Neeed a Computer Expert advice ... will return favor [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : Neeed a Computer Expert advice ... will return favor

BroncoBuff

11-19-2009, 08:08 PM

Need some advice re: CPU and Ram.

I don't feel like going through the registration process on a computer message board to get advice, so, anybody who knows his stuff and can give me lots of answers, I'll owe you one. And I do know how to return a favor.

I have a good new MB, Intel specific: http://www.msicomputer.com/index.php?func=prodmbspec&maincat_no=1&cat2_no=&cat3_no=&prod_no=1485#menu

I am NOT a gamer. My usage is maximum simultaneous: Google Chrome - 10 pages open; MS Office - 8 Word docs and 2 Excel pages open; 2 Adobe Photoshop images open; Limewire; BitTorrent and Media Player all open ... all these simultaneoously. That's maximum ... normally it's about half that (sometimes use Adobe Audition 3.0, but I close everything else for that). Right now I'm XP Pro SP2, though I'll probably go W7 by the end of the year.

Questions:

CPU:

What's the difference between dual core and quad core?
My focus keeps coming back to the Wolfdale, E8200, E8400 or E8500, seem right?
What is 45nm ... 8200/8400/8500 has it. Is it valuable for my usage?
What is this more expensive i7 cpu?
What about these less expensive CPU lines? What do I lose? http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=buy+core2+duo&cid=7696993089545709186&sa=title#p
I found an E8200 Retail w/ factory fan/sink - used for $71, good seller. I have no fear of used items, I'm inclined to buy this one, Id like to save $50, but is it worth it?
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00116XB6W/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258686072&sr=8-1)
The system speed - 800/1066/1600 - my MB works with these speeds, what dio they mean and how important are they?
Regarding those speeds - what components must have that speed for the system to go that fast? MB and Ram only? Or must the HDD also comply with the 800/1066/1600 numbers?

RAM

My MotherBoard specs say: "DDR3 = N/A" ... obviously that means DDR3 won't work, right? Why should I care?
I want 4GB .... what should I look for in RAM?
I'm focused on: 2GB x 2 sticks = 4GB ... but there are a wide variety of sets and prices for this configuration, what's up with that?

Re: Graphics card: [url]http://us.msi.com/index.php?func=proddesc&maincat_no=130&prod_no=1680[/SIZE]) Can I run a 30-foot HDMI cord from my computer round to my TV? Does the HDMI carry audio? HD video?

Any thoughts on a case? Why do I care? And why do I care about power supply?

Thanks

jhns

11-20-2009, 09:11 AM

1) It is what it says. Dual core is like two processors running at once and quad core is 4. That means a quad core can process 4 pieces of information at the same time while a dual core only does 2. So a 3.0 Ghz quad core processor will be almost twice as fast as a 3.0 Ghz dual core processor.

2) Those are some of the better ones that run on that mobo. They will do what you need. You can do better with quad core or core i7. This all depends on the money you want to spend.

3) 45 nm is the size of the chip. The smaller the size, the less power it uses and less heat it puts out. 45 nm is very good for power and heat.

4) Not sure what you are asking here but core i7s are the top of the line cpus out right now. You don't really need one of these as it is much faster than what you need. If you can afford it, they are great though. I built my computer a few months ago around one. It will cost you a lot to build a computer that supports an i7 processor.

5) I can't answer this very well right now. If I remember later, I will look them up after work and see the specifics. It is hard to research them on my phone.

6) If you are asking if used parts are ok, I can't tell you. I have never gone that route. If the price is good and you can return it, I don't see a problem with it. I built my last two computers with almost all the parts coming from newegg.com.

7) Those are the RAM speeds you can have. The higher numbers are the faster ones. You probably won't see any difference in 2 GB of 1066 and 2 GB of 800. If you don't care about money, higher speeds are better.

8) Those speeds are only for the RAM and mobo.

