silent running

Every few years I build a new PC. I pick out the best 'bang per buck' components and throw it together but I've not kept up with recent developments at all, current CPU is an Athlon XP3200+ which gives you some idea of when I last did a build. I want what is the best price vs performance system really...

Requirements are that it will run Vista fast, generally I work with multiple browser windows open, Outlook, Word, various folder windows etc all simultaneously. A bit of shunting photos and videos around but nothing major, encoding audio every now and again. No real gaming requirements, maybe a quick bit of Command & Conquer every now and again and that's it. The number one criteria is that it can handle multiple tasks without slowing down.

So what's the best value for money system that will be fast, futureproof for a few years and do what I want? I can build it all myself, I just need to know what to buy, and what to match with what.

Cheers!

chrisUK300

iTrader: (10)

Intel Core 2 QUAD Q6600 2.40GHZ 8MB Cache Retail BX80562Q6600 - Socket LGA775 - AWD-IT.CO.UK

Asus P5Q Intel P45 DDR2 Motherboard - Socket LGA775 - AWD-IT.CO.UK

OCZ PC2-6400 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 SLI-Ready Edition Dual Channel - OCZ2N800SR4GK - AWD-IT.CO.UK

Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD753LJ 750GB SATA II 32MB Cache - OEM - AWD-IT.CO.UK

Corsair 520W Ultra Quiet PSU SLI & Crossfire Ready - CMPSU-520HXUK - AWD-IT.CO.UK

Gainward ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3 DVI PCI-E 2.0 - AWD-IT.CO.UK


Something like that should do what you need you could spend a bit more and get one of the newer quad core CPUs but the Q6600 is pretty good value

stevebt

iTrader: (8)

Isn't DDR2 old hat now and the best move would be DDR3 memory

Dedrater

***** to spending money on new hardware if you are not a massive gamer, just install XP (which is better from a security point of view) or if you havnt done so yet, just re-install vista for a massive performance boost.

Don't join the hype that you need a new computer every few years, my '****ty' server computer will run , Winamp, Firefox (10 tabs), a torrent client, Usenet apps, Photoshop, Dreamweaver on a 3.0ghz p4, 1GB of ram, this is of course running XP, if it were Vista then i would need another 1024mb of ram for the same result, why do you need to run vista? Does you employer use it?

staffs Mike

You could only build something "future proof" using the new i7 motherboards and CPUs along with DDR3 which are prohibatively expenessive i.e. £600 for All 3. Before the Case and PSU etc..

I like ChrisUK300's build. It's quite nice and well rounded with the quad core etc..

If I were building right now I would probably skip the quad for the time being as there is an absolute peach of a core 2 duo, well pentium dual core. The E5200 is 2.5GHz (£55) out of the box, but if you are willing to overclock (which is so simply it should be made a legal requirement of self builds ) to 3.5Ghz+

4GB of PC6400 RAM (£50), Western Digitals 640GB Caviar Blue (£45) the P5Q metioned is fine but I would get the PRO version for a few extra little features. (£85).

Graphics wise if it's only light gaming I wouldn't spend £100+ on the GPU unless you want to run these games at high resolutions etc.. I would get something along the lines of an HD4670 for £60ish.

chrisUK300

iTrader: (10)

Didnt realise the E5200 was so overclockable my q6600 hits a brick wall at 3.4Ghz, albeit on air, time to upgrade to water cooling i thinks

Dedrater

Problem is, I could roll out enterprise specs all day, doesn't mean you should buy it (anything) because you think your station is not up to it.

Mikes spec above is all good and well, but Silent is not a mega gamer pro?

silent running

Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated. I'm happy to do a mild overclock on whatever I use. Definitely don't need a gamer's graphics card. Any old thing will do as long as it's fairly modern. I would be interested in fitting it all in a midi tower rather than a normal size, don't know whether the standard form factors nowadays are OK for this.

Can someone explain the latest nomenclature e.g. E5200, Q6600, plus the memory speeds etc, as they seem so different from what I used before, I need a bit of a kick start! Presumably a dual core running at 2.5 gig is going to outclass an old single core Athlon at whatever speed?

Win XP is staying on my existing system - I never upgraded because I dual boot two XP systems on two separate partitions. One is bare bones and runs a pro audio system, the other is a normal 'home' system with everything else. XP doesn't handle the 'home' stuff so well any more, I don't think, it doesn't like multi-tasking at all, and I think it should. So my current system will become a dedicated XP based pro audio rig, the new one will become my Vista home PC. I just like how Vista looks.

staffs Mike

Midi Towers are fine for the specs above. If you want to stay really quiet I would get an Antec solo + the corsair 520W HX mentioned by Chris, I have one in my antec P182 and it is completely inaudiable. The 450W VX offers the same acoustics though, is more than enough power and is only £45.

Corsair HX's and the VX mentioned are seasonic built by the way so they are very, very reliable.

You can save a litte money by getting the Antec Sonata PLUS for around £110 which is the same case and a 550W antec PSU which is also very good and very quiet. Both PSU's are modular as well which is nice for cable tidying.

Well since your last PC DDR has become DDR2 and just recently DDR3 is trying to make it's move.

DDR3 is pointless for core 2 rigs unless you want stupidly high overclocks (which I assume we don't as they would require water cooling at the least).

