George's New Desktop Computer?

[rio666uk]

Sorry didnt see the DDR2 in the memory spec of the OP.

Seems like a waste of money to me over standard DDR400, Unless as I stated before he's trying to run an ultra-high spec gaming machine. 

I put together (by hand) on average 2 PC's a week, frequently updating our office gaming PC's as well - Spending more on a motherboard does not increase its speed exponentially, you get more features, overclocking ability and a very slight performance increases.  For the OP's needs a brand name low-end motherboard would be more than fine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, no need to complicate things unless youre planning to overclock a gaming PC...

Poor George... the guy only wanted to know if it was a fair price....

[JackA]

You're right, about the SLI thing, but just keep the following in mind:

nForce4 SLI > nForce4 Ultra > nForce4 FX = nForce3 Ultra

If you compare the prices - SLI or Non SLI you'll end up saving around 500

baht. Given the choice, I would take that anyday over the ultra.

I like choices - who knows what the future might bring, just because the possibility is there don't mean I have to USE it. And with nFORCE4 SLI there's no doubt about the Dual Core support.

My original response wasn't directed at George, but rather @ Condo_bk

Just my 2 cents.

Edited December 9, 2005 by JackA

[MikeWill]

For the mainboard I like upgrade possibilities: Gigabyte GA-K8N-SLIN4 SLI (nFORCE4 SLI) : 4.200,-

Fully SLI ready, with the possibility to interconnect 2 similar graphics cards and get a nice speed boost.

RAM: Standard DDR PC3200 Memory (2x512Mb Dual Channel) (4.000 - 4.200) video card: GeFORCE 6600 (3.900 - 4.900).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

JackA, I dont see the need for SLI in George's case. Your system seems like a good idea for gaming or otherwise graphics intense applications.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, about the SLI thing, but just keep the following in mind:

nForce4 SLI > nForce4 Ultra > nForce4 FX = nForce3 Ultra

If you compare the prices - SLI or Non SLI you'll end up saving around 500

baht. Given the choice, I would take that anyday over the ultra.

I like choices... And with nFORCE4 SLI there's no doubt about the Dual Core support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would you compare:

1. Gigabyte GA-K8N-SLIN4 SLI (nFORCE4 SLI) : 4.200 with

2. ASUS A8N-SLi - nForce4 SLI x 8 / Dual DDR400 / 4-SATA / PCI-Ex2 / 1394a : 5,500

BTW, dual-core Athlon X2 3800+ : is ~16,000 today.

So, the whole system should be:

CPU : 16,000

MB : 5,500

1 GB Ram : 4,000

Video card : 5.000

Hard drive :

Case + CPU :

Somewhere around 35K.

[JackA]

How would you compare:

1. Gigabyte GA-K8N-SLIN4 SLI (nFORCE4 SLI) : 4.200 with

2. ASUS A8N-SLi - nForce4 SLI x 8 / Dual DDR400 / 4-SATA / PCI-Ex2 / 1394a : 5,500

ASUS is superior to Gigabyte (well at least that's my pow), but there's just one thing that really S*CKS on that board - the chipset fan - it's LOUD (spins 7-9000 rpm) and it WILL die within the 3 first month of use.

If you're willing to spend a "bit" more I would strongly suggest the ASUS A8N SLI Premium, which is the same as the A8N SLI Deluxe, but with passive chipset cooling (heatpipes).

The reason I suggested the 3000+ was because of price, and that most applications today aren't optimized for dualcore - so you can basically say that the x2 3800+ = Athlon64 3200+ under most circumstances.

BTW, dual-core Athlon X2 3800+ : is ~16,000 today.

So, the whole system should be:

CPU : 16,000

MB : 5,500

1 GB Ram : 4,000

Video card : 5.000

Hard drive :

Case + CPU :

Somewhere around 35K.

Yes with dual core that is about the price...

My current setup is:

Athlon64x2 3800+ (Manchester Core)

MSI Neo SLI Platinum

Zalman 9500Cu Led Cooler (Artic Silver 5)

SoundBlaster X-Fi

2x1Gb Corsair PC3200 (CL2)

E-VGA Geforce 7800GT CO 256Mb

4x300Gb WD SE16 SATA II Drives

And 2xLG DVD Burners 4167

Coolermaster Stacker Casing

Super Power 500W PSU (Single Rail)

And except for the stupid Chipset Fan - which I have silenced a bit with Fan Mate 2, I am happy.

