| Home | Forums | Reviews | Guides | Newsgroups | Register | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Jul 3, 6:34 pm, Gordon <blub...@penguin.myplace.com> wrote:
> On 2008-07-03, Peter Jenkins <sstwebmas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Given that my primary requirements are stability and reliability, > > rather than utmost speed, > > And yet you are talking about going RAID 0. I would say that a single SATA drive > would be able to keep up. If RAID 0 will not give me a significant performance advantage, especially in start up and shut down speed, then fair enough I'll just use a single disc. The reason I prioritised performance over reliability for the hard drive is that I back up my crucial data regularly anyway onto an external drive etc etc > > > I am looking at buying midrange components > > of good quality. The set up I am thinking of getting is this; > > > Intel 8400 Core2 Duo 3Ghz CPU with 1333 MHz FSB around $255 > > Given that almost all the software I will run is old, with the > > exception of Firefox 3 and Ubuntu. I see no point in going to Quad > > Core > > You plan to keep the machine for awhile. What happens if the software is > able to make the 4 cores work hard all at once before you upgrade again? Good point. I think the motherboards that support the Core 2 Duo I want will also support a Quad core, so if I feel the need to go to a Quad Core at a later stage I can do so. Mind you if I've got this far on a PIII 600 I think I'll be able to stretch the core 2 Duo out a few years.... > > > > > Intel Box DG33BUC G33 Motherboard? $169 went for Intel as I want it > > to work well with the CPU, and reliability/stability is important more > > than a little extra speed. Or would a Gigabyte board be just as good/ > > better? My local supplier I use also has Abit boards, are these any > > good? > > If there was a difference between and Intel CPU/MB and Interl CPU and other > brand MB, how come there are so many other brand MB? True. I really dont know that much about the current motherboards, that's why I was hoping for suggestions and/or recommendations. I mainly went with Intel because it is what I have in my current machine and it has lasted 9 years without any problems  The Intel is alsoat a good price at the place I use (because it's close by and I have had good dealings with them in the past). Just want something where the caps wont start leaking after 5-6 years > > > > > Two Seagate 500 GB Barracuda SATAII drives in RAID 0 for speed rather > > than Data protection, as all my important data for the Trust I back up > > onto two external drives one of which lives at work plus my big flash > > drive plus make copies onto disc every month which go to Napier and > > Australia.... I like to have backups... > > > Powersupply I'm not too sure about, will 400W be adequate given that I > > dont play games and therefore have no need of a graphics card? I was > > looking at a Silverstone one of this capacity for $80, but can get > > bigger- any brands people here recommend/avoid? > > I have this feeling that price is a good guide. Higher price good power > supply. > > I also feel that there is a bit of a myth as to how much power a machine > requires. Still as Tim the Tool Man Taylor, often said more power is good. > > I have a "mere" 300 watt Zalman power supply. I have the feeling that > it could supply its quoted full power 24/7 and without breaking into a > sweat. Agree with that. Will not be getting a cheap no name power supply, but I dont need a top end one either since I wont be running graphics card or RAID 0 either by the sounds of it Regards Peter Jenkins see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Somewhere on teh intarweb "Peter Jenkins" typed:
> I use my current PC for browsing and document and file handling - and > usually have huge numbers of tabs running, and usually multiple > browsers, plus email, plus torrents, and a media player playing music. > I may also be moving large quantities of files back and forth from my > external drives or camera or flash drives and/or burning CD's etc all > at the same time. The only thing I never use the machine for is > gaming, which I doubt it's on board graphics could cope with anyway. > > Understandably my current nine year old PIII 600 is really struggling > with this sort of workload now, and it is getting a bit past it, so I > am looking at getting a new machine, which I intend to hang on to for > a while. I will be dual booting to Ubuntu and XP. I have decided that > XP is mature enough now having made the leap to Win 2K about 4 years > back. > > > Given that my primary