RAM -

1) I would assume it means you can't use DDR3 ram. The only reason that would matter is that DDR3 is the best and fastest you can get. It will cost you to build a system with it.

2-3) Your mobo will be very specific about the type and speed of RAM you can use. The only thing I look for outside of making sure it works with my mobo is price and brand name. Find a good deal and make sure it is made by one of the good companies.

- You will want a case that keeps everything cool. This is really only a problem for people that build real high powered machines. You should be able to get away with any case. The specs of the case will tell you if your mobo will fit. Most fit into most cases.

- You need a power supply that is big enough to run everything. You shouldn't need a very big one. 450-600 watts would be enough, most likely. I would need to see exactly what is going into the computer to give a specific answer on this.

- I don't know about your graphics card but if I remember I will look at it later when I have time to research it a little. I have never hooked my computer up to a TV so you will have to get that info somewhere else.

BroncoBuff

11-20-2009, 09:57 AM

If Quad Cores are double the number of processes ... then why are some of them the same price as some Dual Cores? This 2.33 Quad w/ 4mb cache is just $143: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=buy+quad+core&cid=2995199383460050705&sa=title#p ... while the E8200, 2.66 Dual Core 6mb cache is the same price. Is the difference just .33 Ghz, 2MB more cache and 45nm? If that's the only differences, I should go Quad then for the same price. The 45nm size, slight speed increase and cache don't make up for the extra 2 cores, right? (and fwiw I'm not a gamer actually).

This is some good info jhns, exactly what I need. I want to get the right parts, I've had my current setup for more than 4 years, am gunning for the same length on this.

Don't worry about checking those less expensive chips, not gonna happen.

As far as hooking up a TV, you should really try it. It's not new technology ... 10 years ago I had a 25-foot S-VHS cable out of my video card around the wall into an old 35" TV. It was pretty awesome, especially with wireless keyboard/mouse. It'll be even better with a flat screen/HD.

broncosteven

11-20-2009, 10:00 AM

broncosteven

11-20-2009, 10:02 AM

Hey thanks, that's some good stuff. I really want to buy the right parts, I've had my current deal for 4 years, wanna set up something similar now.

If Quad Cores are double the number of processes ... then why are some of them the same price as some Dual Cores? This 2.33 Quad is just $143: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=buy+quad+core&cid=2995199383460050705&sa=title#p

... while the E8200, 2.66 Dual Core is the same price. Is the difference just .33 Ghz, 2MB more cache and 45nm? If that's the only differences, I should go Quad then for the same price.

Don't worry about checking those less expensive chips.

I would go with a faster Dual core than slower Quad.

Some apps only run on one CPU even though 3 others may be available. It may have gotten better but I would stay with Dual core for now on a desktop.

If your running a server then go Quad or Xeon.

BroncoBuff

11-20-2009, 10:11 AM

Rock Chalk

11-20-2009, 10:19 AM

I would go with a faster Dual core than slower Quad.

Some apps only run on one CPU even though 3 others may be available. It may have gotten better but I would stay with Dual core for now on a desktop.

If your running a server then go Quad or Xeon.

Maybe 3 years ago.

Every single application being produced right now is being produced to take advantage of multiple cores.

BroncoBuff

11-20-2009, 10:28 AM

I don't have time to research everything here.

I would by the fastest clocking Intel Core Duo chip you can afford. You can upgrade Ram cheap later but the CPU is more $.

I have heard arguments about paying more for better manufactured RAM. I go with the dirt cheap sale that I can find at Fry's or Compusa or where ever I can find my RAM type dirt cheap. I run Calkwalk DAW with 4 gig on XP sp3 and cheap ram is fine.

A more expensive CPU may have more instructions or higher cache or better cooling. You don't need any of that. Just buy an Intel Core Duo and you will be happy. BTW with cheaper CPU's you loose the same thing, instructions or cache or cooling.

Go SATA with your HDs

RAM speeds only factor into apps like CAD or lots of Audio/video production. I would say having more RAM is better than having less RAM even if it is faster. Once you start paging to disk your speed increase is voided.