[francois]

hi'

just my 2cts in here ...

don't choose a via chip ...

motherboard ASUS P5WD2 premium, not more expensive but rocksolid!

but this include a new video card PCI Express ... anyway!

and choose a good power supply, a good brand name, enermax, tagan etc ...

and a good cpu heatsink, the one intel provide is just crap for the Thai weather(too hot)

so, to be really ok, take a termalright xp90 copper with a good fan that push at least a good 150cfm, like a panaflo

francois

Edited December 9, 2005 by francois

[MikeWill]

I'm a bit confused, it seems that DDR 400 is faster than DDR 333, but price wise it's less expensive:

1. Kingston ValueRAM 184 Pin 512MB DDR400 PC-3200 - 1,840 baht

2. Kingston ValueRAM 184 Pin 512MB DDR333 PC-2700 - 1,890 baht

Both are under RAM retail, lifetime warranty.

Pls explain which memory is superior and why?

Edited December 11, 2005 by Condo_bk

[solo siam]

DDR-400 is better/faster, Its cheaper because they (now) make more of it, than 333 - economies of scale and all that.

[MikeWill]

Thanks for clarifications Ben@H3-Digital.

More one question, if I may...

Which RAM is better (the best) Kingston ValueRAM, Corsair or anything else?

[francois]

hi'

no doubt!

go for corsair and if possible avoid "value" ram

go for a ram class 2.5 or 2, you'll get the best speed you may expect from them

and if you go for a dual channel ram, don't buy them seperatly, buy a pack

it's far better as they are build for working together as nothing is different from one to another, 2 seperate ones aren't obviously on the same quality range, even if they match in numbers and series ... techy explanation could be boaring

francois

Edited December 12, 2005 by francois

[MikeWill]

Thanks for your insights on RAM, francois.

Any specific recommendations on Hard Drives: what brand, capacity, etc? Most posters have recommended Seagate, although I recall that someone mentioned its high energy consumption.

[solo siam]

IMO dont worry about brands, I have hardly had any piece of computer equipment go wrong in 20 years of building PC's. Unless your building a gaming PC, buy the cheapest ram, cheapest HDD etc...

High energy consumption, cant see any HDD costing even 1 baht more than any other brand to run per month.

[bkk_mike]

Just my opinion..

The price doesn't seem OTT - although to be sure of that, it would be easier if you had given the manufacturers of the motherboard and hard drive...

I assume you're going for the Via chipset because it's the only one that supports PCI Express and AGP. (presumably to let you re-use your existing graphics card.) - Personally, I don't like Via chipsets, but that chipset has been around for a while now, so there should be Bios revisions available for download if your run into any problems.

The only thing I would say is...

Did you check first what processors your existing motherboard supported. i.e. You could have got by with a processor upgrade (and maybe some extra RAM) for the specific needs of speeding up the encoding software, without buying anything else.

Obviously if you're planning on reusing your existing PC for something (that doesn't need the existing graphics card) - then it makes more sense to buy the new case/motherboard etc.

A couple of final points - Given current prices, I'm a little surprised you didn't go for more RAM. (2Gb rather than 1). Also, I didn't think there was much of a price difference between 7200 RPM SATA drives and 10,000 RPM ones, so unless you've chosen the slower one for noise reasons, it seems a weird place to save a little money.

[MikeWill]

Actually no, I don't plan on Via chipset, but nForce4. And taking into account the JackA comments on chipset fan (see above), I would probably go for ASUS:

1. A8N-SLi Premium / Socket 939 / nForce4 SLI x 8 / Dual DDR400 / 8-SATA / Dual PCI-Ex8 / 1394a / Silicon Image 3114R RAID Controller / AI CoolPipe : THB 7,990

2. A8N32-SLi Deluxe / Socket 939 / nForce4 SLI x 16 / Dual DDR400 / 8-SATA / Dual PCI-Ex16 / 1394a / Silicon Image 3114R RAID Controller / AI CoolPipe : THB 9,490

The problem with these MBs is a rather high price.

