Time to upgrade..

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter Jenkins, Jul 3, 2008.

  1. 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

    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?

    4 GB DDR2 800 RAM, name brand - Transcend? G-Skill? Any brands to
    stay away from?

    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?

    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 and Regards
    Peter Jenkins
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
     
    Peter Jenkins, Jul 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Jenkins

    Gordon Guest

    On 2008-07-03, Peter Jenkins <> 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.



    > 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?

    >
    > 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?

    >
    > 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.
     
    Gordon, Jul 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Jul 3, 6:34 pm, Gordon <> wrote:
    > On 2008-07-03, Peter Jenkins <> 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 also
    at 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
     
    Peter Jenkins, Jul 4, 2008
    #3
  4. On Jul 3, 7:41 pm, Bobs <> wrote:
    > Peter Jenkins wrote:
    > > 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

    >
    > Well, how long are you planning to use this PC for? Five years? If so,
    > I'd look at quad core since 6-core cpus will be out by years end, and
    > will be mainstream by xmas 2009. Do you really want to be stuck at dual
    > core when in two years even low end pcs will be 4-core and mid range 6 core?


    At least 5 years, given that have had my current machine for 9.
    Perhaps I'll just make sure that the motherboard I pick will support
    Quad core as well so if I need to upgarde I can. Mind you being "stuck
    at dual core" has still got to be better than stuck at a PIII 600!

    >
    >
    >
    > > 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?

    >
    > Don't like Intel motherboards, I'd rather go for ASUS or Gigabyte.


    Fair enough, I only piacked Intel because its what I have now and it
    has lasted and lasted. That matters to me. Anyone else have positive/
    negative views on ASUS/ Gigabyte boards, especially on their longevity

    >
    > For not much more than $1000 you can get
    >
    > Intel Quad Core Q6600 at 2.4GHZ ~$350
    > ASUS Motherboard (maybe P5K Pro for example) ~$190
    > 4 GB Gskill DDR2-1000 RAM ~$180
    > Nvidia 8500GT with TV-OUT/DVI/HDTV ~$90
    > Half decent Case ~$80
    > Silverstone 400W PSU $70
    > Two 500GB Hard Disks ~$250
    >
    > You can easily overclock the Q6600 to 3GHZ and be rock solid stable if
    > you so wish.
    >


    Thanks for that, that's not that far off what I had in mind. Apprciate
    the input

    Regards
    Peter Jenkins
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    >
    >
    > > 4 GB DDR2 800 RAM, name brand - Transcend? G-Skill? Any brands to
    > > stay away from?

    >
    > > 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?

    >
    > > 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 and Regards
    > > Peter Jenkins
    > > seehttp://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
     
    Peter Jenkins, Jul 4, 2008
    #4
  5. Peter Jenkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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... ;-)
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 4, 2008
    #5
  6. On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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
     
    Peter Jenkins, Jul 4, 2008
    #6
  7. Peter Jenkins

    Bobs Guest

    On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.


    Shit, 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 -
     
    Bobs, Jul 4, 2008
    #7
  8. Peter Jenkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
    > On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.

    >
    > Shit, 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.

    Shit, 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... ;-)
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 4, 2008
    #8
  9. Peter Jenkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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... ;-)
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 4, 2008
    #9
  10. Peter Jenkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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... ;-)
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 4, 2008
    #10
  11. >> 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


    Misfit, I find that intriguing, is there an online calculator for PSU's?
    My daughters peecee...

    1 X Athlon XP2700+(333mhz fsb)
    1 X motherboard with all usual onboard accessories (but not video)
    2 X 7200 rpm 80Gb Seagates
    1 X floppy drive
    4 X 512Mb DDR400
    1 X nVidia FX5900 hair dryer / 3D accelerator
    1 X DVDRW
    1 X DVD Combo drive
    1 X Firewire 800 / USB2 card
    1 X USB powered scanner
    1 X USB powered large screen MP3 / Movie player
    1 X PCI modem (never used)
    1 X PCI SB Live
    1 X analog Genius gamepad
    1 X USB joystick

    which ran like that on a 230 watt psu for over 2 years, and now runs on a
    300 that I got given (about 16 months ago). I'm curious to know what the
    recommendation for the psu would be.
    The machine has never had any problems and does get worked hard. Sometimes I
    have it downloading torrents, while it's ripping DVD's, and copying files to
    external firewire all at the same time, and then the daughter comes along
    and starts surfing, moving music files around, or plays a game (it is sort
    of, mostly, supposed to hers after all, lol). As you can see I'd be real
    keen to see what is actually recommended for this setup.