requirements are stability and reliability, > rather than utmost speed, I am looking at buying midrange components > of good quality. The set up I am thinking of getting is this; > > Intel 8400 Core2 Duo 3Ghz CPU with 1333 MHz FSB around $255 > Given that almost all the software I will run is old, with the > exception of Firefox 3 and Ubuntu. I see no point in going to Quad > Core While I agree that dual cores are the way to go, if you're intending to keep this machine for 9 years as well that *could* change things. Personally, I'd still go for an E8400. Whatever motherboard you get will be able to handle a quad core anyway and, if you find the machine struggling in a few years time (which I doubt given your stated usage) there's the option to upgrade the CPU. Personally, in the situation you describe, I'd still opt for the dual core. Especially as it looks like it's running most of the time. Running a dual core over a quad will save you quite a bit on power over the years (all else being equal). > Intel Box DG33BUC G33 Motherboard? $169 went for Intel as I want it > to work well with the CPU, and reliability/stability is important more > than a little extra speed. Or would a Gigabyte board be just as good/ > better? My local supplier I use also has Abit boards, are these any > good? I like Asus and have experience with the P5K range. They use Intel north/southbridge so are very compatable. I would recommend a P5K-E or higher. I see Bobs has suggested a P5K-Pro but personally I'd go for the P5K-E (or the easier-to-find P5K-E WiFi/AP which is about the same price, and the board I have). The P5K-Pro is a completely different board layout to the -E which is based on the same PCB as the Premium and Deluxe. So, for a few bucks more, I'd take the -E over the -Pro. The Pro also has less PCI slots. Abit have been good in the past but they seem to be fading into the twilight. I'm not familiar with their current offerings. Gigabyte make good boards, it's just that, with the P5K (-E and above, the straight P5K is a budget board) range, I've not had to look past Asus for an excellent socket 775 board. > 4 GB DDR2 800 RAM, name brand - Transcend? G-Skill? Any brands to > stay away from? I just bought whatever Ascent had cheapest at the time. I think it was Transcend. <checks CPU-Z> Yep, Transcend JM2GDDR2-8K. It came as a 2 GB dual channel kit. Personally I wouldn't go the 4 GB way as XP doesn't like it. (A limitation with all 32 bit OSes?) I'm happy with 2 GB but, if you so desired, 3 GB could be an option (2 x 1 GB and 2 x 512 MB to keep dual channel mode). Maybe try 2 GB and see what you think? You can always add more later (not too much later as the price willl go up in a year or so as DDR3 takes over) I'm using 2 GB with pagefile switched off (XP Pro) and don't have a problem. Using multiple Firefox windows/tabs, word processing programme and email etc. all open... > Two Seagate 500 GB Barracuda SATAII drives in RAID 0 for speed rather > than Data protection, as all my important data for the Trust I back up > onto two external drives one of which lives at work plus my big flash > drive plus make copies onto disc every month which go to Napier and > Australia.... I like to have backups... An excellent choice of HDD. However, is RAID needed? These 500 GB 7200.11 drives are pretty damn fast and I've never been keen on something that doubles your chance of failure unless it's *really* needed. As you're stepping up from a PIII 600 (Katmai? I assume as it's the top of the upgradability route for certain mobos.) and possibly ATA33 (or 66 at the most?) you'll be surprised at the increase in HDD access times using SATA II and those Seagate drives. (Just remember to take the wee jumpers off the drives that limit them to SATA I.) > Powersupply I'm not too sure about, will 400W be adequate given that I > dont play games and therefore have no need of a graphics card? I think that, in your case, you should be looking at around a 700W good name PSU. There are two reasons for me suggesting what might sound like overkill: The first is that more modern PSUs are efficient when running at about half of their rated capacity. Depending on brand this could save you as much as 40 - 60W. (It might not seem like a lot but over 9 years....) The second reason is that 9 years figure. PSUs don't always fail with a bang. They tend to deteriorate as electrolytic capacitors dry out and resistors go out-of-spec. By buying a higher-rated PSU than you think you need you're buying insurance as well as efficiency. Also, having a higher-specced PSU allows for expansion, more HDDs... > I was > looking at a Silverstone one of