Cost Of Assembling 64-bit Desktop Systems

[monty]

The Lian-Li cases and some more high quality stuff like PSU's and cooling stuff is stocked by Busitek in Pantip

http://www.busitek.com

Pricelist

http://www.busitek.com/forms/pricelist.html

Edited February 17, 2005 by monty

[Firefoxx]

2100 baht for the Enermax is the Busitek price... I got the same PSU from another store (it's right in front of the 3rd floor elevators) for 1,800 baht. This was used in the aluminum case, for 2 120GB harddisks and a CDrom, with the P5GD1. I think it's adequate for up to 4 harddisks + 2 optical drives.

[MikeWill]

Thanks guys.

In short, the Chinese aluminum case + Enermax PSU is a sufficient solution and could be fount at Pantip for ~THB 4,000.

More on data storage:

Examining the details and functions of the main board, this is what I've found about RAID:

RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks).

A collection of disk drives that offers increased performance and fault tolerance. There are a number of different RAID levels. The three most commonly used are 0, 1, and 5:

Level 0: striping (spreading out blocks of each file across multiple disks). Level 1: disk mirroring.

Level 3: Same as Level 0, but also reserves one dedicated disk for error correction data. It provides good performance and some level of fault tolerance.

Level 5: data striping at byte level, also stripe error correction information. This results in excellent performance and good fault tolerance.

Most boards today provide SATA (Serial ATA) for connecting the HDDs.

Maybe pandit35 or someone else could explain how to connect several SATA HDDs using RAID. This could probably provide an answer to the issue of backups raised by RDN.

Still, recommendations on specific HDD are welcome. And also the way to partition them.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Condo_bk

[Firefoxx]

To make a RAID array, you just connect two or more harddisks (usually of the same size and make) to a controller and then setup the array. If the RAID is through hardware, you set it up in bios, during bootup, if not, then you can set it up in windows (software RAID).

The main use of RAID (other than RAID 0, which is faster but riskier than a single disk) is to make a system survive the death of 1 (or more) harddisks. It is not a true backup solution, as it does not prevent data loss from virii, deletion, user error, theft, fire, etc. For that, a backup that is separate from the computer is necessary.

As to particular harddisks, of course you should get SATA, since that's the current standard. Size depends on your needs, but the most cost effective (cheapest per GB) are the 120-200GB models. Seagate and Maxtor both have good warranties, Seagate with 5 years, but also slightly more expensive. The newest SATA models have something called command queuing, which supposedly makes them perform better.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Firefoxx

[MikeWill]

Thanks a lot Firefoxx.

Hopefully, I get the point.

As for specific HDDs, here are some (w/price indications):

Maxtor

DiamondMax Plus9 6Y080M0 80GB, 7200 RPM, SATA (3 Years Maxwell) -THB 3,000

DiamondMax Plus9 6Y0160M0 160GB, 7200 RPM, SATA (3 Years Maxwell) - THB 4,300

Seagate

Barracuda 7200.7 ST380013AS 80GB, 7200 RPM, SATA (5 Years D COM) - THB 2,990

Barracuda 7200.7 ST3120026AS 120GB, 7200 RPM, SATA (5 Years D COM) - THB 3,990

Barracuda 7200.7 ST3160023AS 160GB, 7200 RPM, SATA (5 Years D COM) - THB 4,600

What is an average space required for OS (WinXP) and major programs, so to set up partitions accordingly.

How would you partition (if at all) let's say 120GB HDD?

[waldwolf]

Condo_bk - As you are planning (hoping) this new system will last 4+ years and from what we already know about future developments in OS's, Video, Audio, "BlueLight" lasers, etc etc. I personally would be looking at much larger HDD(s) than 80-160GB. Most commercial desktops, in the mid-range, have 200GB or larger HDD's. (Seagate now offers a Barracuda 400GB, 7200rpm, 8ms, SATA - Model No. ST3400832AS)

As to the other info you asked about:

WinXP Home or Pro Requirements:

Minimum:

233 MHz CPU

64Mb RAM

1.5 GB of available hard disk space

Maximum:

4 GB of RAM

2 Physical CPUs (With Hyper-threading 4 Virtual CPUs)

Office XP Requirements: (Minimum)

128 MB Ram

245 MB Hard-Disk Space

Office 2003 Requirements: (Minimum)

128 MB Ram

400 MB Hard-Disk Space

cheers

[chanchao]

> As you are planning (hoping) this new system will last 4+

> years and from what we already know about future developments

> in OS's, Video, Audio, "BlueLight" lasers, etc etc. I personally

> would be looking at much larger HDD(s) than 80-160GB.