Always install Ram in pairs, more paths on the board means less choke points. Stay cheap but max it out IN PAIRS.

Let me know if you need more info.

Conclusion:

Install RAM in pairs
Buy cheapest,fastest ram you can find for your board, cheap trumps fast
Go Intel Core Duo if compatible with your board
Check, check and check.

SATA HD's I always by a boot disk around 80 gig then a Data disk of 500+gig
RUN XP - INSTALL XP SP3!!!!! and all patches before install your apps.
I have twin SATA 250GB Seagates.

What does "Bootdisk 80 GB" mean exactly? I have an older 60 GB EIDE Maxtor ... you're saying put the OS and programs on the 60, and use the larger ones to store data? Then D-Ban the 60 clean and reload OS and programs every few months, without bothering with or moving the data? That seems like a great idea actually.

But I still don't understand these mega-sized HDDs ... I've almost never even half-filled the 250s ... I have more music than I could listen to in three lifetimes, and it's just 45 GB ... text programs and images take up almost no space, so why all the massive storage? Movies are the only thing I can imagine ... and I wouldn't torrent or Limewire a movie for any reason ... my grocery store downtown here has $1 rentals for all new releases, and Netflix will stream them without a download, so why risk any of that downloading nonsense?

Thanks buddy.

BroncoBuff

11-20-2009, 10:38 AM

Maybe 3 years ago.

Every single application being produced right now is being produced to take advantage of multiple cores.

Okay, then for appx the same price of $120-140, which do you recommend:

Dual Core 2.66 mhz, 6mb cache, 45nm (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Dual-Core-Processor-1333MHz-LGA775/dp/B00116XB6W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258742043&sr=1-1) ... $120

.... or ....

Quad Core, 2.33 speed, 4mb cache, but no 45nm (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-2-33GHz-1333MHz-Desktop-Processor/dp/B001DCLRYM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258742043&sr=1-3) ... $140

On the other hand, this one seems to have ALL the advatages (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Processor-LGA775-EM64T-Q9400BOX/dp/B001DO1Q1O/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258740905&sr=1-9): Quad, 6mb cache, 45nm, and a good 2.66 Mhz speed .... just $189. The extra $60 is certainly worth it right?

My mobo supports all these listed above plus: http://www.msicomputer.com/index.php?func=prodcpusupport&maincat_no=1&cat2_no=&cat3_no=&prod_no=1485#menu

BroncoBuff

11-20-2009, 10:50 AM

jhns

11-20-2009, 10:55 AM

Fast Dual Core better than a Quad - Quad has only limited advantages
Ram - most bang for the buck.

And you're anti-W7 for now?

I just got windows 7 and I love it. I would recommend it as it has some real nice features. Also, I would buy it at newegg.com or somewhere that you can get the system builders version. You don't get windows tech support (has anyone ever used it anyways) and you can only put it on one computer, but it is way cheaper.

The cheap RAM advice is good advice. I would still look for cheap name brands though. You can get the same cheap RAM with the name brands.

As for the dual vs quad core processors, either one of those will work for what you are doing. That quad core will run a little faster. The dual core will be better on power and heat output. The things you listed as the differences are the only differences. The only time you would see any difference between the two you showed there is when you start getting a ton of stuff running at once.

jhns

11-20-2009, 11:01 AM

Okay, then for appx the same price of $120-140, which do you recommend:

Dual Core 2.66 mhz, 6mb cache, 45nm (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Dual-Core-Processor-1333MHz-LGA775/dp/B00116XB6W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258742043&sr=1-1) ... $120

.... or ....

Quad Core, 2.33 speed, 4mb cache, but no 45nm (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-2-33GHz-1333MHz-Desktop-Processor/dp/B001DCLRYM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258742043&sr=1-3) ... $140

On the other hand, this one seems to have ALL the advatages (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Processor-LGA775-EM64T-Q9400BOX/dp/B001DO1Q1O/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258740905&sr=1-9): Quad, 6mb cache, 45nm, and a good 2.66 Mhz speed .... just $189. The extra $60 is certainly worth it right?