this capacity for $80, but can get > bigger- any brands people here recommend/avoid? Silverstone have a good reputation. PC Power and Cooling are about the best money can buy but I don't know about availability in NZ. I've been using AcBel exclusively for the last few years and haven't had a problem with any of them. They have a lifetime warranty but aren't the cheapest PSU available. (I'm using an AcBel R8 700 [actually rated at 610W continous]) unit in my machine that cost me $200. I consider it to be an investment in reliability. > It's been quite a while since I last bought a computer, so my > knowledge is a little rusty, and advise/ input from those who know > about these things (especially misfit who seems to really know his > stuff) would be greatly appreciated Thanks for the compliment. I hope the above helps. Feel free to ping me if I can help more. Good luck, -- Shaun. DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...  |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <misfit6...@hooya.com.au> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Peter Jenkins" typed: > > > > > I use my current PC for browsing and document and file handling - and > > usually have huge numbers of tabs running, and usually multiple > > browsers, plus email, plus torrents, and a media player playing music. > > I may also be moving large quantities of files back and forth from my > > external drives or camera or flash drives and/or burning CD's etc all > > at the same time. The only thing I never use the machine for is > > gaming, which I doubt it's on board graphics could cope with anyway. > > > Understandably my current nine year old PIII 600 is really struggling > > with this sort of workload now, and it is getting a bit past it, so I > > am looking at getting a new machine, which I intend to hang on to for > > a while. I will be dual booting to Ubuntu and XP. I have decided that > > XP is mature enough now having made the leap to Win 2K about 4 years > > back. > > > Given that my primary requirements are stability and reliability, > > rather than utmost speed, I am looking at buying midrange components > > of good quality. The set up I am thinking of getting is this; > > > Intel 8400 Core2 Duo 3Ghz CPU with 1333 MHz FSB around $255 > > Given that almost all the software I will run is old, with the > > exception of Firefox 3 and Ubuntu. I see no point in going to Quad > > Core > > While I agree that dual cores are the way to go, if you're intending to keep > this machine for 9 years as well that *could* change things. Personally, I'd > still go for an E8400. Whatever motherboard you get will be able to handle a > quad core anyway and, if you find the machine struggling in a few years time > (which I doubt given your stated usage) there's the option to upgrade the > CPU. > > Personally, in the situation you describe, I'd still opt for the dual core. > Especially as it looks like it's running most of the time. Running a dual > core over a quad will save you quite a bit on power over the years (all else > being equal). > > > Intel Box DG33BUC G33 Motherboard? $169 went for Intel as I want it > > to work well with the CPU, and reliability/stability is important more > > than a little extra speed. Or would a Gigabyte board be just as good/ > > better? My local supplier I use also has Abit boards, are these any > > good? > > I like Asus and have experience with the P5K range. They use Intel > north/southbridge so are very compatable. I would recommend a P5K-E or > higher. I see Bobs has suggested a P5K-Pro but personally I'd go for the > P5K-E (or the easier-to-find P5K-E WiFi/AP which is about the same price, > and the board I have). The P5K-Pro is a completely different board layout to > the -E which is based on the same PCB as the Premium and Deluxe. So, for a > few bucks more, I'd take the -E over the -Pro. The Pro also has less PCI > slots. > > Abit have been good in the past but they seem to be fading into the > twilight. I'm not familiar with their current offerings. Gigabyte make good > boards, it's just that, with the P5K (-E and above, the straight P5K is a > budget board) range, I've not had to look past Asus for an excellent socket > 775 board. > > > 4 GB DDR2 800 RAM, name brand - Transcend? G-Skill? Any brands to > > stay away from? > > I just bought whatever Ascent had cheapest at the time. I think it was > Transcend. <checks CPU-Z> Yep, Transcend JM2GDDR2-8K. It came as a 2 GB dual > channel kit. Personally I wouldn't go the 4 GB way as XP doesn't like it. (A > limitation with all 32 bit OSes?) I'm happy with 2 GB but, if you so > desired, 3 GB could be an option (2 x 1 GB and 2 x 512 MB to keep dual > channel mode). Maybe try 2 GB and see what you think? You can always add > more later (not too much later as the price willl go up in a year or so as > DDR3 takes over) I'm using 2 GB with pagefile switched off (XP Pro) and > don't have a problem. Using multiple Firefox windows/tabs, word processing > programme and email etc. all open... > > > Two Seagate 500 GB Barracuda SATAII drives in RAID 0 for speed rather > > than Data protection, as all my important data for the Trust I back up > > onto two external drives one of which lives at work plus my big flash > > drive plus make copies onto disc every month which go to Napier and > > Australia.... I like to have backups... > > An excellent choice of HDD. However, is RAID needed? These 500 GB 7200.11 > drives are pretty damn fast and I've never been keen on something that > doubles your chance of failure unless it's *really* needed. As you're > stepping up from a PIII 600 (Katmai? I assume as it's the top of the > upgradability route for certain mobos.) and possibly ATA33 (or 66 at the > most?) you'll be surprised at the increase in HDD access times using SATA II > and those Seagate drives. (Just remember to take the wee jumpers off the > drives that limit them to SATA I.) > > > Powersupply I'm not too sure about, will 400W be adequate given that I > > dont play games and therefore have no need of a graphics card? > > I think that, in your case, you should be looking at around a 700W good name > PSU. There are two reasons for me suggesting what might sound like overkill: > The first is that more modern PSUs are efficient when running at about half > of their rated capacity. Depending on brand this could save you as much as > 40 - 60W. (It might not seem like a lot but over 9 years....) The second > reason is that 9 years figure. PSUs don't always fail with a bang. They tend > to deteriorate as electrolytic capacitors dry out and resistors go > out-of-spec. By buying a higher-rated PSU than you think you need you're > buying insurance as well as efficiency. > > Also, having a higher-specced PSU allows for expansion, more HDDs... > > > I was > > looking at a Silverstone one of this capacity for $80, but can get > > bigger- any brands people here recommend/avoid? > > Silverstone have a good reputation. PC Power and Cooling are about the best > money can buy but I don't know about availability in NZ. I've been using > AcBel exclusively for the last few years and haven't had a problem with any > of them. They have a lifetime warranty but aren't the cheapest PSU > available. (I'm using an AcBel R8 700 [actually rated at 610W continous]) > unit in my machine that cost me $200. I consider it to be an investment in > reliability. > > > It's been quite a while since I last bought a computer, so my > > knowledge is a little rusty, and advise/ input from those who know > > about these things (especially misfit who seems to really know his > > stuff) would be greatly appreciated > > Thanks for the compliment. > > I hope the above helps. Feel free to ping me if I can help more. > > Good luck, > -- > Shaun. > > DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me > offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. > If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to > me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... Thank you very much, thats exactly the advice I needed, greatly appreciated! Will go forth with shopping list in hand next week Thanks and Regards Peter Jenkins see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Jul 4, 1:49*pm, "~misfit~" <misfit6...@hooya.com.au> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Peter Jenkins" typed: > > > > Abit have been good in the past but they seem to be fading into the > twilight. I'm not familiar with their current offerings. Gigabyte make good > boards, it's just that, with the P5K (-E and above, the straight P5K is a > budget board) range, I've not had to look past Asus for an excellent socket > 775 board. What's that P5K-E Wifi board like out of interest? > > > 4 GB DDR2 800 RAM, name brand - *Transcend? G-Skill? Any brands to > > stay away from? > > I just bought whatever Ascent had cheapest at the time. I think it was > Transcend. <checks CPU-Z> Yep, Transcend JM2GDDR2-8K. It came as a 2 GB dual > channel kit. Personally I wouldn't go the 4 GB way as XP doesn't like it. (A > limitation with all 32 bit OSes?) I'm happy with 2 GB but, if you so > desired, 3 GB could be an option (2 x 1 GB and 2 x 512 MB to keep dual > channel mode). Maybe try 2 GB and see what you think? You can always add > more later (not