Rate this desktop..

ATI is not for anything


Crysis actually runs pretty well on my system (GTX9800 here). Quad core yo, makes all the difference on the world for calculations.

 

The E8400 is prooven to be better/as good as the Q6600..

After researching I decided I'd go for the cheaper alternative.
After all, I'm using my PC for gaming. Sure the quad is better and more future proof.. but what difference does it make if I'm still gonna upgrade in a year?

And this is actually the first time I decided to go for ATI cards.
The power in those 4870's amazed me. And the price was cheapcheap.

 

Perhaps you hardware wizards can recommend a new setup for me?

My current machine is based around an athlon xp palomino.


I don't need cutting edge hardware.
I don't need high 3d graphics capabilities.
I like high compatibility.

I do heavy multitasking of relatively low demand applications.
I do software development, with mostly 2d and gdi stuff.
I don't like all the fancy gui effects that operating systems do. I'm inclined to turn those off.
I do audio processing/editing, which is slower than preferred on my current machine.
I do graphics editing, which is typically no bigger than 1MP images, but is usually multi layered.
I would like very good sound and image quality since it is relevant to my editing.

I'd like to have two monitors instead of one.

costs -- whatever it needs to be but not wasted on unnecessary components.

 

If you like high compatibility and don't like all the fancy gui effects you should go for Windows XP.

I'd say the most important thing in your setup will be graphics card and soundcard.
GPU (Graphics processing unit) for your two monitors. The soundcard for the sound quality and the recorded quality. I'd say a Quad Core processor for multitasking is needed.

As for memory, I'd say it's important too. But it's so cheap so it doesn't matter.

I'd like to know your budget!

Also, tell me how much harddrive space you need. What you are planning to store on them. And if you need things to load fast and transfer big files fast.

 

I think Windows XP would be best, I agree on that. But I've also heard that hardware combinations can have their own compatibility issues, which are separate from OS/driver issues. In the interest of upgradability, I'd rather have a system that won't freak out when I do want to change something.

Also, I know that some manufacturers skimp on features -- parallel ports would be one random example. Most motherboards have them, but they are not always standard implementations, but cut down versions that don't always work properly. I'd prefer to have a system that reduces the risk of these kind of incompatibilities.

I haven't really kept up to date with what is available nowadays, so I have no idea what components I should choose.

Quad Core sounds powerful. I don't know if I'd be using that to full capacity. Most of my work is heavy multitasking, but most of those applications are sitting idle. Do you think quad core would be well utilized to justify this higher cost?

Memory I don't know how much I would need. I'm not a gamer, so I don't need very high specs. I currently have 512MB.

I don't really do budgets. I've always felt, that as long as I'm making good use of what I'm paying for then it's worth what I'm paying. I'm happy to pay for nicer/better things as long as I'm not wasting my money doing so. It's self defining against my needs. Is £1000 realistic for what I need? Not enough or overkill? Would that setup be inadequate or wasted on me?

Hard disks. My current hard disk is 100GB, about 90% full and 50% full of rubbish. I tend to feel that big hard disks are mostly for lots of games and movies and I don't collect either of those. Mostly it would be storing office applications, and my own projects which aren't demanding anyway. I do have a lot of software but it is mostly freeware which is small and fast loading already. 500GB sounds a lot compared to what I have now. 2000GB sounds like it would be overkill.

I don't explicitly need either super fast file transfer or loading. But perhaps I'd benefit from fast loading more than the former.

Any more questions?

And thank-you for helping by the way. :yes:

 

I would say you could get an extremely good PC for around £600 that will do what you want..

So as for parts I sketched up:

PC1 (All around):

Case: Antec Three Hundred
PSU: Corsair Powersuply 650W
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3
CPU: Intel Q8200
Memory: Corsair TWIN2X 6400 DDR2, 4GB, CL5
GPU: XFX GeForce GTX 260
HDD: WD Caviar 500GB SATA2
DVD: Samsung SH-S223B
Soundcard: Creative SB Audigy SE

PC1-1: (Exchange the parts above with these ones)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-MA770T-UD3P
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 945
Memory: Corsair XMS3 DDR3 4GB
GPU: Radeon HD4890 or HD4850X2

Both PC1 and PC1-1 cost you around $800 or £500

I would say both are really good, and it's more of a choice between brands (AMD and INTEL)

I believe both are very powerful and cheap, and these will also run newer games on high graphics (although you don't need it for gaming).