My mobo supports all these listed above plus: http://www.msicomputer.com/index.php?func=prodcpusupport&maincat_no=1&cat2_no=&cat3_no=&prod_no=1485#menu

That 2.66 quad would be the best performance and outlast the other two you were talking about. I would recommend it if you want to spend the extra money. Again, all of them will do what you need them for though.

broncosteven

11-20-2009, 12:35 PM

Cakewalk, eh? My friend tried to talk me into that 4 years ago, but I got a good deal on Audition.

Okay bsteven, great stuff.

Fast Dual Core better than a Quad - Quad has only limited advantages
Ram - most bang for the buck.

And you're anti-W7 for now?

I haven't seen W7, I heard there was some weird upgrade loop problem. If you want to be cutting edge go for it.

Alec is probably right about the programming for multiple cores I don't think you need a slow quad when you can get a faster Dual for what you are doing. It is all about how many instructions are in the chip and choke points at the buses.

If you want to reduce power and save the earth go with the less heat producing chip. Al Gore will thank you on next years 30 Rock Green week show...if the earth lasts another year.

broncosteven

11-20-2009, 12:39 PM

Check, check and check.

I have twin SATA 250GB Seagates.

What does "Bootdisk 80 GB" mean exactly? I have an older 60 GB EIDE Maxtor ... you're saying put the OS and programs on the 60, and use the larger ones to store data? Then D-Ban the 60 clean and reload OS and programs every few months, without bothering with or moving the data? That seems like a great idea actually.

But I still don't understand these mega-sized HDDs ... I've almost never even half-filled the 250s ... I have more music than I could listen to in three lifetimes, and it's just 45 GB ... text programs and images take up almost no space, so why all the massive storage? Movies are the only thing I can imagine ... and I wouldn't torrent or Limewire a movie for any reason ... my grocery store downtown here has $1 rentals for all new releases, and Netflix will stream them without a download, so why risk any of that downloading nonsense?

Thanks buddy.

Boot = Os, Data = data always get 3 times the storage you think you will need for Storage. if you have 45gig then I would buy a 320gig only because the prices are so low. It is hard to fill up 120/160 gig harddrives unless you are really trying.

It was way easier to fill up a 10 gig drive.

Now with all the cloud computing talk you may not even be storing a lot of pic's and video and or music locally anymore.

Garcia Bronco

11-20-2009, 12:46 PM

Maybe 3 years ago.

Every single application being produced right now is being produced to take advantage of multiple cores.

Multi-threaded apps are getting more pervasive, but there are more than a few legacy ones that can't take advantage.

BroncoBuff

11-20-2009, 08:05 PM

Boot = Os, Data = data always get 3 times the storage you think you will need for Storage. if you have 45gig then I would buy a 320gig only because the prices are so low. It is hard to fill up 120/160 gig harddrives unless you are really trying.

It was way easier to fill up a 10 gig drive.

Now with all the cloud computing talk you may not even be storing a lot of pic's and video and or music locally anymore.

Okay ... slow down for my sake here.

I have twin Seagate 250-gig SATA HDDs. Two identical drives. I'm keeping them. And I also have an old Maxtor 60-gig EIDE.

Are you suggesting: Use the 60-gig for the OS and programs ... and the larger ones for data?

Bronco Yoda

11-20-2009, 08:48 PM

Good luck Buff.

The last time I built a computer was a P233 with 72 pin simms. Yep, been a Loooooooong time. I go the lazy way now.

BroncoBuff

11-20-2009, 10:48 PM

Good luck Buff.

The last time I built a computer was a P233 with 72 pin simms. Yep, been a Loooooooong time. I go the lazy way now.