No. Buy for what you need THIS year. Any future requirements for storage can be met by just adding a harddrive: And that 400 GB "monster" of today will be a mainstream 3990 baht drive by then. Don't spend premium money on empty disk space!

Unless of course you expect harddrive prices to start behaving like the price of land or the price of gold.. Land prices tend to go up: so get it while you can... Harddrives however....

That said, if you do any video whatsoever then 80 Gb will fill up very fast indeed. Seems to me 160 Gb is the current 'sweet spot'. Like, let's do the math for the Maxtor:

80 Gb - 3000 vs 160 Gb = 4300

Here a 100% increase in size nets you only a 43% increase in price. Double the space for 1300 baht: Cool! However if you get very big then the price will proportionally increase more then the benefit: In this case only spend when you absolutely need that storage today.

[chanchao]

And......... personally.... all those specs & numbers in the end mean very little to your computing experience. Want to know what makes a difference in you computing experience?

Here: http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP....pt=cpu_Displays

(Especially check out the XBRITE ones.. stunning. And no geek-degree needed to appreciate it either..)

That's where I would spend, and would sacrifice just about any state-of-the-art component.

Cheers,

Chanchao

[chingy_]

i been looking at those too, to go along with the new PC, OUCH! the prize are pretty steep

[MikeWill]

Finding an optimal solution for the HDD.

Unitizing the input from pandit35 (having several smaller HDDs is more efficient and reliable), waldwolf, chanchao and Firefoxx, would it be the correct assumption to start with 1 HDD first, and as time goes there is an option to add another one.

BTW, does the partitioning of HDD is speeding data across partitions the same as across the separate HDDs?

Probably the most cost effective solution today would be using the Maxtor:

DiamondMax Plus9 6Y0160M0 160GB, 7200 RPM, SATA (3 Years Maxwell) - THB 4,300

Your comments please...

[Firefoxx]

I don't know about efficiency, but having several small (80GB or less) harddisks can be very hard on the wallet, since they cost a lot per gigabyte. What pandit probably meant was that if you have 2 separate physical harddisks (not 2 partitions on the same harddisk) on two separate channels (not master/slave) then you would have two sources of information that would (theoretically) run at their full speed. So, for example, if you put your OS on one, and your virtual memory on the other, you would (theoretically) be able to access both at the same time for optimal efficiency. In practice, I don't know how much you gain.

Adding a harddisk isn't hard. I started with 1, I now have 6. With the aluminum or lian-li case, cooling is not a problem since there are two fan mounts directly in front of the harddisk mounts.

Of course, regular backups are recommended. I use DVD-Rs, as they are cheap (<20 baht/disc), hold a lot (4.4GB), and are fairly fast (6-8 minutes/disc). If you have very critical data, then get two harddisks for RAID 1 mirroring.

On 64-bit and multi-core:

64-bit Intels (EM64T) will be launched in the second quarter of this year. Dual-core Intels will launch at the same time, and will require the new 945/955 chipsets. Dual-core for desktops will not have hyperthreading.

Edited February 20, 2005 by Firefoxx

[waldwolf]

Condo_bk - As concerns partitioning vs. a second HDD, you can measure a difference in access time, but it's doubtful you'd be able to tell the difference, in normal useage. A partitioned HDD does not necessarly protect you from "loss" if the HDD crashes. (It may in fact add to the difficulty and cost of recovery.)

I wouldn't say having 2 HDD's is more efficient than having one, but it certainly is more reliable, when it comes to preserving data, assuming of course the second HDD holds the exact same data. (One might make the comparison to an aircraft. Would you prefer to fly over water or uncharted areas in an airplane with 1 engine, or 2 engines? ) Be it a second HDD, DVD, CD or tape, when it comes to protecting data, the name of the game is backup, backup, backup.

Today, a 160GB HDD is probably the most cost effective when comparing price per GB, however, these comparisons can and do change rapidly, as you know. With the OEM demand for more and more HDD capacity, the retail price of smaller sized units continues to drop. Six months ago a 120GB/7200rpm/8MB cache unit sold at retail for around $120 (US). Today you can buy them on sale for as little as $59 (US). For this reason, as I suggested earlier, I'd make any HDD decision just prior to actual construction.

cheers

Edited February 20, 2005 by waldwolf

[waldwolf]

^^^

(PS - .....and don't forget to also look at the HDD's cache size. Over 200GB were now beginning to see some with 16MB caches. )

[chanchao]

> i been looking at those [sony XBrite LCD displays] too, to go along with the

> new PC, OUCH! the prize are pretty steep

Yess... Like I see 17" Samsung or LG displays for like 13-14K or so. Cheapest Sony is just tad above that at about 15K, however the Sony with XBrite display is pushing 20k, about the same as a 19" Samsung panel. Picture quality of the Sony is stunning though..

