NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's time to upgrade, my PC's a 6 year old P4 1.4GHZ wonder, (okay, ancient, but still,... it works). Anyways I was thinking of retiring it and upgrading to Core2Duo.

The problem is, I know next to nothing about newer hardwares except from what the advertisers shoves down my throat.

Please suggest me some mid-high end spec that's easy enough on my wallet (I was thinking around 1k USD) and have a high service life ( I don't want to upgrade every 6 months, if possible, I would like it to last about 5-6 years with minor upgrades)

Anyways, I use my PC mostly for work involving graphics with Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop, and I don't really use it for high res gaming. I understand that I need LOADS of hard disk space for the swap file involving a 3000 X 6000 res pic.

So, fire away and thank you for the attention.

Harddiskspace is dead cheap, so you won't have any trouble obtaining a 600GB harddrive. I also recommend to get at least 2 gig of RAM to make the working with graphics smooth.
Other than that, most components on the market will fullfill your needs just fine.

If you're looking to build it yourself the following should be fine (I'm saving up to get a v similar spec):

CPU: Core2Duo E4400/E4420 (decent price : performance, very overclockable, *can* get faster than the E6600)

M/B: Gigabyte GA-965-DS3/DS4 (for DS3 you want the 'rev 3.3' version, nothing lower)

Graphics: Sapphire 1950 Pro/XFX or the EVGA 7900GS/GT (7900GT>1950Pro>7900GS)

RAM: 2x Corsair 1GB (800MHZ) - CAS5 if possible (that just internal timings, not hugely important)

Hard drive: for speed you will want two hard drives (both SATA), one for windows/programs (say 80GB or so) and one large one for your general files/My Docs/Swap file (has to be moved over through Control Panel). This second HDD can be as large as you can afford.

The rest of the components are fairly well matched, with not a huge amount of difference between one option and another (you still get what you pay for though).

Hope this helps

Thank you,

Anyways, about the graphic card, wouldn't it be better if I get something that DX10 compatible (Like the GeForce 8 series) or just stick with 7900? (I like NVidia, or so the advertisers told me ^_^)

DX10 isn't worth going for until there is something out for it (games etc), 'cos by then more and better DX10 cards will be out, and the current DX10 stuff will be loads cheaper. There is not a huge amount of difference between NVidia and ATI, they each have equivilant cards. The main difference is a little bit in price, and mainly gameing optimisation - NVidia works better in some games, ATI works better in others (NVidia currently also has better support in Linux).

So with that I'd stick with a DX9 card for the moment, and only upgrade to a decent DX10 card if you end up having games that really need it (for Photoshop etc they make no/very little difference).
Which card you get depends how much you want to spend, if you want something that will last and play just about all current games I wouldn't go lower than a NVidia 7900GS. The ATI 1950 Pro is slightly better and a similar price, so for a budget that would probably be the best choice. If you have enough money left over, then a 7900GT is better than both of those. If you really want a DX10 card, then the NVidia 8800 320MB (that last bit is important, saves a lot of money) would be the best option, but I would stick with one of the others.

Last note - there are a fair few manufacterers for both sets of cards, if you end up going for the ATI card, then stay with Sapphire, they are the best for ATI graphics. For NVidia, EVGA has a good reputation for standard cards, as does XFX. For pre-overclocked cards Gainward is top, but more expensive. Whichever you go for, make sure your case has decent airflow through it, they can get quite hot.

Aurora Foundation's specs are pretty decent...
Graphics: Sapphire 1950 Pro/XFX or the EVGA 7900GS/GT (7900GT>1950Pro>7900GS)

RAM: 2x Corsair 1GB (800MHZ) - CAS5 if possible (that just internal timings, not hugely important)

Just a couple of things... Board manufacturer (for the graphics boards) generally makes bugger-all difference; pick the cheapest, really.
The X1950Pro et al might well be more oomph than you need, if you're doing next to no gaming. You could save money with an X1600 or 7600-class card. Gaming performance will suffer significantly, but everything else will remain about the same.
You could go the other way and get a DX10 monster, but they're a bit of an unknown quantity (there's nothing DX10 to test them with yet), rather expensive, and if you don't game much who cares? It'd also necessitate getting Vista.