    Cheers, J&H.
     
    Jekyll and Hyde, Jul 4, 2008
    #11
  12. On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:49:32 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarweb "Peter Jenkins" typed:


    >> 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.)


    I have three of the 7200.11 500 Gbyte drives (2 in my MythTV box and
    one in the new Vista box), along with three of the terabyte versions
    in various boxes. They are all blazingly fast, way more than I was
    expecting them to be. Copying big video files (1 Gibyte or so) under
    Vista SP1 using a program that reports copying speeds as it goes
    (TakeCommand "copy /g" command) shows sustained copying speeds of
    around 70,000 Kbytes per second or more. I just copied a
    1,458,125,704 byte file in 20.6 seconds. So RAID really is not needed
    for speed.

    I was surprised at how fast they are, but on thinking about it, while
    they are still rotating at 7200 rpm, due to vertical encoding have
    vastly increased bit density and hence the same increase in transfer
    speed while on a cylinder. The stepping rate is no faster than it
    was, but you have to step less often as there are far more bits on a
    cylinder.

    Unfortunately, I have to report that I just had the 500 Gbyte drive in
    my new Vista box fail, at just two months old. Ascent replaced it,
    and (with their consent), I tried swapping the electronics board from
    the new drive onto the old one to see if I could get my data off it,
    but no go - it was the drive itself that was bad. BTW swapping the
    electronics boards on these drives is downright simple, as long as you
    have the right torc screwdriver.

    I have no idea whether my failed drive is an isolated incident or an
    indicator of a bad batch of drives - it is the first failure I have
    had of a Seagate drive since I started buying them (apart from one I
    dropped).
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jul 4, 2008
    #12
  13. Peter Jenkins

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
    >> On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.


    LOL. ~misfit buys the cheapest memory he can find from an unreliable generic
    supplier and he actually thinks he got a "dual-channel kit"?! He has **no
    idea** what he got. But of course he will be shooting off his mouth in this
    forum for years claiming that every problem he sees on his machine is
    sourced from some component besides the obvious one.

    > 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.
    >


    Another classic I'm-just-making-this-up-because_I-can piece of nonsense.
    **Of course** ~misfit has no evidence. He **never** hasany evidence for his
    bombastic claims. Rest assured, there is **no scenario** in which bullshit
    trumps reality.

    >> 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.

    >


    More nonsense. Having 4 dimms of ram absolutely **does not** increase the
    chances of ram failure. If ~misfit would stop buying the cheapest ram
    available from unreliable suppliers his risk would fall to practically
    nothing.

    > 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.
    >


    The "performance boys" were using 3Gb on 32-bit machines 5 years ago. But
    since the OP is going to be dual-booting Ubuntu and XP, there is no reason
    whatsoever to limit the use. 2 x 2Gb makes much more sense for starters
    while leaving plenty of room for future expansion.

    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> Shit, 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.
    >


    More nonsense yet! First of all, the optimum efficiency range is actually
    much bigger than ~misfit implies -- 40% to 60% of rated load -- which in
    the case of a 400w supply would be between 160 and 240 watts. For the usage
    described by the OP that's pretty near perfect. A 700 watt supply would be
    running inefficiently almost **all the time**. Second of all, the efficiency
    of any given power supply is primarily a function of its design, not the
    load it's drawing. So it's silly to ever recommend a supply on its rated
    wattage alone.

    > 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
    >


    If only ~misfit read this kind of material before offering advice.

    > [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]
    >


    So ~misfit keeps recommending the AcBel brand based on pure speculation. I
    suspect, it's just the power supply he happened to be able to afford at the
    time, and so it received for ever after the ~misfit award for Best Possible
    Hardware Selection in the Whole World.

    > 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.
    >


    It will also explain that you should not rely on manufacturer labeling,
    advertisements, or personal anecdotes to determine the quality of the power
    supply you buy. Whenever possible, consult detailed manufacturers spec
    sheets so you know exactlyt what's being claimed, and then look for
    independent reviews that validate (or invalidate) those claims.

    > Shit, 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.
    >


    What's that saying?....If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

    >> 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...