Cheers,

Chanchao

[The Coder]

> i been looking at those [sony XBrite LCD displays] too, to go along with the

>  new PC, OUCH! the prize are pretty steep

Yess... Like I see 17" Samsung or LG displays for like 13-14K or so. Cheapest Sony is just tad above that at about 15K, however the Sony with XBrite display is pushing 20k, about the same as a 19" Samsung panel.  Picture quality of the Sony is stunning though..

Cheers,

Chanchao

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't comment on the appearance, but those XBrite's are mostly very low resolution displays!!! I've been running 1600x1200 or higher for 10 years on 20" monitors and would really be bummed to be stuck with 1280x1024. Laptops tend to be higher res than that. I think today a good CRT is still better than a good LCD in terms of resolution, latency, and color ambiance. Still waiting for this state of affairs to change as the tube's are just so darn big.

Well, the Intel 64-bit processor line has officially arrived! Check link below. My reaction is very expensive! Have to wait for reviews to see how favorably they stack up on the price/performance scale. I think this is the biggest marketing mistake in the history of Intel not to call these Pentium 5's. Instead they are Pentium 4's with EM64T technology, &lt;deleted&gt; does that mean to the commoner?

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050221_120427.html

So now Condo_bk, you can be in wait mode for dual core since it is the "next" thing .

[autonomous_unit]

Can't comment on the appearance, but those XBrite's are mostly very low resolution displays!!! I've been running 1600x1200 or higher for 10 years on 20" monitors and would really be bummed to be stuck with 1280x1024. Laptops tend to be higher res than that. I think today a good CRT is still better than a good LCD in terms of resolution, latency, and color ambiance. Still waiting for this state of affairs to change as the tube's are just so darn big.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would agree that CRTs are best in image quality and certainly in quality/cost for purposes of viewing photographs, movies, and video games.

For staring at text all day, there is room for personal taste but I think a good LCD with a DVI connection is much better... you can use cleartype and get exceptionally crisp and stabile fonts. I cannot stand the flickering, lack of sharp pixel boundaries, and wavering of CRTs after having spent work time with 1600x1200 20" desktop LCDs and 1400x1050 laptops. To get similar text quality from a CRT as compared to sub-pixel cleartype rendering on an LCD, I think you need at least ~1.5 times the resolution (figuring dot-pitch against screen size AND actual graphics resolution) and a desk with good clean power and no nearby electic motors or other EMI to distort the screen!

I preferred this because my work is all text based rather than working with images. I'd prefer video-out to a nice CRT television for watching movies and such. As you said, the colors and refresh rate on LCDs can be pretty poor.

The other camp that likes LCDs is just interested in the whiz-bang factor and hardly cares if they can read more than 25 lines of 18 pt fonts and web-grade images.

I guess the trick is learning what your own priorities are...

[chingy_]

im 1or2 day away from putting a comp togother, so many product to choose from so much headache, i have break down to what i want, any advise would be appriciated.

from what i understand that the (P5GD1) is a better choice than

(P4P800-E Deluxe) there for i will get the P5GD1,

but there are 2 board that is (P5GD1) and (P5GD1 PRO),which is better, all i know is that the P5GD1 have WinDVD Suite (Gold Version Only) that is the only thing different, also the P5GD1 is more expensive than the PRO, only about 1k baht different, so it doesn't make any different to me, i just want a better board.

*(P5GD1/LGA775/Intel 915P Chipset/Dual DDR400/PCI-E/Raid)----5,700baht

*(P5GD1 PRO/LGA775/Intel 915P Chipset/Dual DDR400/PCI-E)----4,650baht

*(P4P800-E Deluxe / Socket 478 / Intel 865PE Chipset )-------------4,800baht

there are 2 kind of Processor, which is which

*(Pentium4 3.0E HT Prescott)---7,750baht

*(Pentium4 530 3.0)-------------7,800baht

which one is the best for the Main-board

as for DDR RAM (2 / 512MB / Kingston)--which BUS should i use 266/333/400

the last and the most difficult to pick, im a gamer, i play game very heavily

*(Geforce or Radeon) and im not planning to put 10k baht for a graphic card, maybe 6k or less, i have my eye on the (Radeon 9550 XT)--- 3,950baht

the rest are just minor stuff.

i will make my final decision of what to get after this reply, thank-you

[sniffdog]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the last and the most difficult to pick, im a gamer, i play game very heavily

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then it's not so clever to save on a graphics card. Games benefit heavily from

graphics cards.

I have a Asus 9600XT (around 6,500 baht) which is a good choice.