CAS 5 is actually quite a slow latency for DDR2 (it can go down to CAS 3), but it doesn't make much difference, and for you won't be worth the expense.
Edit: Oh yeah, "value" memory is evil. Don't buy it. Decent brand; Kingston, Corsair, Crucial, GeIL, OCZ, etc., etc. And try and check that your specific modules work with your specific mainboard before you buy them.

An important thing: Power supply. Get a decent branded one of those; Enermax, Seasonic, Corsair are a few good brands to get you started. I'd suggest 500W or bigger to give you plenty of headroom. Don't skimp on the PSU; decent ones are quite expensive, but cheaper than buying a new one and replacing your newly exploded mainboard when the crappy one dies.

Doh, forgot about the power supply - but yeah those are good recomendations. In general I agree the manufacturer doesn't matter, but some use better/longer lasting components.

For the most part I've spec'd up on assuming you are going to be using XP (at least until Vista gets a bit more reliable for program support- i.e. prob SP1). If you are going to use Vista you might want another GB of RAM if you are doing a lot of memory intensive graphics work (so going from 2 to 3GB)

Another PSU make that is decent (at least from what I've heard, they seem a lot bigger in the USA than UK) is PC Power & Cooling. I would recomend the Corsair 620X (very decent & efficiant modular PSU).

I probably wont upgrade to Vista until atleast SP2,... so I guess I'm save with 2GBs of RAM, anyways, is there a RAM cap for the Core2Duo mainboards?

from what I can remember it's 4GB (either that or that's the most that Vista can use/see or something).
Either way 4GB is the cap.

What sort of case/cooling are you going for? From the sound of it you arn't too interested in overclocking it at all.

Yes actually, I'm not that interested in overclocking,... since I'm not too hardware-savvy,... I hope some standard fans would do a good enough job of cooling,...

Or I'm so wrong that I need another advice on cooling?

If you're not overclocking then the stock fan should do for the processor & graphics, but case will need have a good airflow through it (standard is a fan sucking air in at/near the bottom of the front, and a fan at the top/back blowing air out as a minimum, but it depends on the case etc)

Using a 32-bit OS, 4GB is indeed the cap. However, due to Technical Issues with the x86 architecture (memory-mapped IO, I think) you won't actually be able to use all 4GB if that's how much you have; you'll get 3-point-something gigs. 3GB or less installed should leave it all accessible.
Any individual process can use at most 2GB of ram at once, on 32-bit Windows (3GB with a hack). The rest is reserved for the kernel.

Using a 64-bit OS (XP x64, any of the 64-bit versions of Vista, Linux, etc.) the amount of memory that can be addressed is huge; 8 terabytes, I think, potentially more.

As the Core2 is a 64-bit CPU it would be ideal to use a 64-bit OS on it, but you should check that any software you use is compatible with a 64-bit OS. Some just isn't. Saying that, I've been using XP x64 for over a year, mostly for gaming, and it's been fine. It might (if you're worried) be safer to opt for 32-bit XP and then upgrade to a 64-bit OS if necessary later.

As for motherboards, most have 4 DIMM slots, and the largest DIMM I remember seeing so far is 2GB, so you ought to be able to cram 8GB into a modern mainboard. Check the actual board supports that much before you try it, though; some might be limited themselves to the 32-bit 4GB boundary.
Ideally DIMMs should be installed in matched pairs; this lets the board use "dual-channel" mode, which is faster.

However, due to Technical Issues with the x86 architecture (memory-mapped IO, I think) you won't actually be able to use all 4GB if that's how much you have; you'll get 3-point-something gigs. 3GB or less installed should leave it all accessible.
Any individual process can use at most 2GB of ram at once, on 32-bit Windows (3GB with a hack). The rest is reserved for the kernel.

ooh, cheers - I wasn't aware of the reasoning there (or the 2GB process limit). It's good to learn something new :)
As for the rest, I'd forgotten about that difference in the 64bit architecture (not used it myself yet) so appols. for that.
(and that last hint about matched pairs/dual channel is well worth it - nice 'freebie' boost there)

Is it just me or is there a slight lack of technophiles on at the moment? I've been lurking on and off for a while now under different nations, and I'm sure I've seen threads like this with loads of people making suggestions before.

