Now then, during the summer, I'm going to build a computer (god help the National Grid), seriously - I've been glancing through the pages of eBuyer to find something apt for the job.

There are three hurdles to cross.

1) That "socket" lark - at college, all we really had to do was sit there and put the stuff back in after taking it out (I got a disinction for remembering that!), and the CPU/motherboard conflict never came into question.

So, which sockets are AMD and which are Intel? All this socket 957 with this, socket A with that....

2) AMD versus Intel - apparently, for processor intensive stuff intel was what was recommended, but someone else was saying that I should buy a AMD - Newcastle-3400+; after looking at the spec. the clock speed was 2.4GHz.
The part that perplexes me, is that XGHz of an AMD is not the same as XGHz of an Intel CPU - how "far out" are the figures. Apparently, something maybe 2.4GHz (AMD), but as the model is "3400" , it'll be be 3.4GHz if it was an Intel CPU, are you following...

3) I have a drive (IDE), do I need to chop it over onto a SATA drive, or can I save myself the time; and do I need to go PCI express (funnily enough, I only have the Firewire card to come out of this Packard), the rest can be fresh.

Thanks very much,

:)

P.S: Is that Newcastle good for Photoshopping, iTunes-ing and Roxio-ing simultainiously? (I'll be paying good money for these parts, and I want it to bloody well last, and not pack up after five seconds)!

Socket - yes there are various types, however if you are buying a motherboard and chip at the same time its a simple matter of checking the specs! The only problem you may run into is that some processors have more than one socket (e.g. AMD64 comes in socket 939, socket 724 and socket A flavours) so make sure you double check before you buy!

AMD vs Intel - pretty much a holy war here - theres not really that much to choose between the two. Personally I use AMD as they are the cheaper option (especially for a 64 bit processor) but you could pretty much flip a coin here!

SATA vs IDE - SATA will be marginally faster (150 vs 133 for the newer IDE drives) but can cause installation problems as you have to install additional drivers for the SATA controller. Pretty much any recent MOBO will have bothe IDE and SATA connectors on it so you can start with IDE and move over to SATA later if you want!

E-IDE vs AGP - AGP has (apparently) topped out at 8* so E-IDE looks like it will be the new standard - personally I would go with the E-IDE but I'm sure other people will tell you to go for AGP!

isn't that normally called PCI-E?

Personally I'll be going for a winchester 3200+ 64bit when I build my silent pc, do a google to get revision comparisons. My reasoning being that amd is ahead of the game with 64 bit (has intel actually released one yet apart from the rapidly sinking Itanium)?
You might also want to consider dual core if you really intend to do many things at once as you suggest. I'll also be going socket 939 as these mbrds support higher speed memory, make sure you choose memory of the appropriate speed for the mbrd and processor.
The AMD equivalent speed ratings are generally fairly accurate.

DOH! yes - that should have been PCI-E - hey it was past my bedtime, you have to expect SOME errors!

OK, cheers.

:)

1) My preference would be AMD Athlon 64 Venice core socket 939. They represent good value. You must get a socket 939 motherboard as well. The rest is older technology.

2) Intel tends to have a slight advantage in graphic intensive stuff like photo and video editing, but AMD has the advantage in games. AMD tend to offer better value for money although theres not that much in it.

3) you are spot on with the processor speeds. Just add a decimalpoint to the AMD rating to find what the equivalent Intelprocessor is. AMD adopted the strategy because people were doing direct comparisons, although there chips of the same clock speed were the most powerful.

4) PCIE is for Graphics. Better to have than not, but card manufacturers arent really exploiting this at the moment. I'd still go for PCIE though if you are buying a new system as you can then transfer your graphics card directly.

Originally posted by 999tigger

3) you are spot on with the processor speeds. Just add a decimalpoint to the AMD rating to find what the equivalent Intelprocessor is. AMD adopted the strategy because people were doing direct comparisons, although there chips of the same clock speed were the most powerful.

.

Ah thanks, clear as mud now! Cheers, :)

What's missing from the needed list?

CPU
OS
Mobo
RAM
DVDRW
Extra HDD
Sound card
GFX card
Case

Cheers,
:)

might be worth considering what cpu fan you'll use unless you use the noisy one that comes in the retail packed cpu's.

and i wouldn't bother with a seperate soundcard unless you're a muso.

Ethernet will be built into the mobo, but you might want wifi?