too much later as the price willl go up in a year or so as > DDR3 takes over) I'm using 2 GB with pagefile switched off (XP Pro) and > don't have a problem. Using multiple Firefox windows/tabs, word processing > programme and email etc. all open... Personally I'd just stick 2x2 gig sticks in a be done with it myself. Sure, 32bit operating systems don't use anything above 3.25gb, but you never know what his upgrade path will be in the future. Sticking 3 gig in and using all four slots will limit that not to mention having four dimms increases the chances of a stick of ram going bad over all those years he's going to be using the pc. To each their own. > > > Two Seagate 500 GB Barracuda SATAII drives in RAID 0 for speed rather > > than Data protection, as all my important data for the Trust I back up > > onto two external drives one of which lives at work plus my big flash > > drive plus make copies onto disc every month which go to Napier and > > Australia.... I like to have backups... > > An excellent choice of HDD. However, is RAID needed? These 500 GB 7200.11 > drives are pretty damn fast and I've never been keen on something that > doubles your chance of failure unless it's *really* needed. As you're > stepping up from a PIII 600 (Katmai? I assume as it's the top of the > upgradability route for certain mobos.) and possibly ATA33 (or 66 at the > most?) you'll be surprised at the increase in HDD access times using SATA II > and those Seagate drives. (Just remember to take the wee jumpers off the > drives that limit them to SATA I.) Yes, I agree. RAID is not needed imo. Use one 500gig as your primary data, and the second as a backup. Of course, always have a backup of the backup as well. (external hard drive not connected to the PC would be my choice) > > > Powersupply I'm not too sure about, will 400W be adequate given that I > > dont play games and therefore have no need of a graphics card? > > I think that, in your case, you should be looking at around a 700W good name > PSU. There are two reasons for me suggesting what might sound like overkill: > The first is that more modern PSUs are efficient when running at about half > of their rated capacity. Depending on brand this could save you as much as > 40 - 60W. (It might not seem like a lot but over 9 years....) The second > reason is that 9 years figure. PSUs don't always fail with a bang. They tend > to deteriorate as electrolytic capacitors dry out and resistors go > out-of-spec. By buying a higher-rated PSU than you think you need you're > buying insurance as well as efficiency. ****, 700W for a budget system?? That system wont even use 50% of a 700W psu even at full load. I don't think a 400W PSU will ever get pushed more than 75% at full load on his system, especially if he doesn't overclock. > > Also, having a higher-specced PSU allows for expansion, more HDDs... > > > I was > > looking at a Silverstone one of this capacity for $80, but can get > > bigger- *any brands people here recommend/avoid? > > Silverstone have a good reputation. PC Power and Cooling are about the best > money can buy but I don't know about availability in NZ. I've been using > AcBel exclusively for the last few years and haven't had a problem with any > of them. They have a lifetime warranty but aren't the cheapest PSU > available. (I'm using an AcBel R8 700 [actually rated at 610W continous]) > unit in my machine that cost me $200. I consider it to be an investment in > reliability. > > > It's been quite a while since I last bought a computer, so my > > knowledge is a little rusty, and advise/ input from those who know > > about these things (especially misfit who seems to really know his > > stuff) would be greatly appreciated > > Thanks for the compliment. > > I hope the above helps. Feel free to ping me if I can help more. > > Good luck, > -- > Shaun. > > DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me > offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. > If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to > me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... - Hide quoted text -> > - Show quoted text - |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