So,

Core 2 duo or quads FSB speeds are rated as follows.

If it is 800MHz the actual FSB is 200MHz x 4. (So 1066 is 266MHz x 4 etc..)

DDR2 Ram FSBs are actually mulitplied by 2.

So, PC5400 (667MHz) is actually 333MHz x 2 and PC6400 800MHz is actually 400MHz x2.

You will find most people recommending PC6400 as it is both cheap (within £5 of PC5400) and offers all the overclocking head room you will ever need in a mid - high end core 2 rig

If you had more stressful multitasking to do, i.e 3D rendering on top of all this stuff, photoshop etc.. then the Quad will be invaluable but otherwise the dual core overclocked will knock your socks off compared to the older single cores (intel or AMD) even at a modest 2.5GHz.

The graphics card mentions the HD4670 is essentially a media card really with some gaming credentials. It's seen as the best buy when gaming at around 1280 x 1024 as it handles that very well, you can get very nice quiet versions (HIS for example) and it will sort all your Blu RAY/HD needs without putting any stress on the CPU.

I would also use Scan Computers UK: Computer Hardware - All as they have excellent prices generally and are simply the best component etailer for customer service which is nice to have if anything goes wrong.

They have a care forum here SCAN.care@HEXUS - HEXUS.community discussion forums to help with any problems which is very handy.

Iain Young

Erm, no it's not. Vista has a much better security model, (even if the uae stuff is a bit annoying).

That all depends on what you want to do with it. Don't assume that because a slow old computer will work for you, that it will work for someone else. I find my overclocked dual core E6600 very slow sometimes for the stuff I do (rendering HD video from Premiere Pro CS3 for example).

No it wouldn't. I quite happily run Vista on one of my laptops with 1024mb ram, and it runs more stuff than you've mentioned above.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Go to Scan Computers UK: Computer Hardware - All and get all your bits from there, cheaper than Chris's supplier
Scan Computers UK: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, Kentsfield Core, S775, 2.40 GHz 1066MHz 8MB Cache, 9x Multiplier, Retail

Plus if you are going to run a 1066mhz fsb, you want to use the PC8500 memory
Scan Computers UK: 4GB (2x2GB) Corsair TwinX DDR2 XMS2, PC2-8500 (1066), 240Pin, Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 5-5-5-15, EPP

Easiest way to work out the best memory for your fsb is divide the 6400 or 8500 by 8, ie 6400/8 = 800, so its good for 800mhz bus, the 8500+/8 = 1062.5 but you round it up to 1066, is even better for the 6600 quad core cpu which has a 1066mhz fsb

Tony

silent running

Keep the info coming. Oh, for the days when the OS was in ROM when you switched the computer on and you programmed everything to fit into 1k...

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Oh dont remind me so many issues trying to get star wars x fighter or whatever it was to work because of conflicts

Tony

staffs Mike

That's not quite right. Never heard the divide by 8 thing, seems to sort of work but it's not right with regard to matching CPU to RAM.

DDR2 is Double Data Rate so as I said the actual FSB is multiplied by two. So the rated FSB has to be divided by 2 i.e PC6400 = 400MHz x 2 = 800Mhz

The Chips are multiplied by 4. You will see in your BIOS perhaps even in your post (or run CPU-Z in windows) that the FSB is acually 266MHz for a rated 1066MHz chip.

So all you actually need for a 1066MHz chip like the Q6600 is PC4200 (266Mhz x 2 = 533Mhz) But PC6400 allows you all the overclocking room you need for a Q6600.

A Q6600 running at 400Mhz is 3.6GHz which is pretty much as high as they go on air cooling.

PC8500 has very little advantage over PC6400 unless you overclocking way past 400MHz.

silent running

Oh yeah, bummer. I forgot about that. Messing about with autoexec.bat and config.sys etc to get stuff to run at all, let alone smoothly!

I think I've got the hang of it all now, from what you've all said. Cheers!

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Now you have confused me Mike
So cpu-z tells me my core speed is 1604mhz (just not to confuse people and that I do have a 2.4ghz quad core, 1604mhz * 6 as this is the multiplier, / number of cores, ie 4 = 2.4), that I can understand, my FSB is 1069 (1066mhz), so thats ok , the bus speed is 267.3 and I have a multiplier of 6, 6*267.3 = my 1604mhz, not a problem with that

My memory comes up at 400mhz, (as im running pc6400@800mhz not a problem there )
My fsb:dram ratio is 2:3, so thats my 400mhz *2 /3 = 266mhz, now I can effectively multiply that by 2 to give my my 533mhz as my memory is 800mhz (or do it 800*2/3 = 533mhz)
Now my understanding from here is that as its a front/side bus (ie each runs 533mhz theoretically) you multiply that by 2, giving you the 1066mhz.

Hopefully ive not baffled too many people

Tony

silent running

What about Vista 32bit vs 64bit. Pros/cons?

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

The 32 bit will be more than sufficient for everyday tasks the limit is in the memory you can use, thats 4gb, the 64 bit is a little less compatable (I use the word little very loosely) due to not having as much support as the 32bit (drivers etc)
Unless your doing alot of CAD work, go for the 32 bit with SP1 included, loading SP1 afterwards can cause some problems and the standard Vista was known to have some "issues", though I use vista 32bit with SP1 and have never had any problems

Tony