To build anew or not?

[Martacus]

The computer I built back in 2002-2003 is slowly but surely dying. The processor gave out a couple weeks ago; due to its age it was a cheap fix, but my local computer store had to replace it with a used processor. Slower than what I had, too, but it was what they had on hand and my computer is running again, albeit at a somewhat diminished capacity.

As an addendum to this, my computer had been during a direct lightning strike on our house about four years ago, so computer parts failing on me is not a surprise.

Which brings me to a something I've been trying to put off as long as possible: replacement. My computer did just fine for me for so long that I'm once again a bit out of the loop as far as building a computer is concerned.

Mainly the changes in processor technology--multiple-cores and whatnot. Is, say, a triple- or quad-core processor at a lower processing speed worth the added expense over a dual-core running at a higher speed? I don't even know what these "dual/triple/quad" -cored processors do that makes them so different from others.

Is AMD still a perfectly viable alternative to more expensive Intel, performance-wise?
I've noticed that prices have come WAY down for most other computer components lately (RAM is dirt-cheap; a 1TB hard disk costs less than a good 100GB HD did six years ago) and money is a bigger issue for me now that I've got more financial responsibilities.

What I'm really looking to build is something with a little room for gaming growth, but which can run most currently-existing games quite well. I'm looking forward to, say, Starcraft 2 whenever it's out, and I'd like to be able to play Half-Life 2 etc.

The primary questions I'm asking myself as I go through my options:

1) How much should I be looking to spend on a new processor/motherboard?

2) Would on-board graphics/sound be good enough for my needs?

3) How much RAM will I need for my system?

4)Is my current 400W power supply adequate for current systems?

5) Can I build an adequate system for under, say, $500, given that I can use some parts I still have on-hand?

6) Should I get Vista, or stick with XP for the time being? I understand there are some backwards-compatibility and user-friendliness issues, and I've already got XP Pro. New OSes are expensive and I don't have the patience to deal with Linux.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

About multi-core processors: As far as I understand, they're more efficient. Because of the way they handle threads. Good, understandable article about it.

In my experience, on-board/integrated graphics can be pretty crummy. Sound.... well, I don't know what non-integrated sound is like, but I'm happy with mine.

If you want to go for a 32-bit system (which I think is more compatible), don't bother with more than 4gigs of RAM. I have 4gigs, and Vista is amazingly fast on it. (I have Home Basic so I don't use Aero.)

 

[Aramazd]

Mainly the changes in processor technology--multiple-cores and whatnot. Is, say, a triple- or quad-core processor at a lower processing speed worth the added expense over a dual-core running at a higher speed? I don't even know what these "dual/triple/quad" -cored processors do that makes them so different from others.

Depends on what you're doing. At your budget dual-core make the most sense.

Is AMD still a perfectly viable alternative to more expensive Intel, performance-wise?

Sort of. The Phenom II is pretty competitive with Core2 Quads though Corei7 blows it out of the water. Given your budget a Pentium Dual Core might be the best investment.

What I'm really looking to build is something with a little room for gaming growth, but which can run most currently-existing games quite well. I'm looking forward to, say, Starcraft 2 whenever it's out, and I'd like to be able to play Half-Life 2 etc.

That's doable on a budget.

The primary questions I'm asking myself as I go through my options:

1) How much should I be looking to spend on a new processor/motherboard?

Not much. An E5200 is $70. And a decent mobo can be found for under $100

2) Would on-board graphics/sound be good enough for my needs?

Dedicated graphics is a must. You can pick up a Radeon 4770 for about $100. Discrete sound is not really necessary.

3) How much RAM will I need for my system?

Might as well stick 4GBs in there although you can go lower if you need to.

4)Is my current 400W power supply adequate for current systems?

Depends, if it's a good PSU it should be fine.

5) Can I build an adequate system for under, say, $500, given that I can use some parts I still have on-hand?

Yes.

6) Should I get Vista, or stick with XP for the time being? I understand there are some backwards-compatibility and user-friendliness issues, and I've already got XP Pro. New OSes are expensive and I don't have the patience to deal with Linux.

Since you already have XP Pro, I'd say stick with it and wait for Windows 7 to be released. (or download the Windows 7 RC and use that.)

 

[Zelig]

Since you already have XP Pro, I'd say stick with it and wait for Windows 7 to be released. (or download the Windows 7 RC and use that.)

FWIW, June 22 looks to be the date when copies of Vista purchased get a free upgrade to Windows 7.