I guess you're going to reuse mice/keyboard and monitor since you've not listed them?

Originally posted by Cyclone
might be worth considering what cpu fan you'll use unless you use the noisy one that comes in the retail packed cpu's.
Speaking of fans... cooling fans.. If you start going for a higher spec system or multiple SATA drives, you'll want to be moving a bit more air around or risk overheating / heat-stressed components.

In terms of spec, a lot of discussion is taking place re: noise levels so you might want to consider the ramifications and ratings for decibel output...

I know I'm not alone in being driven crazy by the racket me PC is making and I've just shifted to a 939 system with 5 HD's so you can imagine I was very careful what I put in... There's a seperate discussion on this on the forum but thought I'd highlight it.

Originally posted by Martin_s
Speaking of fans... cooling fans.. If you start going for a higher spec system or multiple SATA drives, you'll want to be moving a bit more air around or risk overheating / heat-stressed components.

In terms of spec, a lot of discussion is taking place re: noise levels so you might want to consider the ramifications and ratings for decibel output...

I know I'm not alone in being driven crazy by the racket me PC is making and I've just shifted to a 939 system with 5 HD's so you can imagine I was very careful what I put in... There's a seperate discussion on this on the forum but thought I'd highlight it.

Ah thanks, so the plastc one that's usually worth 99p isn't much cop then?

Cheers, :)

Completely forgot to add...

BACKUP PLAN!!...

Make sure you think about how mission critical your system is and how you'll cope with data corruption... Avoidance is by far the best plan so consideration of RAID, offsite backups, etc.. is very important.


Personally I've just gone for a 5 drive system with RAID 1 (mirror) for my ghost backups, RAID 0 for my working files (for speed) and a single system drive... Using Norton Ghost 9.0 to do base backups to DVD and incremental baks to HD.. Add to that my development work is stored on a subversion server (versioning system) so I'm backed up in various places and can suffer a system component failure AND theft if the worst should happen...

Paranoia is always a good policy when it comes to your data.



Incidentally on the SATA issue.. I've got SATA 150 and SATA II drives in my machine now and the speed is pretty stupendous.. Disk to disk transfers, backups, imaging, etc.. has sped up enormously... Granted I have a new CPU as well but SATA 150 on Raid 0 (striped) vs' SATA II is remarkably close..

Originally posted by amhudson119
Ah thanks, so the plastc one that's usually worth 99p isn't much cop then?

Cheers, :)
Weirdly enough I got a bunch of 60mm and 80mm fans from ebuyer recently for virtually nothing..

the 60mm's are quiet as hell while the 80mm's could use the voltage tweak or speed governor to bring them down to a slower speed (ie: lower air pushed and lower noise)



nb: word of warning.. if you do a voltage tweak on a molex connected fan, be careful NOT to plug anything into any extensions off that fan (if applicable) as you'll blow them up... Don't ask.. it wasn't pretty.

I was thinking about a 4 disk setup using raid 1+0, but i've decided that it's overkill and there's really no need for it.
I'll go with 2 disks in a raid 0 array. Doubles the chance of failure, but i'll have a backup of data kept on at least 2 other pc's and syncronised daily. If the OS goes up the pan I'm not fussed about having to reinstall it and all the other apps.
Only problem would be if the house burns down and i don't grab my laptop on the way out, but i'll take that risk, none of the data is that valuable.

That means an XP3200 is meant to be the equivalent of an Intel 3.2ghz. The Intelwill be running at 3.2Ghz, but the AMD will be running much more slowly,say about 2ghz, but with the same computing power.

Originally posted by amhudson119
What's missing from the needed list?

CPU
OS
Mobo
RAM
DVDRW
Extra HDD
Sound card
GFX card
Case

Cheers,
:)

I forgot the blessed PSU - is there anything at all else (the monitor and wireless mouse/keyboard will be kept)

Cheers,
:)

SIDE NOTE: When installing the OS for the very first time (as I'm purely used to re-formatting, will the HDD be just empty and I pop the CD in as usual? What about GFXcard drivers etc, etc?

the hard drive will be unformatted and unpartitioned, the install cd should be able to take care of it.
Graphics card drivers will come on your cd, they'll need to be installed either when it asks for them or afterwards. Then update them via the web anyway as they will probably be out of date.

a lot of cases come with a psu, so you might not need one, check first.

Originally posted by Cyclone
a lot of cases come with a psu, so you might not need one, check first.
But be careful that any PSU that does come with a case does actually have the required power to handle your CPU and setup..