Here is the second alternative, PC2 (Office):

Case: Cooler Master Centurion 534
PSU: Corsair Powersuply 650W
Motherboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe V2
CPU: Intel Core i7 920
Memory: Corsair XMS3 DDR3 4GB
GPU: PNY Quadro FX 370
HDD: WD Caviar 500GB SATA2
DVD: Samsung SH-S223B
Soundcard: Creative SB Audigy SE

Now, PC2 is a bit more expensive, $900-$1000 or £550-£600 but I think this is the best choice for you.

PC2 is going to be your Office computer. It's newer than PC1 in terms of technology, so it will most likely last longer and will be more easy to upgrade. PC2 has a powerful GPU, PNY Quadro FX 370, NOT for gaming which is it's only down side.
This GPU is for leading computer-aided design (CAD) and digital content creation (DCC) applications.

Note that PC2 has only 3 GB of ram, but you could always upgrade and buy 3 GB more if you would need it. Your computer won't use more than 3GB anyway if you are using a 32-bit Windows XP (standard). And since you're looking for compatibility you won't need a x64 platform because some programs can't run on an x64.

Also note that you COULD exchange the PNY Quadro FX 370 for one of the GPU's mentioned in the PC1 and PC1-1 setup (HD4890 and GTX260) (Costs more!).

Though PC1/-1 and PC2 are both more than enough to satisfy your needs. I say invest a bit of money and get the latest technology (PC2).
And also ask yourself if you are going to play Starcraft 2 on it. Because if you are I strongly suggest replacing the GPU (read above).
But if you are familiar with "leading computer-aided design (CAD) and digital content creation (DCC) applications" and if you are sure you arn't going to game on your PC then leave the PNY Quadro FX 370 alone. All the GPU's mentioned will run 2 monitors though.

I think if you go for PC2 then your computer will do anything you please for a looong period of time (I'd say for 6-8 years).

The thing is, I don't know if you are going to use the PC to it's full capacity. Maybe you don't need 3 gigs of RAM and a core i7.
If you're not using your PC to it's maximum there is no point of buying a PC that expensive.. That's the thing I don't know. Maybe a £100 PC will suit you just fine!
And a paradox is that you said "I don't need cutting edge hardware". i7 is quite cutting edge . Also costs should be whatever it needs to be but not wasted on unnecessary components. I'd say if you arn't using the components, they arn't nesessary.
So again: Will you use the PC to it's maximum?

But at the same time you said that most of your work is heavy multitasking, so a quadcore will definity chew on that. And besides, you said around £1000 is ok so I guess cutting edge is alright then?

So I'll ask: What programs will you use? Are you running a server? Just storing information? Using things such as Photoshop? Why do you want to upgrade in the first place?

 

This is brilliant Lobsterlegs. Really helpful :yes:

I'm going to have a look now at the components you've recommended and see what I think is best for me.

What programs will you use?
The software I use at the moment are:
- paint shop pro for my graphics work. It has a simpler interface compared to photoshop, and the right features for my needs. I do graphical rather than photographic editing, so I'm mostly working with lots of layers with relatively small brushes. Again it is only about 1MP sizes, Sometimes my computer is sluggish when working with many layers. Not a real problem but I know it could be smoother. Undo is also sluggish. Zoom is sluggish. Picture wide effects are sluggish.

- Image quality on the machine I have is not good, no matter what monitor I use. No where near as clearly represented as it is on my laptop which is apple brand. (Although I hate this laptop for every other reason )

- Audio on the PC I have is substandard. It sounds better from my ipod. This is a sound blaster live card I have from about 8 years ago. I can hear very slight background noise on the audio from cpu and gpu activity, which is louder if I drag a windows across the screen, and even just from moving the mouse it makes a quiet buzz. The card is unshielded. I don't know if that is the root of the problem, but it seems to be picking up and amplifying em noise from the other hardware.