Hahaha ... I hear ya. Right now I'm on an "Athlon 2800+" with 2 GB Ram (PC3200 RAM, Triassic/Jurassic era), and a decent 256 mb graphics card. It's definitely an okay unit, but coming up on five years now, so it's time. Plus I'm gonna get W7 as soon as my MS friend comes up with his discount, and that'll be my first new OS since 2002 ... so it is DEFINITELY time to build a new system (I was smart enough to jump Vista, the first MS OS I've ever jumped.)

In reference to your post ... I actually still have two 32mb simm sticks = 64 mb total 72 pin Ram sitting around ... can't bring myself to toss it out. Shoot me a PM if you want it, I'll gladly ship it out to you.

Rock Chalk

11-21-2009, 07:14 AM

Alec ... agree RAM best bang for buck? I can get 2GB x 2 = 4GB for about $60.

Steven, regarding the 45nm thing ... that's just a cooling and size improvement? Aren't cooling concerns more for gamers, cause I'm not a gamer.

And overclocking, that's mostly for gamers too, right? I would totally juice up a 2.66 to 3.00 or so if that's any value ???

No. High end RAM is not crucial but going bottom of the barrel is usually unwise. with RAM I generally go somewhere in the middle.

Since you are building, get 64 bit hardware. None of the 32 bit systems recognize more than 4 GB of RAM but the 64 bit systems do.

Regarding cooling and overclocking. YOu are wrong its not just for gamers. Its for people that work on their computers and tax its systems with either many programs or just a few high end resource intensive programs. Video editing, music editing, 3d animations, etc. I dont know what you are doing on your computer, so I cannot recommend overclocking.

Rock Chalk

11-21-2009, 07:15 AM

Okay ... slow down for my sake here.

I have twin Seagate 250-gig SATA HDDs. Two identical drives. I'm keeping them. And I also have an old Maxtor 60-gig EIDE.

Are you suggesting: Use the 60-gig for the OS and programs ... and the larger ones for data?

You might as well throw the 60 gig EIDE out. No mother board you buy now is going to even have an EIDE slot on it.

Rock Chalk

11-21-2009, 07:17 AM

Multi-threaded apps are getting more pervasive, but there are more than a few legacy ones that can't take advantage.

It doesnt matter if there are legacy apps that cant take advantage, when you buy you buy for the future, not the ****ing past.

THe future says apps are going to support multi-cores, all of them, so don't let the fact that legacy apps cant take advantage deter people.

That same line of reasoning is why it took 64 bit computers and software to push through even though we've had the god damn technology for 10 years or more.

Bronco Yoda

11-21-2009, 01:26 PM

Hahaha ... I hear ya. Right now I'm on an "Athlon 2800+" with 2 GB Ram (PC3200 RAM, Triassic/Jurassic era), and a decent 256 mb graphics card. It's definitely an okay unit, but coming up on five years now, so it's time. Plus I'm gonna get W7 as soon as my MS friend comes up with his discount, and that'll be my first new OS since 2002 ... so it is DEFINITELY time to build a new system (I was smart enough to jump Vista, the first MS OS I've ever jumped.)

In reference to your post ... I actually still have two 32mb simm sticks = 64 mb total 72 pin Ram sitting around ... can't bring myself to toss it out. Shoot me a PM if you want it, I'll gladly ship it out to you.

I might just have to take you up on that. Funny thing is this computer still works last time I checked! Out of all the notebooks and desktops that have burned out over the years... this little baby still hums along though it doesnt have much memory and it can only handle Win95. I was thinking about setting it back up and try and dedicate it to one of those majic jacks for phone service. I wonder if this would work?

theAPAOps5

11-21-2009, 01:52 PM

I agree with Rock on going to 64 bit. You run out of RAM ability and while 32bit will recognize 4gb of RAM it really only adequately uses 3gb ram so you top out.

I also agree with Rock that software will only continue to grow in working with and utilizing multiple core hardware. Thinking about applications that are current or legacy is only present tense thinking. You want to keep this computer for 4 years so imagine how many iterations of applications you will get that start maximizing those dual and quad cores.

