Originally posted by hopscotchi would build a pc round the cpu.... the core of the system... and i would go for vista... it is not bad at all, people just like to mock microsoft
Quad core is a rip-off. You can run anything on a dual core E6600, and they're cheap enough to replace within 2 or 3 years. I'm using a slightly clocked e6700 and it idles lazily about 99% of the time. I don't recommend that you build your pc around your cpu. The correct order is:
1. Graphics Card
2. Motherboard
3. CPU
4. Don't buy Vista
What are you going to be using the pc for?
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopThe motherboard is really the core of the computer. If your motherboard creates bottlenecks for your CPU, RAM and HDDs, it won't matter if all the components are the fastest and best around, they can only run as fast as the motherboard allows...
i would build a pc round the cpu.... the core of the system... and i would go for vista... it is not bad at all, people just like to mock microsoft
Vista is a resource hungry trollop, that does nothing but sit around, trying to look good in designer outfits, too much make-up and cosmetic surgery.
Come to think of it, Vista is the OS version Anna Nicole-Smith.
If your buying a new PC now you should buy Vista. As far as I'm aware Directx10 will not be supported on XP. If your a gamer you'll be buying games that need it in the future.
Vista is pretty stable now, I've been running it since it launched since I had to test some software on it. There were problems but games have brought out patches to work with Vista.
2 edits
Originally posted by Crowleyits pretty unlikely modern mobs will create bottlenecks... afterall its designed to fit the latest cpu's, so a mob designed to fit a duo or quad core is not going to create bottlenecks whatever way you look at it, if you match the ram speed to the mob which you should anyway then once again i have no idea where you get this bottleneck theory from... i think its funny you would have the latest mob with a 1000mhz cpu and 256ram
The motherboard is really the core of the computer. If your motherboard creates bottlenecks for your CPU, RAM and HDDs, it won't matter if all the components are the fastest and best around, they can only run as fast as the motherboard allows...
Vista is a resource hungry trollop, that does nothing but sit around, trying to look good in designer outfits, ...[text shortened]... make-up and cosmetic surgery.
Come to think of it, Vista is the OS version Anna Nicole-Smith.
as for vista, sp1 has already been released for it which patches up a few bits... is it better than xp... yes... a different interface, but contrary to belief it is faster than xp, not slower, offers a comprehensive platform for developers and designers and UX runs best on the Vista platform
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopI wasn't saying bottlenecks are likely or anything - especially if you can afford all the newest and best hardware. I was saying you need to make sure your motherboard can handle what you want to do now and in the near future, then decide which CPU to run on it.
its pretty unlikely modern mobs will create bottlenecks... afterall its designed to fit the latest cpu's, so a mob designed to fit a duo or quad core is not going to create bottlenecks whatever way you look at it, if you match the ram speed to the mob which you should anyway then once again i have no idea where you get this bottleneck theory from... i th ...[text shortened]... rs a comprehensive platform for developers and designers and UX runs best on the Vista platform
Not the other way around.
Your motherboard is the most important part of your system. Period.
Bottlenecks are not a theory - it happens all the time. Not everybody has the money to spend on top of the line, newest, fastest and best components. Many people have to mix and match within a tight budget to build a PC.
They then buy the wrong components, because they listen to idiots like you who tell them to start at their CPU etc.
Rule of thumb - only buy buy and install the newest MicroShaft OS after minimum 2 years of bug-fixing, patching and compatibility problems being ironed out. Only do it earlier if you are forced to do so by your work or GOD.
I will run XP Pro until the next soccer world cup. DirectX 10 is over-rated, as is the new UI and it's much too resource hungry. Why should I upgrade my hardware to run a OS that may or may not run any of my current applications? Crazy...
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyI have a list of things i want for my new PC, the price tag so far sits around £808, and that's without the case, power supply, OS, or any extra cooling system. It's going to be a beast when i get it together, i just hope i can still leave it on for days as i download films
I wasn't saying bottlenecks are likely or anything - especially if you can afford all the newest and best hardware. I was saying you need to make sure your motherboard can handle what you want to do now and in the near future, then decide which CPU to run on it.
Not the other way around.
Your motherboard is the most important part of your system. Period. grade my hardware to run a OS that may or may not run any of my current applications? Crazy...