UpwardThrust and Posi are the resident technophiles, and they're both in North America somewhere - probably still in bed ;)

Yes actually, I'm not that interested in overclocking,... since I'm not too hardware-savvy,... I hope some standard fans would do a good enough job of cooling,...

Or I'm so wrong that I need another advice on cooling?

Try to get a case with 120mm fans. 120mm fans can push more air than 80mm fans, with less noise.

Also, like others said, don't skimp on the PSU. Get a good brand like PC Power and Cooling, Antec, Fortron, or one of the ones already mentioned.

ah right, so there are a couple more hours until the DAAMIT/NVidia/Intel wars start off then?

Try to get a case with 120mm fans. 120mm fans can push more air than 80mm fans, with less noise.

Also, like others said, don't skimp on the PSU. Get a good brand like PC Power and Cooling, Antec, Fortron, or one of the ones already mentioned.

Or get the Antec 900 case - that has one 200mm fan on top, along with three 120mm fans (my intended next case at the moment :cool:) - http://www.antec.com/uk/productDetails.php?ProdID=08009
It is fairly quiet (not as much as the P180B/182 range) but very cool for an airflow system. There has been a couple of issues with cableing (mainly just keeping it neat), but with a modular PSU that doesn't affect it so much.

I think it's time to upgrade, my PC's a 6 year old P4 1.4GHZ wonder, (okay, ancient, but still,... it works). Anyways I was thinking of retiring it and upgrading to Core2Duo.Multiple Benchmark Give the edge to Athlon X2 (over Intel Core2Duo) its simply better performance for your dollar.

BTW looks like Dell will sell at Walmart.
I expect good opening deals.

Multiple Benchmark Give the edge to Athlon X2 (over Intel Core2Duo) its simply better performance for your dollar.

BTW looks like Dell will sell at Walmart.
I expect good opening deals.

The Athlon chips have a slightly better price : performance ratio, but lack in general performance in just about everything compared to the Core2 family (this *should* change when the Barcelona core comes out from DAAMIT).

Real-life benchmarks (instead, and sometimes as well of, synthetic) have put Core2 ahead in performance for gaming, video & graphics editing and office apps (Toms Hardware Guide has gone through these, but the articles are too old to find easily).

The main drawback for the Core2 isn't the price, it's the energy efficiency - the Athlons truley whip Intel here, but if you aren't bothered so much on that side then even for the price, currently the Core2 family is the way to go. (This coming from someone who has been an solid AMD fan since building his first computer almost a decade ago)

AMD have cut their prices quite a lot, it seems. But an E4400 is £15 cheaper than an X2 5000+, and I know which I'd rather have... Might not be so clear-cut if you're unwilling to overclock, of course.

THG did a bit of mainstream comparison here (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/05/04/which_is_the_best_mainstream_cpu_uk/index.html), and there's always their CPU charts (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=464&chart=186) (which don't have the newer models, but the E4400 should be somewhere between the old E6300 and E6400).

if i had the money i'd get one of these from Dell, hehe

http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/precn_690?c=uk&cs=ukbsdt1&l=en&s=bsd

Dell Precision TM 690 Components:
Two Quad Core Intel® Xeon® X5355 (2.66GHz,1333MHz,2x4MB Cache) 1KW
Genuine Windows® XP Professional x64 Edition (NTFS) (+ Media) - English
No Business Support Required
16GB DDR2 667 Quad Channel FBD Memory (8x2GB)
256MB nVidia Quadro FX3500 DUAL (MRGA13) Graphics Card
750GB (7,200rpm) SATA II Hard Drive
250GB (7,200 rpm) Serial ATA II Hard Drive with NCQ
Additional 160GB (10,000rpm) SATA Hard Drive with NCQ
16x DVD-ROM Drive
No Floppy Drive




or, more likely one of these: http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsnb_m2010?c=uk&l=en&s=bsd&cs=ukbsdt1

AMD have cut their prices quite a lot, it seems. But an E4400 is £15 cheaper than an X2 5000+, and I know which I'd rather have... Might not be so clear-cut if you're unwilling to overclock, of course.I have never overclocked anything.
I am too busy to learn all the tweaks and tech-nicalities of over-cloaking.

and it voids my warranty.

