Technology Recommended Desktop PC specs for Windows 7 (64 Bit)
- Thread starter THEV1LL4N
- Start date
well i'd like to install a 1TB storage drive, upgrade processor, RAM and motherboards. get a widescreen hd monitor, upgrade graphics card.
im keeping my base unit and the shell casing for it. windows may cost around £50.
so all in all, im looking at the £300 region for everything.
hd monitor should be £80-£100+,
1TB internal drive: £60-£80
processor: £60-£85?
motherboard: £30?
hd graphics card: ??
windows 7 (online student discount): £30-£50.
bare in mind this is for a desktop pc.
im keeping my base unit and the shell casing for it. windows may cost around £50.
so all in all, im looking at the £300 region for everything.
hd monitor should be £80-£100+,
1TB internal drive: £60-£80
processor: £60-£85?
motherboard: £30?
hd graphics card: ??
windows 7 (online student discount): £30-£50.
bare in mind this is for a desktop pc.
lol. You don't need a faster processor for most things at the moment and these phenoms are awesome for performance/price ratio. Most games use only 1 core and often good dual-core are better than mid-end quads. Only the newest games use 2,3 or rarely 4. Then hd movies and most other basic tasks will do with a low end single core processor.
Sandeep - You should probably also replace your PSU to handle new, more demanding hardware. It depends on what you have right now. And what motherboard do you have at the moment?
To be honest I think it would be better to buy a totally new computer as you want to change basically everything except for the case. And cases aren't really expensive. I'm not sure about England but for 300 pounds here you could buy a pretty average computer (without a hd display though - good ones are really more expensive) but our electronics prices are usually higher.
I'm sure for 500 pounds you would get a quite good computer with a nice display.
Sandeep - You should probably also replace your PSU to handle new, more demanding hardware. It depends on what you have right now. And what motherboard do you have at the moment?
To be honest I think it would be better to buy a totally new computer as you want to change basically everything except for the case. And cases aren't really expensive. I'm not sure about England but for 300 pounds here you could buy a pretty average computer (without a hd display though - good ones are really more expensive) but our electronics prices are usually higher.
I'm sure for 500 pounds you would get a quite good computer with a nice display.
AMD Phenom II 965 $183.99
Newegg.com - phenom ii 965
ASUS Mobo recommended by site with DDR3: $119.99
Newegg.com - ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AM3 AMD 790X ATX AMD Motherboard - AMD Motherboards
AMD Total: $303.98
Now the faster Intel System...
i5 750 $194.99
Newegg.com - Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1156 95W Quad-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops
GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2 motherboard recommended by site $104.99
Newegg.com - GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2 LGA 1156 Intel P55 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard - Intel Motherboards
i5 System Total: $299.09
So.... Turns out the i5 system is $4 cheaper.
Sure you could get cheap MSI motherboards, but you can get them for both systems. The AM3 ones are cheaper, its about $40 vs $80 for cheap i5 motherboards. $40 is not a BIG difference and seriously if you're talking about getting AMD because it is more reliable and then getting a $40 motherboard you should slap yourself lol. Cheap motherboards = fail. You're going to at least want to spend $100 on a motherboard, regardless if you go AMD or Intel.
So now, the "Intel is too expensive" myth is out the window. i5 750 priced the same with better performance.
Newegg.com - phenom ii 965
ASUS Mobo recommended by site with DDR3: $119.99
Newegg.com - ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AM3 AMD 790X ATX AMD Motherboard - AMD Motherboards
AMD Total: $303.98
Now the faster Intel System...
i5 750 $194.99
Newegg.com - Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1156 95W Quad-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops
GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2 motherboard recommended by site $104.99
Newegg.com - GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2 LGA 1156 Intel P55 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard - Intel Motherboards
i5 System Total: $299.09
So.... Turns out the i5 system is $4 cheaper.
Sure you could get cheap MSI motherboards, but you can get them for both systems. The AM3 ones are cheaper, its about $40 vs $80 for cheap i5 motherboards. $40 is not a BIG difference and seriously if you're talking about getting AMD because it is more reliable and then getting a $40 motherboard you should slap yourself lol. Cheap motherboards = fail. You're going to at least want to spend $100 on a motherboard, regardless if you go AMD or Intel.
So now, the "Intel is too expensive" myth is out the window. i5 750 priced the same with better performance.
I dont get you. A page ago you were talking about going AMD because it is more future proof in your opinion, although I disagree, that was your logic. Now you're telling him to get an outdated 2 core CPU when everyone else has moved to 4 core and is moving to 6 core next year?
Sandeep, if you want your machine to last a couple years, you need at least a 4 core.
I agree. I paid $75 just for a 600w PSU.
