Vista.

DVDs have minimal content protection, it's only with Blu-ray and HD-DVD stuff that you have more problems with HDCP requirements on everything. Even this is bypassed relatively easily with a program like anydvd, and is legal in most of the world outside of the US.

FWIW, I've found legit blu-ray movies to be far more of a hassle to play on PCs than HD-DVDs, partly because of the more stringent content protection. Unfortunately, we'll probably be seeing more of this in the future.

DRM support in Vista is similar to DRM support in portable media players (mp3 players). Many modern players support the DRM technology from various online media stores (itunes, etc.), but this doesn't affect the players' capabilities to player DRM-free music.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Unless you really need the space, save 100$ off the second 320 gig and wait until you do need it. It will most likely turn out a bit cheaper by then. Also, I have never heard of Inno3D, so I have some qualms about that.

As for the Vista discussion: personally, I would not shell out for Vista atm, as I have a copy of windows XP ( non-OEM ) that I can install and would work just as well for now. But if you are buying new, I do suggest you go with Vista. Its pretty much on par with XP now in gaming, and if you don't like it for daily usage, you can always install Linux ( #civfanatics can help you with that one ) and have Vista in dual boot