    >


    Don't be fooled -- a quality 400-watt supply will be plenty.
     
    impossible, Jul 4, 2008
    #13
  14. Peter Jenkins

    bugalugs Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
    >>> On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.

    >
    > LOL. ~misfit buys the cheapest memory he can find from an unreliable generic
    > supplier and he actually thinks he got a "dual-channel kit"?! He has **no
    > idea** what he got. But of course he will be shooting off his mouth in this
    > forum for years claiming that every problem he sees on his machine is
    > sourced from some component besides the obvious one.
    >
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    > Another classic I'm-just-making-this-up-because_I-can piece of nonsense.
    > **Of course** ~misfit has no evidence. He **never** hasany evidence for his
    > bombastic claims. Rest assured, there is **no scenario** in which bullshit
    > trumps reality.
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > More nonsense. Having 4 dimms of ram absolutely **does not** increase the
    > chances of ram failure. If ~misfit would stop buying the cheapest ram
    > available from unreliable suppliers his risk would fall to practically
    > nothing.
    >
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    > The "performance boys" were using 3Gb on 32-bit machines 5 years ago. But
    > since the OP is going to be dual-booting Ubuntu and XP, there is no reason
    > whatsoever to limit the use. 2 x 2Gb makes much more sense for starters
    > while leaving plenty of room for future expansion.
    >
    >>>>> 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.
    >>> Shit, 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.
    >>

    >
    > More nonsense yet! First of all, the optimum efficiency range is actually
    > much bigger than ~misfit implies -- 40% to 60% of rated load -- which in
    > the case of a 400w supply would be between 160 and 240 watts. For the usage
    > described by the OP that's pretty near perfect. A 700 watt supply would be
    > running inefficiently almost **all the time**. Second of all, the efficiency
    > of any given power supply is primarily a function of its design, not the
    > load it's drawing. So it's silly to ever recommend a supply on its rated
    > wattage alone.
    >
    >> 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
    >>

    >
    > If only ~misfit read this kind of material before offering advice.
    >
    >> [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]
    >>

    >
    > So ~misfit keeps recommending the AcBel brand based on pure speculation. I
    > suspect, it's just the power supply he happened to be able to afford at the
    > time, and so it received for ever after the ~misfit award for Best Possible
    > Hardware Selection in the Whole World.
    >
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    > It will also explain that you should not rely on manufacturer labeling,
    > advertisements, or personal anecdotes to determine the quality of the power
    > supply you buy. Whenever possible, consult detailed manufacturers spec
    > sheets so you know exactlyt what's being claimed, and then look for
    > independent reviews that validate (or invalidate) those claims.
    >
    >> Shit, 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.
    >>

    >
    > What's that saying?....If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail?
    >
    >>> 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...

    >
    > Don't be fooled -- a quality 400-watt supply will be plenty.
    >
    >

    So the OP puts out a list of his requirements for his next computer.

    A number of people respond with recommendations and comments on performance.

    You come along and rubbish most of those.

    What brand/capacity components would you recommend to to solve the OP's
    problem and why ????
     
    bugalugs, Jul 5, 2008
    #14
  15. Peter Jenkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Jekyll and Hyde" typed:
    >>> 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

    >
    > Misfit, I find that intriguing, is there an online calculator for
    > PSU's?


    Yes, they're handy. This is the one I use as it allows for changes to the
    CPU draw from overclocking and seems to be the most accurate by consensus in
    the hardware/overclocking groups:

    <http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp>

    However, there are more out there <checks bookmarks>:

    <http://www.adecy.com/psu/>
    <http://www.journeysystems.com/?power_supply_calculator>
    <http://www.schrockinnovations.com/powercalc.php>
    <http://web.archive.org/web/20040411032947/http://www.takaman.jp/psu_calc.html?english>
    <http://www.vbutils.com/power.asp>
    <http://web.aanet.com.au/SnooP/psucalc.php>

    > My daughters peecee...
    >
    > 1 X Athlon XP2700+(333mhz fsb)
    > 1 X motherboard with all usual onboard accessories (but not video)
    > 2 X 7200 rpm 80Gb Seagates
    > 1 X floppy drive
    > 4 X 512Mb DDR400
    > 1 X nVidia FX5900 hair dryer / 3D accelerator
    > 1 X DVDRW
    > 1 X DVD Combo drive
    > 1 X Firewire 800 / USB2 card
    > 1 X USB powered scanner


    Surely this only uses the USB for signalling? It has a power cord? I took
    that to mean "USB powered". Perhaps you mean "USB. Powered"?