And I've had problems using 20 pin power supplies on boards which accept 24 pin ones, even when they should technically work; enough problems that I recommend against trying.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

One thing I will mention though: there is a big hulabaloo with the Core i7's now: they're being discontinued, except for the most expensive version. In essense, this means that they will become enthusiast-only parts fairly soon, and until the release of Core i5 will be the only Nehalem and later architecture CPU's avaiable as consumer processors ( there's always Xeons, but thats a different story)

A 500$ system is very much possible, especially if you have all the peripherals. You may need to get a new PSU, although if yours is a high-end (for when it was made) then it will likely power the system fine. I wouldnt rely on it so much though, as the power rating was ( and still is ) exaggerated for the most part.
On a budget, you're not going to need SLi, but since most P45/P43 motherboards support crossfire, Id look into getting a Radeon -- something like the 4770 if you can find one ( they're really low in numbers due to the problems with the 40nm process they're based on). This way, at a later date, you can get a second GPU and a newer CPU.
As Aramazd said, you can get a E5200 for 70$ or so, and if you're willing to try, you can OC it quite a bit.
RAM is cheap, and 4GB will run you around 25$ if you find a decent sale. You wont need DDR2 1066 which is a bit more expensive ( 50+$ for 4GB ), so you can choose from the much bigger variety of DDR2 800 RAM available.

And no, stick with XP. No reason to get Vista now that Windows 7 has a free RC build available and is generally so close to release.

 

[Maniacal]

I'd recommend NVIDIA over ATI, while both have good and bad cards, ATI drivers have irritating problems with soem games more often than NVIDIA, and are usually updated slower.

The 280s in the 200 series for NVIDIA are their latest cards, but the 9800s which are also around $100 USD are still pretty decent (albeit barely improved above the 8XXX series). My 8800GT is still running everything I have at max.

I'd get a new PSU, something more like 600 watts.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

the only reason I see getting nVidia over ATi is if you do CUDA apps ( like folding at home)
Otherwise, ATi's latest series is very good, especially for the price/performance. nVidia's 200 series are still for the most part, except for the GTS250 in the 200$ range. ATi on the other hand, offers very comparable performance for a better price. The 4770 is where its at if you're on a low budget.

There tend to be more deals with nVidia cards though and I know most of the manufacturers for them are great: EVGA, XFX, BFG are all excellent companies, although XFX now plays both sides of the fence.

Really though, look into what you want to do, see if any games are reported to have showstopping bugs due to a certain card, and go from there. When I was choosing my GPU, I had the choice of a GTX 260 or HD 4870. I chose the GTX 260 because it suited my needs better than the HD 4870, even though both were at a similar price and comparable performance.

 

[Formaldehyde]

My advice is to get as much computer as your budget will allow while staying away from anything just released, because you always pay a hefty premium for bleeding edge.

Get the best processor / graphics card you can afford after subtracting out the other expenses that you need after salvaging whatever you can from your existing box: PSU, chassis, HD, DVD, etc. And get a bigger PSU than you think you need. It has been my experience that most problems with upgrading existing systems are due to inadequate power. It also pays to get a PSU from a reputable vendor, such as PCP&C. I even now consider them to be the only PSU vendor I would use...

Conventional wisdom is to get 3GB memory for 32-bit Windows and 8 GB for 64-bit. The reason for this is because 32-bit Windows is limited to addressing 4GB, but the video memory must be subtracted out of that total:

http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-32-bit-vista-memory-limits/

I would definiltey recommend getting at least a dual core processor. A single CPU wastes a huge amount of time switching between system tasks and user tasks, much less if you want it to perform two applications at the same time. For instance, I am logged onto WoW right now as I type this message. Dual monitors are the greatest, but that's an extra frill you likely don't need. But keep it in mind for future expansion...

If you are really into multitasking, then a quad core processor might be a good investment. When I had a single CPU, I was constantly eating up 100% of its cycles. but with a quad core 6600, I have yet to see all the cores maxed out at the same time. The tradeoff is that quad cores typically cost a bit more and don't run as fast as their dual core counterparts.

And if you don't know about Newegg.com by now, where have you been hiding? They almost exclusively get all my PC business these days. They even have 2 really nice PCP&C PSUs on sale right now:

http://www.newegg.com/Store/Category.aspx?Category=32&name=Power-Supplies

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Conventional wisdom is to get 3GB memory for 32-bit Windows and 8 GB for 64-bit. The reason for this is because 32-bit Windows is limited to addressing 4GB, but the video memory must be subtracted out of that total:

There is no reason to get 8GB of RAM now, unless you're a very heavy user. The conventional wisdom has been to get a 4GB set no matter what type of OS you have. Its much easier to find 2x2GB sets than 2x1GB +2x512MB sets.
RAM is also one of those things that, unless the technology changes, or it poops out can be reused over and over. Doesnt hold so true for DDR2 anymore though.