Case in point... 2 cases, cheap but with supposed 350watt PSU's that were P4 ready... They couldn't even run an Athlon Xp 2800+ chip... Result was £30 a pop on some enermax PSU's...

Not everything does what it says it should... marketing departments lie and have no qualms about it..

If you buy a decent make of PSU like Antec, Tagan or Enermax then the quoted wattage will be achieved. Much less likely for the cheapy versions.

I used a 400 watt PSU when I built my box with an Athlon 2000 XP in it. I am not surprised to hear a 350 wouldn't muck it with an Athlon 2800.

contrary to popular opinion an athlon doesn't draw that much power. As long as you aren't running 5 hard drives and a graphics card that sucks juice like pop then you shouldn't have a problem with a 350w power supply.

Originally posted by LesleyB
I used a 400 watt PSU when I built my box with an Athlon 2000 XP in it. I am not surprised to hear a 350 wouldn't muck it with an Athlon 2800.
Just to make this a little clearer..

The wattage on a PSU is a little like asking how many windows your car comes with when you're looking for a 5 person seater.. PSU makers use it as some sort of holy grail when it's anything but...

The important parts are the actual ampage over the different rails and the stability of that output...


.. and just to illustrate the point, I've had the pleasure of testing out 4 generic PSU's alongside an Enermax, Antec, etc, all running at 350 Watts... The difference between them was an eye opener to say the least.

Thanks for pointing that rather important issue out, Martin.
I did buy a five quid jobby once, and it went in a crappy old Gateway - but that didn't matter (!)

:)

...Is that Newcastle good for Photoshopping, iTunes-ing and Roxio-ing simultainiously?

They're all good really, if you want a rough & ready CPU comparison try this (http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html)...

(I'll be paying good money for these parts, and I want it to bloody well last, and not pack up after five seconds)!

That's one advantage that Intel had (note: past tense) in the past IMO. But looking at the last 2 stress tests I've seen, & the amount of heat the newer Intels pump out, Intel by no means has any advantage any more. Check out the latest stress test (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html)

Thanks, Steve.

I'll check-out the benchmarking site.

:)

Originally posted by Martin_s
Just to make this a little clearer..

The wattage on a PSU is a little like asking how many windows your car comes with when you're looking for a 5 person seater.. PSU makers use it as some sort of holy grail when it's anything but...

The important parts are the actual ampage over the different rails and the stability of that output...


Bit late in the day perhaps, but there's a useful and not too technical article on PC PSUs here.....

http://www.firingsquad.com/guides/power_supply/

Originally posted by 999tigger
That means an XP3200 is meant to be the equivalent of an Intel 3.2ghz. The Intelwill be running at 3.2Ghz, but the AMD will be running much more slowly,say about 2ghz, but with the same computing power.

Thats not strictly true, its a guide against the original "Thunderbird" chips (slightly deviated nowadays), AMD chips run faster at a lower Mhz because they do more work per clock cycle than P4's plus, they have a larger L2 one die cache than the current breed of P4's. AMD are working on performance leverls rather then just cranking the clockspeed like Intel.

Joel

Ermmm it is true because that's exactly why AMD changed matters in the first place. People were just doing straight GHZ comparisons, even though the AMD chips were more efficient.

AMD changed it as a marketing thing to give a rough reflection of what it was up against.

Originally posted by 999tigger
Ermmm it is true because that's exactly why AMD changed matters in the first place. People were just doing straight GHZ comparisons, even though the AMD chips were more efficient.

AMD changed it as a marketing thing to give a rough reflection of what it was up against.
It was initially but it's all completely knocked out of a cocked hat now with all the different sockets, and the like... The only time it was ever any use, and only as a rough measure was when Athlon XP's were pitched against the 5xx core Intel P4's...

Now it's a case of take any review and pitch it against another... It's rare you'll find anything that agrees...

Originally posted by 999tigger
Ermmm it is true because that's exactly why AMD changed matters in the first place. People were just doing straight GHZ comparisons, even though the AMD chips were more efficient.

AMD changed it as a marketing thing to give a rough reflection of what it was up against.

I wasnt saying it wasnt true, i was just saying that it wasnt measured against the P4, it was benchmarked against the pre XP chips. AMD have to be given credit for moving the emphasis from clock speed to increasing the performance of existing speed chips. Whilst still keeping the prices low.

Joel