Looking at building a PC - help/recommendations needed

[ambient]

This is the first time I've done this so I don't really know what to look for.

I'm not a gamer, so I don't need stupid high performance. But I'd like to be able to do decent in the box audio work, and maybe video and image editing without it breaking a sweat. Of course it'll also be used for standard internetting and media stuff etc.

 

The tricky part is that I also wanna keep the price of the initial build low, as in as low as possible. But have the ability to upgrade components as needed and as things get cheaper.

 

The way I figure it, I can always add HDDs, RAM better graphics etc further down the road.

 

What components would you recommend (specifically motherboard and CPU) for a good balance of price, performance, upgradability, size and feature set?

[ambient]

I don't mind spending a bit extra on the core components now, if it means I'll get more out of it in the long run.

 

eg. the ability to have 3-4 harddrives and maybe an extra cpu down the road would be sweet but not a deal-breaker.

[ambient]

bump...I guess....

[juri]

- Invest in a good case, I have one of these and love it: http://www.coolermaster-usa.com/product.php?product_id=2700&product_name=Cosmos%201000

 

The bigger they are the easier you can access everything. (obviously they will be bulky, I put mine under my desk not on top of it).

 

- Get one of the latest motherboards with USB 3.0 at least and I would spend that little extra to get the Intel CPU vs AMD

 

- If you're not into gaming or heavy graphics stuff you can get a cheaper graphics card, this is a component you can save money on, there's plenty of these available here in the sub $100 range

 

- Hard drive wise, it's really popular these days to put the OS on a Solid State Drive and put your data etc... on a regular (larger) hard drive.

 

- Power wise, you'll need a lot of juice (Watts) if you run heavy graphics cards, you'll need less if you run less intensive graphics.

 

This is a pretty good website for buying PC stuff in the US http://www.newegg.com not sure about Japan.

 

I haven't upgraded in a while but I'll ask around here if anyone has any suggestions on which motherboards to get these days.

 

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions...

[ambient]

 

- Invest in a good case, I have one of these and love it: http://www.coolermaster-usa.com/product.php?product_id=2700&product_name=Cosmos%201000 The bigger they are the easier you can access everything. (obviously they will be bulky, I put mine under my desk not on top of it). - Get one of the latest motherboards with USB 3.0 at least and I would spend that little extra to get the Intel CPU vs AMD - If you're not into gaming or heavy graphics stuff you can get a cheaper graphics card, this is a component you can save money on, there's plenty of these available here in the sub $100 range - Hard drive wise, it's really popular these days to put the OS on a Solid State Drive and put your data etc... on a regular (larger) hard drive. - Power wise, you'll need a lot of juice (Watts) if you run heavy graphics cards, you'll need less if you run less intensive graphics. This is a pretty good website for buying PC stuff in the US http://www.newegg.com not sure about Japan. I haven't upgraded in a while but I'll ask around here if anyone has any suggestions on which motherboards to get these days. Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions...

 

 

- Damn that thing is huge! I don't really have a lot of space, and would like to fit it into one of those mini tower things if it's possible. But I guess I can deal with something a little bigger if necessary.

 

- Yea USB 3.0 is a deal breaker. Is there any other socket/connection type I should look for? Firewire?

I was mostly looking at intel, but why are they better than AMD cpus?

 

- Not a gamer by any means though I may dabble a little if I have the machine to support it. Graphics wise, all I really care about for now is something that can use a couple of screens, maybe my TV and isn't gonna bog the system down. Would it be better to get a motherboard with built-in graphics and upgrade later, or get a mobo wiithout and by a cheap one that I would potentially need to replace?

 

- I'd like to have my OS and important programs on an SSD eventually, along with a couple of normal HDDs for everything else. At first I think I could deal with one normal one as long as it's fast enough to not be a problem or become obselete too quickly. I guess hard drives are the kinda thing I can skimp on now, and upgrade easily later.

 

- How many whats are we talking?

 

Also, what kind of things can I do for cooling? I'd like to leave it on all the time in the same room where I sleep without it sounding like a jet about to take off.