Also, instead of getting a bigger PSU than you might think you need, figure out what you will do down the road. If you get only a powerful CPU now, and a crappy GPU, plan ahead for having a 300 watt buffer. Crappy CPU and a powerful GPU now? throw in 100 watts needed. And so forth. If the PSU you buy is good, then at the end of its usefulness to you, you can also sell it and get a more powerful one, using the income from the old one to subsidize the new one. As long as you clean it out well and didnt stress it too hard, you should be able to recoup 80% of the current cost of it ( current to the time you're selling it )
Formaldehyde is right though, you want to make sure you get a PSU from a good vendor. Make sure you google a PSU that catches your attention. In general, one brand ill take without a second though is Corsair, they have extremely well built PSU's, even though they come at a slight premium. That is in no way to say that there arent other good manufacturers out there though.

And yes, dual monitors are a frill. They're a great boost to productivity, but on a budget, that should be one of the first things thrown onto the "Maybe sometime later" list.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is no reason to get 8GB of RAM now, unless you're a very heavy user.

But if you are, 8GB under 64-bit Vista is pure nirvana. I finally think my PC can walk and chew gum at the same time...

The conventional wisdom has been to get a 4GB set no matter what type of OS you have. Its much easier to find 2x2GB sets than 2x1GB +2x512MB sets.

You don't really need to buy pairs at all. The performance you gain from dual channel memory is fairly negligible, although you should try to do so when you have a chance. I'd go with 2 1GBs paired up and 1GB standalone if I was building a 32-bit system with any sort of modern graphics card that consumes a large portion of your memory address space. You aren't saving all that much dinero, but even $50 might be a big difference to the budget shopper. But if you think you are going to upgrade to a 64-bit OS anytime soon, you are probably better off getting a pair of 2GB sticks so you can add 4GB more when you upgrade your OS.

RAM is also one of those things that, unless the technology changes, or it poops out can be reused over and over. Doesnt hold so true for DDR2 anymore though.

Heh. Good luck with that. At the pace of mobo advancements, you can pretty well guarantee that you will need to buy new memory for it.

If the PSU you buy is good, then at the end of its usefulness to you, you can also sell it and get a more powerful one, using the income from the old one to subsidize the new one.

PSus are getting awfully cheap these days. If I was upgrading a basic system right now, I'd get that 610W PCP&C for less than $70 with the mail-in rebate. You really can't beat that with a stick.

And yes, dual monitors are a frill. They're a great boost to productivity, but on a budget, that should be one of the first things thrown onto the "Maybe sometime later" list.

But it is definitely worth considering as a future enhancement when you are shopping for graphics cards, especially now that LCD monitors are getting so cheap.

The other area where you have to be careful in this regard is if you want to play any high-end video games such as WoW or AoC. They take huge amounts of graphics power and are only getting more and more greedy over time.

 

[Jazzmail]

1) How much should I be looking to spend on a new processor/motherboard?

Processor depends alot on many preferences. Mainboard: the cheapest compatible board from any respectable manufacturer will always do.
Just make sure it's the right board for the CPU, the RAM and the videocard you're going to buy.
The days when mainboards made a significant difference are long past.

2) Would on-board graphics/sound be good enough for my needs?

NO!! You wanted to play game right? Get a AMD HD4770 or something.
Though the cheapest soundblaster will do already.

3) How much RAM will I need for my system?

2 GB with winXP if you're really intent on keeping XP. No single application under XP can ever use more than 2GB VAS, which is even less than 2 GB RAM.

4 GB for Vista 64-bit (don't bother with 32 bit versions Vista)

4)Is my current 400W power supply adequate for current systems?

Sure, provided it is an Enermax or a Coolermaster or any decent brand.

5) Can I build an adequate system for under, say, $500, given that I can use some parts I still have on-hand?

Easily.

6) Should I get Vista, or stick with XP for the time being? I understand there are some backwards-compatibility and user-friendliness issues, and I've already got XP Pro. New OSes are expensive and I don't have the patience to deal with Linux.

That's the hardest question.
Eventually you will want Vista as a gamer, but you prolly don't need it quite yet.

 

[Zelig]

The other area where you have to be careful in this regard is if you want to play any high-end video games such as WoW or AoC. They take huge amounts of graphics power and are only getting more and more greedy over time.

What?

WoW requires a 32MB video card.

AoC runs fine on a sub-$100 video card with max settings at 1920x1200.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

PSU's are getting more expensive. Electricity costs are going up, which means running that 600 watt PSU at 30% load is gonna be rather expensive. You still only need the same juice, but your efficiency is lower.

Also, how long has DDR2 lasted? How long is it going to last? 5-6 year cycle means you can get 2, maybe 3 upgrades in. Even then, it can be recycled back to older systems, such as for younger siblings, parents, friends, etc. You'd probly have more of a problem due to capacity, not due to the technology changing.