4 edits
Originally posted by Crowleywell if you want to be fussy about it the most important piece of hardware is the psu..... period...!
I wasn't saying bottlenecks are likely or anything - especially if you can afford all the newest and best hardware. I was saying you need to make sure your motherboard can handle what you want to do now and in the near future, then decide which CPU to run on it.
Not the other way around.
Your motherboard is the most important part of your system. Period. grade my hardware to run a OS that may or may not run any of my current applications? Crazy...
i've been working in i.t for over 10 years and in all honesty not once have i ever heard of someone building a pc based on a mob... also, if someone recommended a good cpu and suggested they build the system from that, i would class that as good advice and not advice from an idiot...
you will hear someone say i want an amd phemon... but not i want a socket am2... have you honestly ever heard someone say that? even the original post mentions the cpu and not the mob...
read a few more books on i.t then get back to me with something a little more intelligent
btw... doesnt say a lot about your i.t curiosity when ms bring out a new os and you leave it two years to install.... i had the beta almost a year ago, its far superior to xp, mac osx interface... makes xp look like a kids toy with its green start bar and bliss fields... you can disable these services you know if it slows down the system.... though i'm guessing you never knew that
1 edit
Originally posted by Crowleyonce again poor advice... raid 0..!!! why..??? no parity, one disk goes down all data is loss.... buy an additional disk (3 in all) and go for raid 5... has distributed parity and if one goes down data can still be recovered....
If you are looking for just straight performance and don't mind taking a risk by increasing your chance of data loss, also consider RAID 0, with 2 or even 3 HDDs.
in future, dont listen to this other poster... he really has no idea
Originally posted by hopscotch"the correct order is..."
Quad core is a rip-off. You can run anything on a dual core E6600, and they're cheap enough to replace within 2 or 3 years. I'm using a slightly clocked e6700 and it idles lazily about 99% of the time. I don't recommend that you build your pc around your cpu. The correct order is:
1. Graphics Card
2. Motherboard
3. CPU
4. Don't buy Vista
What are you going to be using the pc for?
from whom...? who gave out this correct order... must have missed it..!
the fact you build an entire system based on a graphics card is beyond belief
Originally posted by eatmybishopHe clearly stated the risk and benefit of a mirrored drive.
"the correct order is..."
from whom...? who gave out this correct order... must have missed it..!
the fact you build an entire system based on a graphics card is beyond belief
Why is anyone suggesting a RAID for a home user anyway?
Read/Write speeds on modern drives will have little impact; virus scanning software has by far the largest impact in that respect.
Many seasoned and knowledgeable online gamers build by the order Hopscotch described, obviously you're not familiar with that environment.
A smooth visual experience is paramount, low frame rates, etc etc...so the 'card is the very best possible that can be afforded, the mobo that can accommodate the 'cards additional power requirements is next, and the CPU is actually last on the priorities list, behind a 550W+ PSU.
BTW, Vista SP1 has not been released, except in Beta....there is no announced release date yet either, so it looks increasingly likely to have been pushed back to Q1 2008, as they're still not happy with quality.
Originally posted by Zadadkayes, that is true, it is the beta version... more and more home users now are using raid to safeguard their data.... it is not for the sole purpose of servers anymore... maybe you're a little out of touch with the modern i.t world in that respect...
He clearly stated the risk and benefit of a mirrored drive.
Why is anyone suggesting a RAID for a home user anyway?
Read/Write speeds on modern drives will have little impact; virus scanning software has by far the largest impact in that respect.
Many seasoned and knowledgeable online gamers build by the order Hopscotch described, obviously you're n ...[text shortened]... asingly likely to have been pushed back to Q1 2008, as they're still not happy with quality.
like other posters on here you too are falling into the trap of specifying a rule of thumb for building a system... and i'm sorry, but the fact you put a cpu last on the list is very poor...
the truth is the list should be accomodated for the user... going by you and hopscotch, if a user wanted to build a pc to run cubase you would buy the graphics card first, then the mob, then the cpu etc... oh dear...
i have no idea why you mention read/write speeds with regard to raid... he wants to protect the integrity of the data, raid would be a wise choice, i agree with the other poster on that... he just didnt specify the best raid configuration