 

 

I was looking at newegg today actually. I may try and order the stuff locally but it might be easier/cheaper to have it shipped from the U.S.

[juri]

Definitely get a case that suits your needs, you have to figure it this way. In a smaller case your motherboard is on the right and your harddrive, DVD player, etc.. is next to it which means if you need any access to your motherboard you might need to take out the drives etc... first. You will also lose cooling space if you care about that. But if space is limited a smaller tower is the way to go.

The loudest fan is usually the one on the GPU (graphics card) and it comes with it so it's hard to replace, the others are usually just case fans and are quieter. I have a cooler master fan for my CPU and it's really quiet, there is a decibel rating. A decent case will also have isolation on the panels to reduce noise.

A fast graphics card can easily need over 300 Watts (that is just the GPU not the CPU). I would at least get 500 Watt preferably more. If you go with a dual GPU set-up (Crossfire) go with one that is 1000+. Also look for one that is modular, modular means it comes with cables for everything so you can add/remove cables as needed and aren't stuck with all those cables hanging loose in your case.

As far as AMD vs Intel goes, Intel CPUs are a lot faster then AMDs currently. AMDs are preferred by lot of manufacturers as a way to cut cost. If you look at this benchmark ranking you'll see that Intel has a lot more CPUs that are ranked higher then AMD.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

GPU wise I don't think you can go wrong with either AMD (ATI) and nVidia.

If you are thinking about assembling it yourself the only thing that I think is a little tricky is putting thermal paste on the CPU and putting the heat sink on top of that, so you might want to check out some youtube videos. Other then that it's not really that hard to do.

[fly135]

Compusa has a quad core 3.4Ghz (500GB/4GB) kit for $250 (after $65 rebate) right now. Seems like a pretty good deal.

 

http://www.compusa.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=3242200&sku=B69-0576

[juri]

From some of my colleagues in the know:

 

Motherboards

Gigabyte, Asus and MSI are good, avoid AsRock. Intels are reliable but low on features and price is usually not competitive. Going with the a decent mid-range Asus board with the latest chipset is usually a good way to go.

 

PSU

Corsairs (pricey) or Seasonic

 

Check out the reviews on newegg for sure...

[juri]

 

Compusa has a quad core 3.4Ghz (500GB/4GB) kit for $250 (after $65 rebate) right now. Seems like a pretty good deal. http://www.compusa.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=3242200&sku=B69-0576

 

 

I would not get this.... you might as well get a cheap Dell or HP at that point.

[ambient]

Thanks for your helps man!

 

Looking at the intel website, there's tons of variations even among i5 CPUs. Any tips on how to choose a CPU or specific reccomendations?

[juri]

 

Thanks for your helps man! Looking at the intel website, there's tons of variations even among i5 CPUs. Any tips on how to choose a CPU or specific reccomendations?

 

 

Most CPUs will be plenty fast for what you'll be doing. Going fast and expensive can lengthen the lifespan of your computer. Getting the highest rated i5 for a decent price and figuring out which motherboard to get from there is probably a good way to go, it'll probably be a Sandy Bridge. If you go with an i7 you'll probably want to go the Ivy Bridge route which will be a lot more expensive.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072

 

From the look if it some of these come with graphics which means you might not need a graphics card initially.

[ambient]

I keep hearing about stuff to do with overclocking, I doubt I need to bother right? Does that affect what CPU I can/should buy?

 

Seems more like a gamer thing.

 

From what that link was saying, the onboard graphics with the sandy-bridge i5 processors should do me.

 

Like I said, I wanna keep the price as low as possible. I guess I'm a 'power-user' but definitely not an 'enthusiast', so I don't wanna pay for features I'm not gonna use.

[ambient]

I keep hearing about stuff to do with overclocking, I doubt I need to bother right? Does that affect what CPU I can/should buy?

Seems more like a gamer thing.

From what that link was saying, the onboard graphics with the sandy-bridge i5 processors should do me.

Like I said, I wanna keep the price as low as possible. I guess I'm a 'power-user' but definitely not an 'enthusiast', so I don't wanna pay for features I'm not gonna use.