Audio editing is slower than preferred. Most operations are okay, but cut/paste can take 5-10 seconds when working on a 100MB file which leads me to compromise with the quality of my results sometimes. But then my 512MB ram doesn't go very far with 100MB files

Are you running a server?
I'm not running a server no.

Why do you want to upgrade in the first place?
All in all I feel my productivity is being limited. I'd be more productive with two monitors, more productive with superior sound and graphics quality, and more productive with responsive editing operations.

So I'm looking for general speed improvements, but a big emphasis on improving a/v quality rather than chasing benchmarks. So for instance, the fastest graphics cards available don't necessarily give the best picture quality.

Again, thank-you for your help

 

Alright, from the looks of it I can tell you this about PC2:

You will need a powerful GPU that costs more than $100.
Older and cheaper cards don't support more than 1 monitor and have only 1 DVI in the back (to connect 1 monitor). So all the GPU's I've mentioned will be used to their maximum.

Next, the soundcard.
Now judging by the expensive $300 motherboard, ASUS P6T Deluxe V2, I say you don't need a soundcard at all. The onboard soundcard that's on the motherboard will give you HD quality sound and 7.1 surround! What more can you ask for?

I say, don't buy a soundcard and check the onboard stuff out first. And if you think the sound isn't cutting it, go and buy yourself a soundcard. The Creative SB Audigy SE card will give you better quality sound then the onboard card. Note that those two will most definitely give better sound quality than your Ipod, and they will surely not give you "very slight background noise on the audio from cpu and gpu activity". If you wan't the really, really best, the kind of soundcards musicians use when they're at their home studio, check out the $200 ASUS Xonar D2/PM and the $250 Creative SB X-Fi Elite Pro. I don't think this is what you need, but if you feel that you need the best sound, or if you are making your own music and you have surround speakers and think that 200 bucks for crystal clear sound is worth it, then go for it.
Please note though that the bad sound does not always depend on your soundcard, but also your speakers/earphones. The slight background noise isn't beacuse of your speakers though.

Now moving on to the processor.
i7 is the deal. It's fast, and it's a killer. New technology to a very good price. Multitasking? Piece of cake!
In comparison with PC1, where you pay almost the same, but for an older processor.
Programs you use don't require much hardware. But that doesn't mean they won't use all that beastly power. And besides, you won't have to worry about an upgrade anytime soon. Really, that CPU will crunch on for years and still give some darn good results. Put in the extra cash and get the latest. Besides, your not going overkill with the i7 920. It's quite standard these days unlike the crazy i7 975 costing around £600 by itself! (THAT, you don't need)

As far as harddrives go, you should do just fine with a 500GB SATA2 harddrive.
SATA2 is much faster than those old flat IDE cables. But if you have the extra cash and want much faster loading speeds and data transfer from one place to another, I say check out the WD Raptor. The thing is that you said you don't need much harddrive space, so you might wan't to concider on buying a WD raptor 150GB drive.
The price? 3 times more expensive than the 500GB, but a LOT faster. This harddrive is good for video editing for example. Again, this is like the expensive soundcards I mentioned before and you might not need them.

Now back to the motherboard.
You said you wanted compatibility? Well, this motherboard has it all.
Just check the review out here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juGAE-0kuJA

It has all the ports and connectors needed. And even has that cool Solid State Drive for Asus Express Gate. Yeah, you heard him. A build-in Linux distro. A really good motherboard I must say. It even has those old IDE connectors if you want to plug in your old folks' harddrive in there one day.

As a conclusion:

I think you'll use all of your PC power if you choose the second one. There isn't actually really anything unnecessary. Everything will be used. And more of it will come in handy in due time.
The only thing I'm not sure about is about the PNY Quadro FX GPU. Since I'm a gamer I never had a graphics card not ment for gaming. I say check it out first and see what it is used for. Otherwise a Radeon HD4890 or a HD4870 or the GTX card will to just fine! Seems to me that you can spend that money on a computer, not having any budget or anything. You also suggested £1000 so I mean just do it...