> On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <misfit6...@hooya.com.au> wrote: >> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Peter Jenkins" typed: >> >> >> >> Abit have been good in the past but they seem to be fading into the >> twilight. I'm not familiar with their current offerings. Gigabyte >> make good boards, it's just that, with the P5K (-E and above, the >> straight P5K is a budget board) range, I've not had to look past >> Asus for an excellent socket 775 board. > > What's that P5K-E Wifi board like out of interest? It's bloody great. After a few hiccups with early BIOS' it's stable as a rock. I'm running an E4500 (stock 2.2GHz) at 3.32GHz with just a minor vcore increase. Everything about it just works as it should. The on-board sound is even more than passable. As I mentioned, it's made on the same PCB as the top-range boards. The vanilla P5K is an obviously inferior board, only having a 3-phase VRM stage and being half the price. The P5K-Pro was bought out with a new PCB to fill the gap between the vanilla P5K and the higher-range boards. From what I've been able to glean it's not a bad board. However, for the few extra bucks I'd go for the P5K-E WiFi/AP. I *know* it's good, I've built a couple systems around it now. >>> 4 GB DDR2 800 RAM, name brand - Transcend? G-Skill? Any brands to >>> stay away from? >> >> I just bought whatever Ascent had cheapest at the time. I think it >> was Transcend. <checks CPU-Z> Yep, Transcend JM2GDDR2-8K. It came as >> a 2 GB dual channel kit. Personally I wouldn't go the 4 GB way as XP >> doesn't like it. (A limitation with all 32 bit OSes?) I'm happy with >> 2 GB but, if you so desired, 3 GB could be an option (2 x 1 GB and 2 >> x 512 MB to keep dual channel mode). Maybe try 2 GB and see what you >> think? You can always add more later (not too much later as the >> price willl go up in a year or so as DDR3 takes over) I'm using 2 GB >> with pagefile switched off (XP Pro) and don't have a problem. Using >> multiple Firefox windows/tabs, word processing programme and email >> etc. all open... > > Personally I'd just stick 2x2 gig sticks in a be done with it myself. I've heard talk of scenarios where 2 x 2GB is actually slower than 2 x 1GB (or 2 x 1Gb + 2 x 0.5GB). <shrug> I didn't mention it before as I don't have hard evidence. However, my system with "only" 2 GB RAM and no swapfile doesn't miss a beat. > Sure, 32bit operating systems don't use anything above 3.25gb, but you > never know what his upgrade path will be in the future. Sticking 3 gig > in and using all four slots will limit that not to mention having four > dimms increases the chances of a stick of ram going bad over all those > years he's going to be using the pc. To each their own. Yeah, I only mentioned the 3 GB option as DDR2 is so damn cheap these days and a few of the performance boys are going that way and you can pick up 512MB sticks of DDR2 for around $20 each. Personally I'd just go with 2 x 1GB and keep my eye on DDR2 prices* while evaluating performance. >>> Two Seagate 500 GB Barracuda SATAII drives in RAID 0 for speed >>> rather than Data protection, as all my important data for the Trust >>> I back up onto two external drives one of which lives at work plus >>> my big flash drive plus make copies onto disc every month which go >>> to Napier and Australia.... I like to have backups... >> >> An excellent choice of HDD. However, is RAID needed? These 500 GB >> 7200.11 drives are pretty damn fast and I've never been keen on >> something that doubles your chance of failure unless it's *really* >> needed. As you're stepping up from a PIII 600 (Katmai? I assume as >> it's the top of the upgradability route for certain mobos.) and >> possibly ATA33 (or 66 at the most?) you'll be surprised at the >> increase in HDD access times using SATA II and those Seagate drives. >> (Just remember to take the wee jumpers off the drives that limit >> them to SATA I.) > > Yes, I agree. RAID is not needed imo. Use one 500gig as your primary > data, and the second as a backup. Of course, always have a backup of > the backup as well. (external hard drive not connected to the PC would > be my choice) For sure. 'Important' data should always have redundant backups. My important stuff is backed up to another PC as well as to optical disc where it'll fit. >>> Powersupply I'm not too sure about, will 400W be adequate given >>> that I dont play games and therefore have no need of a graphics >>> card? >> >> I think that, in your case, you should be looking at around a 700W >> good name PSU. There are two reasons for me suggesting what might >> sound like overkill: The first is that more modern PSUs are >> efficient when running at about half of their rated capacity. >> Depending on brand this could save you as much as 40 - 60W. (It >> might not seem like a lot but over 9 years....) The second reason is >> that 9 years figure. PSUs don't always fail with a bang. They tend >> to deteriorate as electrolytic capacitors dry out and resistors go >> out-of-spec. By buying a higher-rated PSU than you think you need >> you're