As for the amount, Id still go with a 4GB set. They dont cost that much over 2x1 + 1 (50$ vs 40$), are often matched and take up less room. So when I decide to upgrade, I dont have to search for a compatible 1GB stick for that loner one, or dont have to pull out a stick. Plus, 3 sticks of different brands, or even the same brands, may not play together so well.

 

[Martacus]

Thanks for all the input. This all seemed so much simpler seven years ago when I started building my old system. Right now I'm actually bidding on a new (read: unused) E8500 Core 2 Duo over on Ebay; I might also get a motherboard there and everything else will come from Newegg; I had no problems there last time around.

The motherboard/memory issue seems the trickiest to tackle at the moment, simply because there are so many options out there. I know I don't need more than 4GB of memory now, but it would be nice to be able to expand later on, and also not have to deal with compatibility issues between two different types of RAM--and a lot of the boards in my price range for the above processor tend to have slots for both DDR2 and DDR3. Being able to go with only DDR3 would be nice, but those boards are pricey. I'll see how the auction turns out, get the other stuff I'm looking for (PSUs and HDs are pretty straightforward, and I remembered I already have a PCI-E Radeon X1650 Pro sitting around, so the video card issue is moot, even if it is an older model), then decide on this.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Stick with DDR2 if you're going with a C2D. Itll remain competetively priced for a few more years, long enough that if you do want to add in another 4GB it will still be relatively cheap.

 

[GoodGame]

1) How much should I be looking to spend on a new processor/motherboard?

2) Would on-board graphics/sound be good enough for my needs?

3) How much RAM will I need for my system?

4)Is my current 400W power supply adequate for current systems?

5) Can I build an adequate system for under, say, $500, given that I can use some parts I still have on-hand?

6) Should I get Vista, or stick with XP for the time being? I understand there are some backwards-compatibility and user-friendliness issues, and I've already got XP Pro. New OSes are expensive and I don't have the patience to deal with Linux.

I'd try to future proof and go for $300 for #1. But as was already said, you could get by for like $150, and most reliable motherboards are under a hundred. A fully, and maybe over-featured motherboard is under $150. I'd look to spend $200 for a CPU, but you can find older models under a $100.

@ #2, if you spend on a good mobo, and are happy with older games, you won't need a video card. But if you want games about 2007+, then get a videocard, and plan on spending at least $100 for it. Not sure what the current price/performance is, but I'd guess anything over $150 maybe a little iffy.

@ #3, At least 2GB RAM, but figure if you're building new, you should consider a Mobo-RAM combo that will take you to at least 6GB later on. Windows 7 is coming soon.

@ #4, if your PSU is like 7 years old like the comp, I'd consider getting a new one. 400 Watts is probably cutting it close if you stick sound/video cards in your system, so probably a high 500s/600s would be a good investment. EDIT: GenoicideBunny's comment on PSUs are interesting. Might want to take time researching 'green' PSUs that haver higher efficiencies.

@#5, if you're basically carrying over old components, and only buying CPU/RAM/MOBO/VIDEO card, $500 + tax +shipping should be about right for a quality system, though a few hundred more would help. If you need a new monitor, add $100-$300 depending on your needs, and much more if you want to a very, very large monitor.

@#6, I would wait for Windows 7 for an OS upgrade decision. The main reason to dump XP is to get over the useable ~3GB RAM of 32bit OSes. The main problem with a newer OS is whether or not there is support for your hardware and older software.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Not might, but you definitely want to research PSU efficiency. My TX750 is running at 500w load, so its drawing about 550watts from the wall. Thats 70$ worth of electricity per month where I live, which over the lifetime of the pc -- 2 years -- will be another 1700$ just to run the pc. Now, you probly dont plan to run it 24/7 like I do, but my point should still stand.

 

[Martacus]

Well, the stuff is ordered. I managed to get it all for about $370 after shipping costs. I got:

Intel E8400 processor & MSI motherboard (P35 chipset, I believe): $200 off Ebay
PCP&C 500W PSU: $68
250Gb hard drive: $50
4Gb DDR2 800 memory: $40
about $11 combined S&H for the two orders

Not bad; the CPU & board are used, but I think they're new enough components that it shouldn't be a big issue. We'll see when everything arrives.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Should have gotten a bigger HDD. 20c/GB is a pretty crappy price nowadays, considering you can get 1TB HDD's for 75$

 

[GoodGame]

Well, the stuff is ordered. I managed to get it all for about $370 after shipping costs. I got:

Intel E8400 processor & MSI motherboard (P35 chipset, I believe): $200 off Ebay
PCP&C 500W PSU: $68
250Gb hard drive: $50
4Gb DDR2 800 memory: $40
about $11 combined S&H for the two orders

Not bad; the CPU & board are used, but I think they're new enough components that it shouldn't be a big issue. We'll see when everything arrives.

That was a good price for the ram. Used? You might need to be replacing that before too long.