RAM

Corsair TWINX XMS 1GB, 2GB PC3200 Dual Channel Kit

1. Corsair VS 400MHz 512 M DIMM , DDR PC3200, 182 pin : THB 2,120

2. Corsair VS 400MHz 1 G DIMM , DDR PC3200, 182 pin : 5,020

2a. Corsair XMS 400MHz 1 G DIMM , DDR PC3200, 182 pin : 5,540

2b. Corsair XL XMS 2x 400MHz 1 G DIMM , DDR PC3200, 182 pin : 9,900

[Tywais]

Also, I didn't think there was much of a price difference between 7200 RPM SATA drives and 10,000 RPM ones, so unless you've chosen the slower one for noise reasons, it seems a weird place to save a little money.

I just finished writing a proposal for a hospital information server. What I found is that the 10k & 15k drives are nearly all SCSI drives (Enterprise class) and as such very expensive. The few 10k SATA drives (such as WD Raptor) available are 2-3x more expensive then ATA and also do not yet have the large capacities. Example: 74GB Raptor 10k > ~8000.00 Baht, 80GB ATA 7200rpm ~2500.00 baht. However the 10k SATA are still about 1/3 the price of an ULTRA 320 SCSI and nearly equal in performance (from comparative reviews).

There is also the issue of cooling. The 10k/15k will run hotter and need to be sure your case has good air flow.

[bkk_mike]

Also, I didn't think there was much of a price difference between 7200 RPM SATA drives and 10,000 RPM ones, so unless you've chosen the slower one for noise reasons, it seems a weird place to save a little money.

I just finished writing a proposal for a hospital information server. What I found is that the 10k & 15k drives are nearly all SCSI drives (Enterprise class) and as such very expensive. The few 10k SATA drives (such as WD Raptor) available are 2-3x more expensive then ATA and also do not yet have the large capacities. Example: 74GB Raptor 10k > ~8000.00 Baht, 80GB ATA 7200rpm ~2500.00 baht. However the 10k SATA are still about 1/3 the price of an ULTRA 320 SCSI and nearly equal in performance (from comparative reviews).

There is also the issue of cooling. The 10k/15k will run hotter and need to be sure your case has good air flow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OP said price included 7200 SATA...

I was just talking about the difference in cost between 7200 SATA compared to 10,000 SATA.

Nobody mentioned SCSI or ATA.

[Firefoxx]

Well, it isn't a *little* bit of money. The 72GB 10k raptor costs around 8500 baht, compared to a 250GB 7k HDD, which costs only around 5000. A lot less capacity, a little more speed, a lot more price. As far as these drives have been tested, the general result is that they are indeed faster, but not by a very large margin. I personally would get 250GB drives.

[Tywais]

OP said price included 7200 SATA...

I was just talking about the difference in cost between 7200 SATA compared to 10,000 SATA.

Nobody mentioned SCSI or ATA.

I was trying to say that there are not many 10k SATA drives out there yet and that large capacities also are not being made yet. It was simply a comparative analysis of the different technologies for information purposes. Don't see why my adding additional information for those interested warrants a tort reply.

[MikeWill]

HDD:

1. What is the difference (in speed or performance) between SATA and SATA II ?

2. Which brand is superior: Seagate, Maxtor or Western Digital ?

[Firefoxx]

1. There is actually no speed difference between SATA and SATA II, since the two are just monikers to certain feature subsets which *may* or *may not* be included in the drive itself by the manufacturer. So an SATA II drive may have the exact same throughput as an SATA drive.

2. No brand is superior. Don't base your decisions on brand alone, since any manufacturer will have its lemons. A bigger consideration is the warranty, since harddrives are a bit more fragile than other components and have a higher failure rate. Try to get one that has at least 3 years warranty from a major distributor. I tend to prefer Maxtors (warrantied by maxwell), since they have an upgrade plan, where you take in your old maxtor, pay the difference, and get a new drive with a new warranty.

[MikeWill]

Thanks, Firefoxx.