    > 1 X USB powered large screen MP3 / Movie player


    See above.

    > 1 X PCI modem (never used)
    > 1 X PCI SB Live
    > 1 X analog Genius gamepad
    > 1 X USB joystick
    >
    > which ran like that on a 230 watt psu for over 2 years, and now runs
    > on a 300 that I got given (about 16 months ago). I'm curious to know
    > what the recommendation for the psu would be.


    You can try on the above calculators. :)

    Did it have that FX5900 when it was running on the 230W?

    I quickly ran that machine through the calculator I use and it came out at
    323W at 85% usage. Have you tried loading the machine up to it's full
    capacity with something like 3DMark and letting it run for a while?

    Try the other calculators if you like. The one I use is mainly for picking a
    new PSU so I think it may err on the side of safety margin.

    > The machine has never had any problems and does get worked hard.
    > Sometimes I have it downloading torrents, while it's ripping DVD's,
    > and copying files to external firewire all at the same time, and then
    > the daughter comes along and starts surfing, moving music files
    > around, or plays a game (it is sort of, mostly, supposed to hers
    > after all, lol). As you can see I'd be real keen to see what is
    > actually recommended for this setup.


    Well, now you have the tools. :)

    If it was my machine I'd be putting a slightly beefier PSU in it. Then
    again, I can't afford to replace my machine if anything happens to it so I
    look at having a "good" PSU or a healthy margin as an insurance policy.

    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... ;-)
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Peter Jenkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "bugalugs" typed:
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
    >>>> On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.

    >>
    >> LOL. ~misfit buys the cheapest memory he can find from an unreliable
    >> generic supplier and he actually thinks he got a "dual-channel
    >> kit"?!


    Wow "impossible", you've proven yourself to be what I suspected you were all
    along, nothing but a troll and a stalker.

    (BTW, I mis-spoke above. I didn't get the absolute cheapest, I bought the
    cheapest known-brand matched pair of modules.)

    >> He has **no idea** what he got.


    Well, it came in sealed packaging from Transcend stating that it was a 2 GB
    dual-channel kit. I guess if you can't believe the packaging then nobody
    really knows what they have.

    BTW, the RAM is running on a 450MHz bus and passes Memtest86 overnight just
    fine at 1.8V.

    Talk to the people who know what they're doing. Most suggest buying
    mid-range 1.8V RAM from a known company and testing it in the first few days
    (while you can still return it) in preference to a "performance kit" with
    fancy heat-spreaders that require over-volting out of the packet. I guess
    you got sucked in and bought some fancy 'gamers RAM" huh? More money than
    sense.

    >> But of course he will be
    >> shooting off his mouth in this forum for years claiming that every
    >> problem he sees on his machine is sourced from some component
    >> besides the obvious one.


    Aww shucks! I got me a fan!

    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Another classic I'm-just-making-this-up-because_I-can piece of
    >> nonsense. **Of course** ~misfit has no evidence. He **never** hasany
    >> evidence for his bombastic claims. Rest assured, there is **no
    >> scenario** in which bullshit trumps reality.


    At least I say that I have no evidence. What's your point again? Dance
    troll, dance.

    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> More nonsense. Having 4 dimms of ram absolutely **does not**
    >> increase the chances of ram failure.


    And that one statement shows exactly what "impossible's" depth of knowledge
    is.

    Firstly, he attributes it to me (below) when it plainly wasn't me who wrote
    it (although I agree with it). Secondly, a RAM module is a potential point
    of failure. It stands to reason that the more modules you have the more
    potential points of failure there are. Logic, simple for some "impossible"
    for others to grasp.

    >> If ~misfit would stop buying
    >> the cheapest ram available from unreliable suppliers his risk would
    >> fall to practically nothing.


    More attacking me. Really, you need to get another hobby. Or stop drinking.
    I can't see what time you posted as I have you killfiled but this whole post
    reeks of alcohol. Sitting alone at home with your computer on a Friday night
    drunk?

    I'll ignore the rest of your ravings, they speak for themselves about your
    state of mind.