buying insurance as well as efficiency. > > ****, 700W for a budget system?? What's budget about the system? A budget system would be a crap mobo with on-board video, an E7200 CPU (or even a 65nm part or a Celeron) and a single 160GB HDD. > That system wont even use 50% of a > 700W psu even at full load. That's the idea! That's where power supplies are most efficient, at ~50% of their rated load. Ok, my sytem is overclocked and has 4 HDDs, two DVD writers and a bunch of fans but I've used an on-line calculator and it gave me a figure of 427W under load. Ok, some of my power-draw is the (now obsolete) 7800GT and Peter will probably be looking at a less power-hungry graphics card but it can't hurt to be safe. One thing you learn if you hang around hardware and overclocking forums long enough is that the biggest cause of catastrophic (and non-catastophic) failure in home-built PCs is using an under-specced PSU. Most builders ignore their PSU as it doesn't exactly give them bragging rights. For the same reason, a lot of people who will advise you don't give good advice about PSUs either as they don't bother reading stuff like this: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/181/8 [Actually the only AcBel PSU that they reviewed at that (excellent) site did really badly. AcBel are just now trying to break into the US market. The price on their PSUs in the US is a lot less than here (moreso than other hardware trends would indicate was 'right') and also a lot less than their competition over there so I don't know if it was a PSU built to a price-point rather than their usual quality] This article and others like it will tell you all about how heat reduces your power supplies ability to output power by maybe 20% for a 10°C internal rise above 25°C. You'll also learn about how a hard-driven PSU can lose filtering ability on it's output rails due to instability bought on by stressed electrolytic capacitors. "Dirty power" will cause all sorts of intermittent problems like BSOD's which people can spend endless hours troubleshooting. ****, with the folks I help with their problems on the hardware groups, perhaps 60% are finally narrowed down to PSU. Sometimes I just say "Get a new xxxx watt PSU". LOL, I've seen it sooo many times. > I don't think a 400W PSU will ever get > pushed more than 75% at full load on his system, especially if he > doesn't overclock. Peter has shown that he keeps his systems for a long time. Therefore it only makes sense to get a well-specced PSU. A generic 400 Watter ($45) on his proposed system will *guaranteed* cause problems within two years (or much less). Possibly taking out mobo/RAM/HDDs/CPU/GPU and data with it. So you look at good quality PSUs from a reputable brand, of course you look at an "80+" certification so you know that you're not wasting up to 40% of the power going into it as heat. If you're looking at an output around 400W and then look at the rest of the range you'll realise that, for maybe 25% more, you can get a 700W unit that's even more efficient at the output you'll ask from it which will more than pay for the price difference in the first year. As someone who's taken a keen interest in computer hardware for years I rate the choice of PSU to be at least as important as the choice of motherboard. I left this next line in too as another reason for a quality PSU: >> Also, having a higher-specced PSU allows for expansion, more HDDs... Cheers, -- Shaun. DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Somewhere on teh intarweb "Peter Jenkins" typed:
[snip] > Thank you very much, thats exactly the advice I needed, greatly > appreciated! > Will go forth with shopping list in hand next week You're welcome Peter. Cheers, -- Shaun. DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Somewhere on teh intarweb "Peter Jenkins" typed:
[snip] > Just want something where > the caps wont start leaking after 5-6 years The Asus P5K-E WiFi/AP that I suggested has all solid caps. They've learned their lesson, at least for non-budget boards. Cheers, -- Shaun. DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Is time.time() < time.time() always true? | flamesrock | Python | 8 | 11-24-2006 06:51 AM |
| Re: interpreting the fractional portion of time.clock() vs time.time(0measurements | Peter Hansen | Python | 0 | 02-22-2006 02:02 PM |
| Re: interpreting the fractional portion of time.clock() vs time.time()measurements | Peter Hansen | Python | 0 | 02-22-2006 12:03 AM |
| time.clock() or time.time() | peterbe@gmail.com | Python | 8 | 08-05-2005 01:51 PM |
| delta time = time stop - time start | engsol | Python | 2 | 01-26-2004 12:06 PM |