[juri]

When CPUs leave Intel they are certified to run at certain speeds. A lot of those CPUs can run faster then they are being advertised as, a lot of people enjoy tweaking the speed settings. This can lead to some instability as you are also increasing the memory speed as well as the temperature the CPU runs at. If I were you I wouldn't worry about it. The thing is that once you overclock and something happens your mind will always blame it on that, whether or not it's a valid assumption.

The performance gains are usually very minimal. In most cases the bottle neck is either Disc I/O or lack of memory if something runs slow, it's rarely the CPU. This is why putting the OS on a solid state even though pricey can get you some serious performance gains (especially when opening a new program) because the I/O is a lot faster on those drives. The same is true for GPUs, people like to overclock those as well, this is only interesting if you are running a lot of first person shooters in a very high resolution with a lot of detail turned on. Even then overclocking will make a little bit of difference that can be easily measured by a piece of software but is a lot harder to measure it looking at the game itself.

[cryptosonic]

Yea there is the rub. A mid range AMD CPU from last year will not bottleneck your PC even on most recent games. I'm also not big on ten minute differences in transcoding speed. Whether the rip takes thirty or forty minutes I'm not watching the damn progress bar. Who watches the washing machine while doing laundry?

 

Can't go wrong with the i5 2500k on an middling Asus mobo.

[fly135]

I would not get this.... you might as well get a cheap Dell or HP at that point.

Cheap Dell's are good too. I can't quite get a handle on what the OP wants. But it appears that he wants good performance at the lowest price. The Compusa PC fits the "price of the initial build low, as in as low as possible" bill. I bought one for work (2.3GHz AMD Quad core) a couple years ago and it does the job.

[ambient]

 

When CPUs leave Intel they are certified to run at certain speeds. A lot of those CPUs can run faster then they are being advertised as, a lot of people enjoy tweaking the speed settings. This can lead to some instability as you are also increasing the memory speed as well as the temperature the CPU runs at. If I were you I wouldn't worry about it. The thing is that once you overclock and something happens your mind will always blame it on that, whether or not it's a valid assumption. The performance gains are usually very minimal. In most cases the bottle neck is either Disc I/O or lack of memory if something runs slow, it's rarely the CPU. This is why putting the OS on a solid state even though pricey can get you some serious performance gains (especially when opening a new program) because the I/O is a lot faster on those drives. The same is true for GPUs, people like to overclock those as well, this is only interesting if you are running a lot of first person shooters in a very high resolution with a lot of detail turned on. Even then overclocking will make a little bit of difference that can be easily measured by a piece of software but is a lot harder to measure it looking at the game itself.

 

 

Kinda what I thought. Stability is more important to me than a small increase in performance.

[ambient]

Yea there is the rub. A mid range AMD CPU from last year will not bottleneck your PC even on most recent games. I'm also not big on ten minute differences in transcoding speed. Whether the rip takes thirty or forty minutes I'm not watching the damn progress bar. Who watches the washing machine while doing laundry? Can't go wrong with the i5 2500k on an middling Asus mobo.

 

I belive the 'k' in the intel model numbers means 'unlocked'. If I'm not gonna be overclocking, do they provide any advantage? Do they have better internal graphics or something?

[ambient]

 

Cheap Dell's are good too. I can't quite get a handle on what the OP wants. But it appears that he wants good performance at the lowest price. The Compusa PC fits the "price of the initial build low, as in as low as possible" bill. I bought one for work (2.3GHz AMD Quad core) a couple years ago and it does the job.

 

True I've seen some resonably cheap PCs in shops with what seem to be good specs.

 

You're right in that I want performance on a budget, but I'd prefer to spend my money in a way that will let me increase performance and options later. ie to spend money on a good motherboard with lots of slot, connections and a good upgrade path and cheap out on hard drives and ram for now. That stuff will always get cheaper in the future. What I don't wanna do is load an average motherboard with lots of RAM, disk space and a good graphics card to be stuck in a few years if I wanna change something.

