Neeed a Computer Expert advice ... will return favor

[BroncoBuff]

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...d_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:

1. What's the difference between dual core and quad core?
2. My focus keeps coming back to the Wolfdale, E8200, E8400 or E8500, seem right?
3. What is 45nm ... 8200/8400/8500 has it. Is it valuable for my usage?
4. What is this more expensive i7 cpu?
5. What about these less expensive CPU lines? What do I lose? http://www.google.com/products/catal...186&sa=title#p
6. 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-listi...8686072&sr=8-1)
7. The system speed - 800/1066/1600 - my MB works with these speeds, what dio they mean and how important are they?
8. 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

1. My MotherBoard specs say: "DDR3 = N/A" ... obviously that means DDR3 won't work, right? Why should I care?
2. I want 4GB .... what should I look for in RAM?
3. 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=pro...0&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]

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]

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://<font size="1">http://www.goo...title#</font>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]

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
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.

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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/catal...705&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]

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?

[Rock Chalk]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

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]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

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.

Originally Posted by bsteven

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]

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

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 ... $120

.... or ....

Quad Core, 2.33 speed, 4mb cache, but no 45nm ... $140

On the other hand, this one seems to have ALL the advatages: 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...d_no=1485#menu

[BroncoBuff]

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

[jhns]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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

Dual Core 2.66 mhz, 6mb cache, 45nm ... $120

.... or ....

Quad Core, 2.33 speed, 4mb cache, but no 45nm ... $140

On the other hand, this one seems to have ALL the advatages: 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...d_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]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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]

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

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]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bronco Yoda

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]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

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?

Originally Posted by Alec

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.