Edited February 22, 2005 by sniffdog

[chingy_]

quite correct, i should consider spending more on those graphic card, dang! those card are very costly

Edited February 22, 2005 by chingy_

[MikeWill]

Well, the Intel 64-bit processor line has officially arrived! Check link below. My reaction is very expensive! Have to wait for reviews to see how favorably they stack up on the price/performance scale. I think this is the biggest marketing mistake in the history of Intel not to call these Pentium 5's. Instead they are Pentium 4's with EM64T technology, &lt;deleted&gt; does that mean to the commoner?

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050221_120427.html

So now Condo_bk, you can be in wait mode for dual core since it is the "next" thing .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and while "in wait mode"... I would like to ask for your advise/comments on the socket 939 motherboards. BTW, socket 939 should be compatible for dual core, isn't it.

Your suggestions on cost-effective display cards (and other components) to accompany the motherboard would be greatly appreciated.

As a side note, I do not plan on overclocking (for stability reasons), unless you suggest to do it.

[The Coder]

I would say regarding mobo to look at sites like www.sharkyextreme.com that setup and test cool systems from parts for advice (though they don't have one with the 600 series yet).

Have seen several sites benchmark figures of the 600 series and it's kind of a case where Intel excels at some things and AMD in others. The only exciting part is initial gaming performance on 64-bit (both Intel & AMD) is double that of 32-bit games!!! That is a unexpected boost as I always thought the video card was the primary bottle neck. It's still sketchy though as the OS and games aren't final.

Well, www.tomshardware.com concluded the below about the new Intel 600 series:

If we directly compare the 500 and 600 series families, the conclusion we arrive at is very clear: the new version clearly is the better processor, even though its doubled cache size does not make that much of an impact. Thanks to features such as EM64T 64-bit extensions, the Execute Disable Bit, Thermal Monitoring 2, the Enhanced Halt State and Enhanced SpeedStep, the new 2 MB Prescott finally meets the standard of being a processor that is both fast and reasonable in feature set and power consumption.

Normally a BIOS update should be enough to allow the new 600 processors run on the LGA775 motherboards out there. At only 2.8 GHz minimum clock speed and a reduced core voltage, the new processors no longer get alarmingly hot. This means temperature-controlled fans will finally be able to decrease their rotation speed. In short: the new P4 is what many users have been waiting for.

Yet as we have pointed out before, its feature list sounds very familiar: AMD has been offering 64-bit capability since Fall 2003, even though only a few users have been able to really benefit from it. The Execute Disable bit has been part of the Athlon64 - known as NX (non execute) - and demands for quiet and energy-efficient computers were answered by AMD's Cool & Quiet.

We would like to call the recent Pentium 4 a "face-lifted Prescott," since all the actions Intel took help to improve an existing product, but don't change its fundamentals. And given this, we must wonder why Intel is asking the user to pay so much more for features that cannot be called truly innovative. The new models really offer differ from the 500 series in offering SpeedStep and the larger cache. Why does this have to cost between 25 and 45% more?

In the coming months, Intel is going to make some real news in their Pentium 4 family. The best example will be the virtualization technology called Vanderpool or VT. We can only hope that Intel will not use this as another excuse to raise prices.

[MikeWill]

As Anandtech mentioned (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353), the SpeedStep technology and support for EMT64 were simply disabled on 90nm P4 5xx (Prescott), and the only real difference with the P4 6xx is in 2MB L2 cache.

The price difference for the moment starts at ~ $75 (for 3.0GHz) and goes up with higher clock speeds. (street price $257 for 3.0GHz)

However, there are no significant gains in performance (and some applications performed even slower).

Also the Cool'n'Quiet of AMD is more efficient than Intel's SpeedStep Technology (EIST), especially at lower end speed clocks.

The value of P4 6xx CPU is disappointing if measured in 32-bit performance, and can't be tested in 64-bit without availability of a 64-bit Windows.

Not sure if someone will jump on Intel P4 6xx CPUs at current prices.

It seems that AMD is currently a market leader, but... there some hindrances with motherboards/chipsets and the whole issue of SLI is still unresolved.

[Firefoxx]

chingy, the P5GD1 boards you're looking at have PCI-express slots for VGA. You need to get a compatible card. The X600 is a good deal, and is comparable to the 9600.

The big difference between the pro and the non-pro P5GD1 is that one has IDE RAID, the other doesn't. Both have SATA RAID.

With LCDs now at around 10k baht for 17", I'm almost ready to buy one for use as a secondary display. I still loathe the viewing angle and colors. The xbrite displays fix these shortcomings but are way too expensive.e

[chingy_]

thank for the info Firefoxx

i didn't noticed that so you mean regular VGA won't fit, for example RADEON 9250 or 9550, so i need something for VGA PCI Express Card.