    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> The "performance boys" were using 3Gb on 32-bit machines 5 years
    >> ago. But since the OP is going to be dual-booting Ubuntu and XP,
    >> there is no reason whatsoever to limit the use. 2 x 2Gb makes much
    >> more sense for starters while leaving plenty of room for future
    >> expansion.
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>> Shit, 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> More nonsense yet! First of all, the optimum efficiency range is
    >> actually much bigger than ~misfit implies -- 40% to 60% of rated
    >> load -- which in the case of a 400w supply would be between 160 and
    >> 240 watts. For the usage described by the OP that's pretty near
    >> perfect. A 700 watt supply would be running inefficiently almost
    >> **all the time**. Second of all, the efficiency of any given power
    >> supply is primarily a function of its design, not the load it's
    >> drawing. So it's silly to ever recommend a supply on its rated
    >> wattage alone.
    >>> 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
    >>>

    >>
    >> If only ~misfit read this kind of material before offering advice.
    >>
    >>> [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]

    >>
    >> So ~misfit keeps recommending the AcBel brand based on pure
    >> speculation. I suspect, it's just the power supply he happened to be
    >> able to afford at the time, and so it received for ever after the
    >> ~misfit award for Best Possible Hardware Selection in the Whole
    >> World.
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It will also explain that you should not rely on manufacturer
    >> labeling, advertisements, or personal anecdotes to determine the
    >> quality of the power supply you buy. Whenever possible, consult
    >> detailed manufacturers spec sheets so you know exactlyt what's being
    >> claimed, and then look for independent reviews that validate (or
    >> invalidate) those claims.
    >>> Shit, 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.

    >>
    >> What's that saying?....If you have a hammer, everything looks like a
    >> nail?
    >>>> 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...

    >>
    >> Don't be fooled -- a quality 400-watt supply will be plenty.
    >>
    >>

    > So the OP puts out a list of his requirements for his next computer.
    >
    > A number of people respond with recommendations and comments on
    > performance.
    > You come along and rubbish most of those.


    Hey bugalugs.

    "impossible" rarely offers anything constructive. Especially when he's (?)
    drunk.

    > What brand/capacity components would you recommend to to solve the
    > OP's problem and why ????


    Yeah. I'd like to see that reply. If it appears could you reply to it
    please? I have the fool killfiled.

    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... ;-)
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 5, 2008
    #16
  17. Peter Jenkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "~misfit~" typed:
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "Jekyll and Hyde" typed:
    >> Misfit, I find that intriguing, is there an online calculator for
    >> PSU's?

    >
    > Yes, they're handy. This is the one I use as it allows for changes to
    > the CPU draw from overclocking and seems to be the most accurate by
    > consensus in the hardware/overclocking groups:
    >
    > <http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp>


    > <http://www.adecy.com/psu/>
    > <http://www.journeysystems.com/?power_supply_calculator>
    > <http://www.schrockinnovations.com/powercalc.php>
    > <http://web.archive.org/web/20040411032947/http://www.takaman.jp/psu_calc.html?english>
    > <http://www.vbutils.com/power.asp>
    > <http://web.aanet.com.au/SnooP/psucalc.php>


    Well, that was interesting. It's been a while since I used some of those.
    Quite a few of them are outdated now so were unable to calculate my computer
    accurately.

    My prefered calculator says recommended PSU wattage of 644W (with 24/7
    usage, some at 100% and intending to keep for 3+ years).

    The others range from 310W (specified "non-generic" but wasn't accurate as
    it was really dated) to the vbutils page that suggested a PSU capable of
    supplying 705W but recommended adding 10% and going for 776W minimum.

    Going by that, and my own experience, I'd say that these pages are worth
    checking out:

    <http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp>

    and

    <http://www.vbutils.com/power.asp>

    because they're both fairly up-to-date and they both pretty much agree with
    me. ;-)
    --
    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... ;-)
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 5, 2008
    #17
  18. Peter Jenkins

    impossible Guest

    "bugalugs" <> wrote in message
    news:g4ma7t$mu3$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
    >>>> On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.