Sandeep, if you want your machine to last a couple years, you need at least a 4 core.
I agree. I paid $75 just for a 600w PSU.
The point is that the CPU is not the most important thing for what he wants to do and the CPU is something you can replace every few months. A good dual core Phenom will actually be an overkill if he wants to go low-end with other hardware. He could as well buy a good Athlon (like 7750+ if it's noticeably cheaper there) and a better graphics card and he would do way better for the same money. The graphics card makes the biggest difference for what he wants to do and every pound there is important.
However choosing a motherboard wisely (whenever he wants to go AMD or Intel and which socket to choose) is future-proofing yourself as most people just buy a new PC instead of changing their motherboards.
Also, buying a PSU you have to be careful. It's extremely important to buy a good brand. No-names don't hold their voltage on 12V lines which might mean restarts or burned hardware in worst cases.
My 560W Tagan was more expensive than some 800W ones but is better.
However choosing a motherboard wisely (whenever he wants to go AMD or Intel and which socket to choose) is future-proofing yourself as most people just buy a new PC instead of changing their motherboards.
Also, buying a PSU you have to be careful. It's extremely important to buy a good brand. No-names don't hold their voltage on 12V lines which might mean restarts or burned hardware in worst cases.
My 560W Tagan was more expensive than some 800W ones but is better.
Now consider this from the very same site:
Phenom 955 which is almost the same as 965 and overclocks nicely -$160.99
Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops
A great Asus AM3 motherboard - $84.99
Newegg.com - ASUS M4A77TD AM3 AMD 770 ATX AMD Motherboard - AMD Motherboards
A lower model which is entry level like the Gigabyte Intel board you posted -$49.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131626
Total: $210,98
More expensive version : $245,98
Also, MSI motherboards are not any worse than Gigabyte overall. Also, the 40$ AMD Msi boards are probably of a similar quality as 80$ MSI for Intel.
Phenom 955 which is almost the same as 965 and overclocks nicely -$160.99
Newegg.com - AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops
A great Asus AM3 motherboard - $84.99
Newegg.com - ASUS M4A77TD AM3 AMD 770 ATX AMD Motherboard - AMD Motherboards
A lower model which is entry level like the Gigabyte Intel board you posted -$49.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131626
Total: $210,98
More expensive version : $245,98
Also, MSI motherboards are not any worse than Gigabyte overall. Also, the 40$ AMD Msi boards are probably of a similar quality as 80$ MSI for Intel.
Gigabyte >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MSI
Gigabyte is on par with ASUS and I prefer Gigabyte because they run the Texas Instruments Firewire chips which is a MUST for audio. The ASUS you posted for 49 does not compare to the Gigabyte I posted at all and saying so is just flat out wrong.
For starters the Gigabyte has 4 ram slots, the ASUS has 2. That right there means you're not future proofing at all. The one I posted has PCI Express 2, the one you posted does not. Your cheap one doesnt even have firewire, the Gigabyte does.
What I am saying, is you saying your entry level one is like the Gigabyte one I posted is just flat out wrong, you're acting like AMD has the same boards $55 cheaper. Yeah they are cheaper, but they dont have the same features, you cant compare the two, you need to compare boards with similar specs. Check the specs for yourself. That is where the price difference comes from. The Gigabyte one I posted for Intel is not entry level at all.
The Gigabyte one I posted is more comparable to the $84 ASUS one you posted, even though yours still doesnt have Firewire.
Firewire in my opinion is a must.
Gigabyte is on par with ASUS and I prefer Gigabyte because they run the Texas Instruments Firewire chips which is a MUST for audio. The ASUS you posted for 49 does not compare to the Gigabyte I posted at all and saying so is just flat out wrong.
For starters the Gigabyte has 4 ram slots, the ASUS has 2. That right there means you're not future proofing at all. The one I posted has PCI Express 2, the one you posted does not. Your cheap one doesnt even have firewire, the Gigabyte does.
What I am saying, is you saying your entry level one is like the Gigabyte one I posted is just flat out wrong, you're acting like AMD has the same boards $55 cheaper. Yeah they are cheaper, but they dont have the same features, you cant compare the two, you need to compare boards with similar specs. Check the specs for yourself. That is where the price difference comes from. The Gigabyte one I posted for Intel is not entry level at all.
The Gigabyte one I posted is more comparable to the $84 ASUS one you posted, even though yours still doesnt have Firewire.
Firewire in my opinion is a must.
And sure he can get a 955 and be cheaper. Shit he could go Core 2 Quad and be even cheaper.
Buying inferior hardware does not mean AMD is cheaper. You cant win your argument by comparing inferior CPUs and Motherboards.