BTW, why doesn't Intel over-cloak their chips at the factory?

I have never overclocked anything.
I am to busy to learn all the tweaks and tech-nicalities of over-cloaking.

and it voids my warranty.

BTE, why doesn't Intel over-cloak their chips at the factory?

It's actually pretty straightforward. And how would they know it'd been overclocked?

Probably because most chips made with the same core would wind up at pretty similar speeds, and it'd lose them money. They could've released a, say, 3.4GHz Core2 to start with, but if they release it later they might sell two chips to some people.

If you're looking to build it yourself the following should be fine (I'm saving up to get a v similar spec):

CPU: Core2Duo E4400/E4420 (decent price : performance, very overclockable, *can* get faster than the E6600)
At which point you should get an E6600 because you arn't a super computer geek.

M/B: Gigabyte GA-965-DS3/DS4 (for DS3 you want the 'rev 3.3' version, nothing lower)
I don't even know what you are talking about.

Graphics: Sapphire 1950 Pro/XFX or the EVGA 7900GS/GT (7900GT>1950Pro>7900GS)
May be a little excessive if he isn't gaming. Maybe cut down to a x1600 PRO

RAM: 2x Corsair 1GB (800MHZ) - CAS5 if possible (that just internal timings, not hugely important)
Or the information even likely findable.


And frankly, if you are just going to use graphics, might as well go try and not pay an assload for a Mac.

if i had the money i'd get one of these from Dell, hehe

[Snip Specs]

And, unless you had some app that really required eight cores, sixteen gigs of RAM and a really strange set of hard disks, you would demonstrate that "a fool and his money are soon parted" ;)

At which point you should get an E6600 because you arn't a super computer geek.


I don't even know what you are talking about.


May be a little excessive if he isn't gaming. Maybe cut down to a x1600 PRO


Or the information even likely findable.


And frankly, if you are just going to use graphics, might as well go try and not pay an assload for a Mac.

Ok, first thing the E6600 is a fair bit more than the E4400 compared to the speed increase (hence putting in that it's good price : performance).

Second, with the motherboard, the long GA number is the model number of the motherboard, there is a GA-965-DS3 and a GA-965-DS4 with minor differences between them. Gigabyte have updated their DS3 board a few times now and there are three release versions out, the latest being Rev 3.3 (and the others being a lil buggy/inferior)

The graphics, fair point, right now he could do with a x16xx card, but he mentioned that he didn't want to upgrade much in the next few years, and the x1950 pro is going to stay useable (esp. with vista and the way even the minor games are going) for much longer.

CAS timings are easily findable, just not very important outside of gaming and awkward to understand (short of CAS4 is faster/better than CAS5 etc etc)

And with Macs, yeah they're good for graphics processing, but Vandal-Unknown said he wanted to be able to upgrade which is cheaper and easier on a PC based system (and is used to Windoze, and it's easier to stick with what you're used to/what you can find support for easier)

If you want DirectX10 - get an nVidia 8800GTS - you can have an ATI 2900XTX but that thing uses more power than nuclear reactor can supply ... (OK 215 watts)

Those two cards are horribly expensive but an nVidia 8600GTS or 8600GT should be alright for most games at medium levels - do not get the 8500GT.

This is both helping and confusing at the same time.

And about Macs, true there's certain stuff that people who works in my line of work say about them (... being safe from virii (or is it viruses), more stable smart, chic, come to think of it, I think most of them uses Macs because it's more... fashionable, than a clunky PC). But, for me, Macs are too... rigid for me.

About the graphics card, well, quite frankly, let's just say, I hope for something that strong enough for Starcraft II on medium resolution.

Starcraft 2 is likely to need the x1950Pro/7900GT level of cards for decent game play (the official FAQ still say that the specs. will be released closer to the date.

(on a side note, Macs are not virus free, they just are nowhere near as popular targets)

I hope from all this you have a good idea on the components you want :)