    >>
    >> LOL. ~misfit buys the cheapest memory he can find from an unreliable
    >> generic supplier and he actually thinks he got a "dual-channel kit"?! He
    >> has **no idea** what he got. But of course he will be shooting off his
    >> mouth in this forum for years claiming that every problem he sees on his
    >> machine is sourced from some component besides the obvious one.
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Another classic I'm-just-making-this-up-because_I-can piece of nonsense.
    >> **Of course** ~misfit has no evidence. He **never** hasany evidence for
    >> his bombastic claims. Rest assured, there is **no scenario** in which
    >> bullshit trumps reality.
    >>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> More nonsense. Having 4 dimms of ram absolutely **does not** increase the
    >> chances of ram failure. If ~misfit would stop buying the cheapest ram
    >> available from unreliable suppliers his risk would fall to practically
    >> nothing.
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The "performance boys" were using 3Gb on 32-bit machines 5 years ago. But
    >> since the OP is going to be dual-booting Ubuntu and XP, there is no
    >> reason whatsoever to limit the use. 2 x 2Gb makes much more sense for
    >> starters while leaving plenty of room for future expansion.
    >>
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>> Shit, 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> More nonsense yet! First of all, the optimum efficiency range is actually
    >> much bigger than ~misfit implies -- 40% to 60% of rated load -- which in
    >> the case of a 400w supply would be between 160 and 240 watts. For the
    >> usage described by the OP that's pretty near perfect. A 700 watt supply
    >> would be running inefficiently almost **all the time**. Second of all,
    >> the efficiency of any given power supply is primarily a function of its
    >> design, not the load it's drawing. So it's silly to ever recommend a
    >> supply on its rated wattage alone.
    >>
    >>> 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
    >>>

    >>
    >> If only ~misfit read this kind of material before offering advice.
    >>
    >>> [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]
    >>>

    >>
    >> So ~misfit keeps recommending the AcBel brand based on pure speculation.
    >> I suspect, it's just the power supply he happened to be able to afford at
    >> the time, and so it received for ever after the ~misfit award for Best
    >> Possible Hardware Selection in the Whole World.
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It will also explain that you should not rely on manufacturer labeling,
    >> advertisements, or personal anecdotes to determine the quality of the
    >> power supply you buy. Whenever possible, consult detailed manufacturers
    >> spec sheets so you know exactlyt what's being claimed, and then look for
    >> independent reviews that validate (or invalidate) those claims.
    >>
    >>> Shit, 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> What's that saying?....If you have a hammer, everything looks like a
    >> nail?
    >>
    >>>> 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...

    >>
    >> Don't be fooled -- a quality 400-watt supply will be plenty.

    > So the OP puts out a list of his requirements for his next computer.
    >
    > A number of people respond with recommendations and comments on
    > performance.
    >
    > You come along and rubbish most of those.
    >


    No, I simply rubbished ~misfits recommendations, which are always based on
    purely subjective criteria. He never cites actual benchmarks or other
    authoritative test results. So anyone would be a fool to follow his advice
    without corroborating evidence.

    > What brand/capacity components would you recommend to to solve the OP's
    > problem and why ????


    There aree many reliable sites the OP can reference.

    http://arstechnica.com/guides.ars

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/How-To,4/Build-Your-Own,16/

    http://www.anandtech.com/
     
    impossible, Jul 5, 2008
    #18
  19. Peter Jenkins

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "bugalugs" typed:
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
    >>>>> On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.
    >>>
    >>> LOL. ~misfit buys the cheapest memory he can find from an unreliable
    >>> generic supplier and he actually thinks he got a "dual-channel
    >>> kit"?!

    >
    > Wow "impossible", you've proven yourself to be what I suspected you were
    > all along, nothing but a troll and a stalker.


    You're ignorance is annoying -- I've decided make a spectacle of you from
    now on.

    > > (BTW, I mis-spoke above. I didn't get the absolute cheapest, I bought
    > > the

    > cheapest known-brand matched pair of modules.)
    >
    >>> He has **no idea** what he got.

    >
    > Well, it came in sealed packaging from Transcend stating that it was a 2
    > GB dual-channel kit. I guess if you can't believe the packaging then
    > nobody really knows what they have.
    >


    You can't believe the packaging, no. Any 6-year-oild knows that.

    > BTW, the RAM is running on a 450MHz bus and passes Memtest86 overnight
    > just fine at 1.8V.
    >


    So what. Lots a crap passes Memtest86.

    > Talk to the people who know what they're doing. Most suggest buying
    > mid-range 1.8V RAM from a known company and testing it in the first few
    > days (while you can still return it) in preference to a "performance kit"
    > with fancy heat-spreaders that require over-volting out of the packet. I
    > guess you got sucked in and bought some fancy 'gamers RAM" huh? More money
    > than sense.
    >


    You don't need "fancy", you twit -- you need reliable. That's Corsair,
    Crucial, Mushkin, OCZ, Kingston, and the other brands certified by
    motherboard manufacturers as reliable. This "Transcend" brand is never
    tested by anyone. Sop I repeat -- you have **no idea** what you have.