Heck our software updates for programs like AutoCAD and other engineering work routinely come with versions to run both 64 and 32 bit now. Where as just a year ago they didn't it was an either or. So companies are recognizing the shift in technology and that will only continue.

theAPAOps5

11-21-2009, 01:54 PM

Also I believe Kaylore just built a computer last year and did it all with his own recipe so give him a shout to see what he did.

BroncoBuff

11-21-2009, 02:00 PM

No. High end RAM is not crucial but going bottom of the barrel is usually unwise. with RAM I generally go somewhere in the middle.
By bottom/middle/high you mean 800/1066/1333 ... those speed rates?

Since you are building, get 64 bit hardware. None of the 32 bit systems recognize more than 4 GB of RAM but the 64 bit systems do.
My mobo is 64-bit capable, and all CPU's I'm considering are 64-bit capable. That leaves just W7? Or do Ram and/or graphics cards and/or something else require 64-bit capability?

Nutshell why 64-bit is better?

Just to be certain, 64-bit is 100% software backwards compatible, right? I would SO hate to get everything set up but then have it reject installation of some important program I need ... and I have some older programs that are essential.

theAPAOps5

11-21-2009, 02:34 PM

No 64bit is not backwards compatible. But you can get around this by having a dual boot. You can boot a 32bit or 64bit operating system. And as your programs advance forward you can hopefully eliminate the dual boot.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-22-2009, 02:17 AM

Rigs11

11-22-2009, 07:46 PM

jhns

11-23-2009, 06:13 AM

Actually, the bolded part is not quite true.

A quad core processor is only ~25% faster than a dual core processor.

Everything I have read on this doesn't support what you are saying. I just googled it and I see up to a %75 increase with programs that are made to support them. Can you link me to were you are getting this?

jhns

11-23-2009, 06:19 AM

Meh. I love how people always think that they need a quad core. The original poster would not even see the difference between a 2 or 4 core based on what he said he is doing with it. Get yourself a AMD x2 550 and 4gb of Ram.Throw Windows 7 on it and you will be set.

If he actually opens all of that stuff at once he could. You are very short sighted though. Most current and old programs will not fully use a quad core and you will get better performance out of a higher clocked dual core. In the future, the quad core is going to have a noticable difference.

A faster clocked dual core is the better short term answer and the quad core is the better long term answer.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-23-2009, 11:57 AM

Everything I have read on this doesn't support what you are saying. I just googled it and I see up to a %75 increase with programs that are made to support them. Can you link me to were you are getting this?

Here's one place to start: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

Drek

11-23-2009, 12:36 PM

Buff:

The HDMI cable should be good for 30'. They're supposed to maintain integrity for at least 50'. Go to Monoprice.com, its the cheapest price you'll find on HDMI cables anywhere.

You sure you want to build your own system? Its rare to have a system build go 100% smooth so if you aren't up for some potential need to tinker to get everything running you might want to go the OEM route, with Black Friday round the corner there will be some great deals.

If you still want to tackle a build here are the things I would suggest:

1. DO NOT cheap out on the power supply. You'll definitely need a new one, make it a good one. Go brand name and go high wattage. Get a nice one and everything will run more stable and you'll probably get two builds out of it, not one like most parts.

2. For your uses ram is king. Not just system memory, but also memory cache on your chip sets. Unfortunately cache size plays a big role in chip pricing in today's market. Here are three different 45nm quad core intel chips:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 Yorkfield 2.66GHz 4MB L2 Cache $169 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115057)

Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz 8MB L3 Cache LGA $199 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215)

Intel Core i7-920 Bloomfield 2.66GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache $289 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202)

So why three CPUs with the same clock speeds at different prices? Front side bus and memory cash. The bus is basically the speed data can be moved in and out of the caches, the caches feed data to your processors faster than any other connection in your system (unless you have a high end graphics card with its own caches). For memory intensive programs (multiple windows or having photoshop running with pretty much anything else) the key to having that fast responsive machine is memory.