The fact remains, when it comes to comparable CPUs and motherboards, the price difference between AMD and Intel falls to about $20 if anything. The argument that Intel is soooo over priced is not valid at all, I think we've shown that it is priced on par with AMD.
Yes, you can build a budget PC with AMD. But it will not be on par performance or feature wise with an i5 system and good motherboard like you guys were saying earlier in the thread. Geez at one point you were saying your budget AMDs are on par with i7s and Ive shown they arent even on par with i5s.
And your top of the line AMDs perform worse than mid range Intels and cost the same.
The proof is in the specs and numbers.
Buying inferior hardware does not mean AMD is cheaper. You cant win your argument by comparing inferior CPUs and Motherboards.
The fact remains, when it comes to comparable CPUs and motherboards, the price difference between AMD and Intel falls to about $20 if anything. The argument that Intel is soooo over priced is not valid at all, I think we've shown that it is priced on par with AMD.
Yes, you can build a budget PC with AMD. But it will not be on par performance or feature wise with an i5 system and good motherboard like you guys were saying earlier in the thread. Geez at one point you were saying your budget AMDs are on par with i7s and Ive shown they arent even on par with i5s.
And your top of the line AMDs perform worse than mid range Intels and cost the same.
The proof is in the specs and numbers.
I posted 955 because like Cooper said - it's almost on par with 965. The difference between 945, 955 and 965 is really small while the price difference is big. 965 can go about 100mhz further when overclocking.
Overall AMD is cheaper. It's the I5 that has attractive price tag. Take lower end and mid end as examples. Intel is not SO overpriced but with AMD you usually get your performance cheaper and that's the only point I was trying to make. You make it seem like i5 is soo much worse than i7 which is not true. i5 is only slightly slower and much cheaper that's why imo it's a good processor while i7 is SO overpriced. Then I7 is not much superior to the fastest Phenom while being way more expensive - in some test Phenom eats i7 too.
Actually if price didn't matter I could also point out that the fastest known supercomputer works on multiple AMD Opterons but there's no point in mentioning it here since multi-processor platforms while packing a lot more processing power are also much more expensive.
So to me a processor is not successful when its performance is higher - it's when it comes in a great performance/price ratio in a range of users needs. Most people don't need i7-like performance. Most people wouldn't ever think about buying i5 or Phenom 2. However if we're talking about high end sure i5 is a great processor and so is Phenom 2.
If you're looking for performance also X6 Phenoms are coming out soon.
I5 is still a high-end, not a mid range. Like I said, it's only slightly slower and way cheaper than i7. It's a good buy but I bet that the price difference between a Phenom2 945 or 955 and i5 750 is still bigger than the difference in performance and all of them come with more power than 99,9% of home users will need in the nearest future and to them all of these processors will suck as for 1/3 of their price they can get about 40% slower one that will still be an overkill for most things.
I don't know how do you judge these companies and their products but for years Gigabyte has been somewhere near MSI if it comes to quality. Right now they are slightly superior thanks to their good graphic cards. Asus was always the best if it comes to motherboards. I had 2 gigabyte motherboards that failed and know a lot of other failed ones too. They are nowhere as reliable as Asus.
I didn't post this cheaper one as a comparison to Gigabyte. What I've meant was that this Gigabyte was entry level for a Intel motherboard and that you can get a reliable motherboard from a good company for half of it's price with AMD. You won't find one for Intel and you can build a similar performance rig with AMD for way cheaper. I agree that personally I wouldn't buy that cheaper one but only because it has only 2 ram slots.
In my opinion it is not. I bet that a vast majority of people do not use it and do not know what it is.
Overall AMD is cheaper. It's the I5 that has attractive price tag. Take lower end and mid end as examples. Intel is not SO overpriced but with AMD you usually get your performance cheaper and that's the only point I was trying to make. You make it seem like i5 is soo much worse than i7 which is not true. i5 is only slightly slower and much cheaper that's why imo it's a good processor while i7 is SO overpriced. Then I7 is not much superior to the fastest Phenom while being way more expensive - in some test Phenom eats i7 too.
Actually if price didn't matter I could also point out that the fastest known supercomputer works on multiple AMD Opterons but there's no point in mentioning it here since multi-processor platforms while packing a lot more processing power are also much more expensive.
So to me a processor is not successful when its performance is higher - it's when it comes in a great performance/price ratio in a range of users needs. Most people don't need i7-like performance. Most people wouldn't ever think about buying i5 or Phenom 2. However if we're talking about high end sure i5 is a great processor and so is Phenom 2.
If you're looking for performance also X6 Phenoms are coming out soon.