    >>> But of course he will be
    >>> shooting off his mouth in this forum for years claiming that every
    >>> problem he sees on his machine is sourced from some component
    >>> besides the obvious one.

    >
    > Aww shucks! I got me a fan!
    >


    You're certainly full of yourself, aren't you?

    >>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Another classic I'm-just-making-this-up-because_I-can piece of
    >>> nonsense. **Of course** ~misfit has no evidence. He **never** hasany
    >>> evidence for his bombastic claims. Rest assured, there is **no
    >>> scenario** in which bullshit trumps reality.

    >
    > At least I say that I have no evidence. What's your point again?


    Duh, you have no evidence for any claims you ever make.

    > Dance troll, dance.
    >
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> More nonsense. Having 4 dimms of ram absolutely **does not**
    >>> increase the chances of ram failure.

    >
    > And that one statement shows exactly what "impossible's" depth of
    > knowledge is.
    >
    > Firstly, he attributes it to me (below) when it plainly wasn't me who
    > wrote it (although I agree with it). Secondly, a RAM module is a potential
    > point of failure. It stands to reason that the more modules you have the
    > more potential points of failure there are.


    The fact that you have "more potential points of failure" absolutely does
    not increase the likelihood that any one will fail. By your logic, dual-core
    processors would be a bad bet, and quad-cores twice as bad. Is that your
    claim?!

    > Logic, simple for some "impossible" for others to grasp.
    >


    Clearly so.

    >>> If ~misfit would stop buying
    >>> the cheapest ram available from unreliable suppliers his risk would
    >>> fall to practically nothing.

    >
    > More attacking me. Really, you need to get another hobby. Or stop
    > drinking. I can't see what time you posted as I have you killfiled but
    > this whole post reeks of alcohol. Sitting alone at home with your computer
    > on a Friday night drunk?
    >
    > I'll ignore the rest of your ravings, they speak for themselves about your
    > state of mind.
    >


    Another well-thought out argument.

    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> The "performance boys" were using 3Gb on 32-bit machines 5 years
    >>> ago. But since the OP is going to be dual-booting Ubuntu and XP,
    >>> there is no reason whatsoever to limit the use. 2 x 2Gb makes much
    >>> more sense for starters while leaving plenty of room for future
    >>> expansion.
    >>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>> Shit, 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.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> More nonsense yet! First of all, the optimum efficiency range is
    >>> actually much bigger than ~misfit implies -- 40% to 60% of rated
    >>> load -- which in the case of a 400w supply would be between 160 and
    >>> 240 watts. For the usage described by the OP that's pretty near
    >>> perfect. A 700 watt supply would be running inefficiently almost
    >>> **all the time**. Second of all, the efficiency of any given power
    >>> supply is primarily a function of its design, not the load it's
    >>> drawing. So it's silly to ever recommend a supply on its rated
    >>> wattage alone.
    >>>> 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
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> If only ~misfit read this kind of material before offering advice.
    >>>
    >>>> [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]
    >>>
    >>> So ~misfit keeps recommending the AcBel brand based on pure
    >>> speculation. I suspect, it's just the power supply he happened to be
    >>> able to afford at the time, and so it received for ever after the
    >>> ~misfit award for Best Possible Hardware Selection in the Whole
    >>> World.
    >>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It will also explain that you should not rely on manufacturer
    >>> labeling, advertisements, or personal anecdotes to determine the
    >>> quality of the power supply you buy. Whenever possible, consult
    >>> detailed manufacturers spec sheets so you know exactlyt what's being
    >>> claimed, and then look for independent reviews that validate (or
    >>> invalidate) those claims.
    >>>> Shit, 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.
    >>>
    >>> What's that saying?....If you have a hammer, everything looks like a
    >>> nail?
    >>>>> 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...
    >>>
    >>> Don't be fooled -- a quality 400-watt supply will be plenty.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> So the OP puts out a list of his requirements for his next computer.
    >>
    >> A number of people respond with recommendations and comments on
    >> performance.
    >> You come along and rubbish most of those.

    >
    > Hey bugalugs.
    >
    > "impossible" rarely offers anything constructive. Especially when he's (?)
    > drunk.
    >


    You invoke the "drunk" thing aevery time you're exposed as a liar or
    incompetent. This must be the direction you head when stressed. Kind of sad.