For you I'd go absolutely no less than 4 GB of system memory, preferably more, which means 64 bit OS. By proxy, that means you want to go with Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate. Those are the three flavors that offer Windows Virtual PC, that will let you run a virtual Windows XP without having to mess with a dual boot setup.

3. Your two 250GB SATA drives should be set up on a RAID if you want maximum speed. RAID 0 (striped) which means the two will work and be recognized by your system as a single drive. This is best implemented through a motherboard that supports a RAID 0 setup, many quality ones now do. If you want real speed I would even go so far as to suggest finding a motherboard that lets you have a RAID 0 setup as a slave drive (Intel's Matrix RAID is probably the best solution for that), then buy one of these:
Solid State Drives (http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=636&name=Solid-State-Disks)

You could probably get by with something in the 64-128GB range. Turn that into your primary boot drive, install the OS and your most heavily used applications on there, nothing else, then partition the RAID 0 slave drive into multiple content specific 'storage bins' like photos, movies, music, etc..

4. Even though you aren't an avid gamer I would still suggest a solid graphics card, it is very useful for things like photoshop and near imperative if you want to stream HD content while multitasking, as many players are beginning to incorporate some workload dump off to the GPU. Just get a solid mid-line gaming card, something in the $150 to $200 range, and you'll be set for a while. Shoot for a motherboard that allows SLI or Crossfire as well, that way if you want better graphics power down the road your old card isn't scraped, you just pair it with another.

As for your case, most anything will do but if you're building your own aim for something with clip in housing for drives, easily removable cages and side panels, etc.. Even then you'll want a box of band-aids handy before starting, but if you get a janky little mini-ATX you'll be bleeding before you know it.

I'd also strongly recommend going with a blu-ray drive that can record, preferably paired with a high read speed DVD/CD combo drive (doesn't need to burn, its just for reading when you spin off copies or other drive needs while burning a blu).

jhns

11-23-2009, 01:21 PM

Here's one place to start: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

Well that isn't really showing potential. That shows what they are doing with current and old programs. Even then it shows a much slower clocked quad core beat a faster clocked dual core with some of them. Those differences will get much bigger as the industry learns to really take advantage of multiple cores.

This is a hard subject to research though. I can't find much about the actual max potential of different CPUs. I can find a few things like this.. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ but that doesn't really say much. I will have to look into this later as now I want to know.

Rigs11

11-23-2009, 02:45 PM

If he actually opens all of that stuff at once he could. You are very short sighted though. Most current and old programs will not fully use a quad core and you will get better performance out of a higher clocked dual core. In the future, the quad core is going to have a noticable difference.

A faster clocked dual core is the better short term answer and the quad core is the better long term answer.
they've been saying that for years. What applications are going to use quad cores? If we take your hypothesis and open up a bunch of programs at once, he'll probably run out of ram before processing power.If we're doing rendering that relies on the processor(3ds Max),then yeah the quad would be better. for everyday use go with the dual core and spend the money saved on lap dances.

jhns

11-24-2009, 06:29 AM

they've been saying that for years. What applications are going to use quad cores? If we take your hypothesis and open up a bunch of programs at once, he'll probably run out of ram before processing power.If we're doing rendering that relies on the processor(3ds Max),then yeah the quad would be better. for everyday use go with the dual core and spend the money saved on lap dances.

As I said, that would be looking to the future. He said he wants it for 5 years. Do you realize how much changes every 5 years? Programs will take advantage of quad cores a lot better in the next couple years. He also has a dual core and quad core that are the exact same price picked out. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the money.

If this is your reasoning, he could get a single core CPU that is really fast and not see a difference with what he is doing. I am just giving what is best. Faster clocked dual cores will run current and old programs about the same or better. Slower clocked quad cores will run future programs better. Faster clocked quad cores will run everything better.