I've found quite extensive review of HDs on http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/27/round/ and after browsing thru', my HDs of choice are:

1. DiamondMax Plus10 6B250S0 250GB , 7200 RPM , buffer 16 MB , SATA (3 Years Maxwell) : 4,900

2. Barracuda 7200.8 ST3250823AS 250GB , 7200 RPM, buffer 8 MB , SATA (5 Years) : 5,390

It's probably not wise to invest in additional disk capacity (the difference in cost wouldn't be justifiable if the drive will sit half empty).

The relationship between price and capacity (price per gigabyte) remains acceptable in that size range, and that size offers sufficient storage capacity for the next 12-24 months. The $100 to $150 cost of such drives is also pretty reasonable.

If two versions of the same drive are available, and differ only in the amounts of onboard cache they have, pick the model with the larger one, as long as the price difference isn't too great. As a rule, this means picking a drive with either an 8 or 16 MB cache.

[JackA]

@Condo_bk!

Hi again - just want to mention that the main difference BTW SATA and SATA II is NCQ (Native Command Queueing), which should make the biggest difference. NCQ explanation found here:

http://www.seagate.com/products/interface/sata/native.html

As for the hard drives, take the following into consideration:

Maxtor Maxline (Series 9/10) have MAJOR issues with NFORCE chipset and NCQ (Major corruption). Read about it here, certainly a firmware upgrade of the hard drive seems to solve the problem, but who is gonna upgrade the firmware?:

http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=Article...=read&arc_id=59

Warranty 3 years

Seagate:

While being good drives, they do tend to get hot and are quite a bit slower than both WD and Maxtor. They do provide the longest warranty though (5 years).

Western Digital:

I would do the following:

Take the Raptor 36 Gb as the system drive (5 year warranty).

Get a high capacity Western Digital SE16 series Hard Drive (16Mb / 7200 rpm.)

And on a note - if you are into overclocking - avoid using SATA port 1&2, as they aren't frequency locked when overclocking (only SATA Port 3&4).

Happy hunting.

Edited December 18, 2005 by JackA

[Guest endure]

@Condo_bk!

Hi again - just want to mention that the main difference BTW SATA and SATA II is NCQ (Native Command Queueing), which should make the biggest difference. NCQ explanation found here:

http://www.seagate.com/products/interface/sata/native.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So they're catching up with SCSI then?

Even Novell had elevator seeking in software 20 years ago.

[MikeWill]

Interestingly, the further you go the more conflicting info you find...

This is a quote from http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/27/round/page37.html :

"Features like command queuing are technically impressive but don't have a big impact (i.e. on hard drive performance)"

And it goes on...

"Despite being introduced nearly two years ago, Western Digital Raptor drives continue to trump all 7,200 RPM counterparts in performance, and by a pretty wide margin at that. In concert with the trend in the IT market sector to provide exclusive products to important customers, there's no current premium drive that gives the Raptor a run for the money.

That said, a 10,000 RPM drive that incorporated current data densities and drive technologies could raise the performance bar noticeably, without having to restrict storage to a relatively small size, as is true for 36 and 74 GB Raptors right now. We'll just have to see if somebody's willing to rise to this challenge.

To those who might wish to upgrade an existing UltraATA system, we currently recommend the Hitachi Desktop T7K250 because of its great price/performance ratio. Those seeking bigger drives should consider offerings in the WD3200 family or the Barracuda 7200.8 lines: neither suffers from excessive access times, and both offer plenty of capacity. We'd build new systems around the Western Digital 3200JD right now, but if faster performance is absolutely essential, the 74 GB Raptor remains today's device of choice - just as it was yesterday's."

[Guest endure]

Interestingly, the further you go the more conflicting info you find...

This is a quote from http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/27/round/page37.html :

"Features like command queuing are technically impressive but don't have a big impact (i.e. on hard drive performance)"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Command queueing was designed into SCSI drives by IBM because they were designed for use with multi-user systems where command queueing does make a big difference. It allows the drive to queue requests from multiple users and pick the data up with one sweep across the disk. It also reduces wear on the drive mechanism as the heads aren't moving as much. Novell added directory cacheing which sped things up even more.