[cryptosonic]

True I've seen some resonably cheap PCs in shops with what seem to be good specs. You're right in that I want performance on a budget, but I'd prefer to spend my money in a way that will let me increase performance and options later. ie to spend money on a good motherboard with lots of slot, connections and a good upgrade path and cheap out on hard drives and ram for now. That stuff will always get cheaper in the future. What I don't wanna do is load an average motherboard with lots of RAM, disk space and a good graphics card to be stuck in a few years if I wanna change something.

Socket 1155 dies with Ivybridge so there isn't a lot of CPU upgrade left if you go that route. Certainly an i7 Ivy will be cheaper at EOL so there should be at least one CPU upgrade left in the platform. Worth mentioning but not really a big deal.

In terms of performance on a budget should really start to consider AMD. I try to give objective advice and show the merits of both manufacturers but my systems almost always end up AMD. The Intel stuff is sexy in synthetic benchmarks and pure CPU stuff like transcoding and image processing but the AMD is all about value for dollar. 50% CPU price decrease for a 25% performance hit on a machine that only occasionally buries the needle? I take it every time

[ambient]

What AMD CPUs and chipsets are good then?

 

I was thinking about an i5 2400 (maybe the lower power 's' model) with a h67 chipset mobo.

 

Then I realised that the 3rd gen stuff has been, or is about to be released.

 

is the current intel stuff only available in socket 1155? If that's the end of the line, I'd like to avoid it if possible.

If I do go that way, are there likely to be any big advantages of 3rd gen over 2nd gen?

 

The more I look into it, the more I think I could get away with just the intergrated graphics of the i5 cpus but still have the option to add a gpu at a later date.

 

 

 

 

As I'm trying to fit it in a small case and quietness is important to me, it seems I need to think carefully about cooling.

 

Would going with one of the low-power versions of the i5 be a mistake? The primary purpose of the machine is audio mixing/editing, I don't know if that requires sustained high CPU speeds that the low power models aren't capable of.

[Adacto]

Hi, I normally lurk around these parts but thought I'd point something out on this thread that may be of interest. For music applications, it's really worth considering the firewire provisions on a new motherboard.

I bring this up as a lot of musicians will, at some point, need to use a firewire device. From my experience, Gigabyte boards are better suited to this than ASUS alternatives. They tend to use Texas Instruments chipsets which, for one reason or another, are more compatible with audio interfaces etc.

Saying that, I would always recommend PCIe interfaces if you're taking the PC route. I use ASUS at home and Gigabyte at work, both work fine (but I'm not using firewire devices).

Ok, a bit specific, but worth knowing I guess.

Jon

[boytbpc]

I'd go to LifeHacker and read about building a Hackintosh, then partition your HDD and install both Windows 7 and iOS. Best of both worlds.

[caeman]

Buy what will make you happy now. CPU and RAM technology is improving quickly, and in 5 years, we will look back to today and think of an i7 system as a dog in performance.

 

1. SSD Boot Drive. Do it. 64-Bit Windows 7 Pro is up and running 10 seconds after the BIOS screen goes away. A standard second drive for data.

2. PCI-Express video card. Don't settle for PCI.

3. Buy as much RAM as you can afford. More RAM is better than MORE CPU. Your CPU is already way faster than any other component in your computer.

[ambient]

Hi, I normally lurk around these parts but thought I'd point something out on this thread that may be of interest. For music applications, it's really worth considering the firewire provisions on a new motherboard. I bring this up as a lot of musicians will, at some point, need to use a firewire device. From my experience, Gigabyte boards are better suited to this than ASUS alternatives. They tend to use Texas Instruments chipsets which, for one reason or another, are more compatible with audio interfaces etc. Saying that, I would always recommend PCIe interfaces if you're taking the PC route. I use ASUS at home and Gigabyte at work, both work fine (but I'm not using firewire devices). Ok, a bit specific, but worth knowing I guess. Jon

 

Thanks for chiming in

 

I'm definitely keen on having something with firewire. I can't see myself recording with high enough track counts for it to be an issue right now, but you never know.

I'm planning on using a 2 or 4 channel USB interface to begin with. With USB3.0, will the need for firewire be even less?

 

One of my biggest concerns at this point is having plenty of slots and ports of various kinds available to allow me to add whatever I may need in the future.

 

I'll check out the gigabyte stuff.