I5 is still a high-end, not a mid range. Like I said, it's only slightly slower and way cheaper than i7. It's a good buy but I bet that the price difference between a Phenom2 945 or 955 and i5 750 is still bigger than the difference in performance and all of them come with more power than 99,9% of home users will need in the nearest future and to them all of these processors will suck as for 1/3 of their price they can get about 40% slower one that will still be an overkill for most things.
I don't know how do you judge these companies and their products but for years Gigabyte has been somewhere near MSI if it comes to quality. Right now they are slightly superior thanks to their good graphic cards. Asus was always the best if it comes to motherboards. I had 2 gigabyte motherboards that failed and know a lot of other failed ones too. They are nowhere as reliable as Asus.
I didn't post this cheaper one as a comparison to Gigabyte. What I've meant was that this Gigabyte was entry level for a Intel motherboard and that you can get a reliable motherboard from a good company for half of it's price with AMD. You won't find one for Intel and you can build a similar performance rig with AMD for way cheaper. I agree that personally I wouldn't buy that cheaper one but only because it has only 2 ram slots.
In my opinion it is not. I bet that a vast majority of people do not use it and do not know what it is.
^^ I disagree with a lot of what you're saying but we wont get anywhere else discussing this I dont think.
I will say two things.
1. i5 is mid range, i3 is low, i7 is high. That's how I see it right now.
2. It always baffles me how people can live without firewire. Man, I have firewire external hard drives, use firewire to transfer home video off my HD cam, and have firewire audio interfaces. The third probably applies to just me on here, but the first two, Im surprised more people dont need firewire. It just became a standard need for me a couple years back. *Shrugs*
I will say two things.
1. i5 is mid range, i3 is low, i7 is high. That's how I see it right now.
2. It always baffles me how people can live without firewire. Man, I have firewire external hard drives, use firewire to transfer home video off my HD cam, and have firewire audio interfaces. The third probably applies to just me on here, but the first two, Im surprised more people dont need firewire. It just became a standard need for me a couple years back. *Shrugs*
1. That's definitely how Intel would love to see things. However I3 is still somewhere above CPU's market's mid-range.
Low-end processors are Semprons and Celerons.
Mid-range is where Athlon 2 and cheaper Phenoms are at from AMD and i3, Pentium G6950 and cheaper core duo/core quad from Intel - you can do almost everything with these processors, they have the best performance/price ratio and a small amount of people will really need anything faster. They would easily run 99% of games on best detail granted you have a good video card.
They would also be great for most other tasks people would need for work.
Then processors like i5 start the high end in my opinion. i7 and phenoms x4 9xx are the fastest on the market so they're ultra high end for me.
2.I on the contrary always thought that nobody really needs firewire and it's pretty much useless
I have never used it and the only time I've heard about it was when Apple bitched about how people should use it more and I though "why?".
It's comparable with USB which is already a standard. I dislike it when something needs a different cable.
Low-end processors are Semprons and Celerons.
Mid-range is where Athlon 2 and cheaper Phenoms are at from AMD and i3, Pentium G6950 and cheaper core duo/core quad from Intel - you can do almost everything with these processors, they have the best performance/price ratio and a small amount of people will really need anything faster. They would easily run 99% of games on best detail granted you have a good video card.
They would also be great for most other tasks people would need for work.
Then processors like i5 start the high end in my opinion. i7 and phenoms x4 9xx are the fastest on the market so they're ultra high end for me.
2.I on the contrary always thought that nobody really needs firewire and it's pretty much useless
I have never used it and the only time I've heard about it was when Apple bitched about how people should use it more and I though "why?". It's comparable with USB which is already a standard. I dislike it when something needs a different cable.
FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:
Read Test:
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
Write Test:
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:
Read Test:
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
Write Test:
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
Okay it is faster than USB at the moment.
Usb is more convenient and compatible with most devices though.
They should already upgrade it to 3.0 which is exactly 10 times faster than 2.0 which means it's faster than most devices read/write capabilities. They shouldn't complicate things with different standards.
Usb is more convenient and compatible with most devices though.
They should already upgrade it to 3.0 which is exactly 10 times faster than 2.0 which means it's faster than most devices read/write capabilities. They shouldn't complicate things with different standards.
Looking to upgrade our band studio soon and I'm looking around for a new tower.....
Do you guys think it's worth going with the i7-920 2.66GhZ due to the triple channel memory, possibility of overclocking and upgrade potential, or the i7-860 which is faster at 2.80GhZ but without the triple channel memory....... I'm a little unsure right now.
Do you guys think it's worth going with the i7-920 2.66GhZ due to the triple channel memory, possibility of overclocking and upgrade potential, or the i7-860 which is faster at 2.80GhZ but without the triple channel memory....... I'm a little unsure right now.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.