    >> What brand/capacity components would you recommend to to solve the
    >> OP's problem and why ????

    >
    > Yeah. I'd like to see that reply. If it appears could you reply to it
    > please? I have the fool killfiled.
    > \


    ~misfit never killfiles anyone. He just announces that he's killfiling
    someone when he's lost an argument.
     
    impossible, Jul 5, 2008
    #19
  20. On Jul 5, 3:22 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "bugalugs" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:g4ma7t$mu3$...
    >
    > > impossible wrote:
    > >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bobs" typed:
    > >>>> On Jul 4, 1:49 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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.

    >
    > >> LOL. ~misfit buys the cheapest memory he can find from an unreliable
    > >> generic supplier and he actually thinks he got a "dual-channel kit"?! He
    > >> has **no idea** what he got. But of course he will be shooting off his
    > >> mouth in this forum for years claiming that every problem he sees on his
    > >> machine is sourced from some component besides the obvious one.

    >
    > >>> 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.

    >
    > >> Another classic I'm-just-making-this-up-because_I-can piece of nonsense.
    > >> **Of course** ~misfit has no evidence. He **never** hasany evidence for
    > >> his bombastic claims. Rest assured, there is **no scenario** in which
    > >> bullshit trumps reality.

    >
    > >>>> 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.

    >
    > >> More nonsense. Having 4 dimms of ram absolutely **does not** increase the
    > >> chances of ram failure. If ~misfit would stop buying the cheapest ram
    > >> available from unreliable suppliers his risk would fall to practically
    > >> nothing.

    >
    > >>> 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.

    >
    > >> The "performance boys" were using 3Gb on 32-bit machines 5 years ago. But
    > >> since the OP is going to be dual-booting Ubuntu and XP, there is no
    > >> reason whatsoever to limit the use. 2 x 2Gb makes much more sense for
    > >> starters while leaving plenty of room for future expansion.

    >
    > >>>>>> 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.
    > >>>> Shit, 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.

    >
    > >> More nonsense yet! First of all, the optimum efficiency range is actually
    > >> much bigger than ~misfit implies -- 40% to 60% of rated load -- which in
    > >> the case of a 400w supply would be between 160 and 240 watts. For the
    > >> usage described by the OP that's pretty near perfect. A 700 watt supply
    > >> would be running inefficiently almost **all the time**. Second of all,
    > >> the efficiency of any given power supply is primarily a function of its
    > >> design, not the load it's drawing. So it's silly to ever recommend a
    > >> supply on its rated wattage alone.

    >
    > >>> 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

    >
    > >> If only ~misfit read this kind of material before offering advice.

    >
    > >>> [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]

    >
    > >> So ~misfit keeps recommending the AcBel brand based on pure speculation.
    > >> I suspect, it's just the power supply he happened to be able to afford at
    > >> the time, and so it received for ever after the ~misfit award for Best
    > >> Possible Hardware Selection in the Whole World.

    >
    > >>> 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.

    >
    > >> It will also explain that you should not rely on manufacturer labeling,
    > >> advertisements, or personal anecdotes to determine the quality of the
    > >> power supply you buy. Whenever possible, consult detailed manufacturers
    > >> spec sheets so you know exactlyt what's being claimed, and then look for
    > >> independent reviews that validate (or invalidate) those claims.

    >
    > >>> Shit, 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.

    >
    > >> What's that saying?....If you have a hammer, everything looks like a
    > >> nail?

    >
    > >>>> 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....

    >
    > >> Don't be fooled -- a quality 400-watt supply will be plenty.

    > > So the OP puts out a list of his requirements for his next computer.

    >
    > > A number of people respond with recommendations and comments on
    > > performance.

    >
    > > You come along and rubbish most of those.

    >
    > No, I simply rubbished ~misfits recommendations, which are always based on
    > purely subjective criteria. He never cites actual benchmarks or other
    > authoritative test results. So anyone would be a fool to follow his advice
    > without corroborating evidence.
    >
    > > What brand/capacity components would you recommend to to solve the OP's
    > > problem and why ????

    >
    > There aree many reliable sites the OP can reference.
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/guides.ars
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/How-To,4/Build-Your-Own,16/
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/


    Thank you for these three sites, very useful

    Interetsingly enough, there is a chart in a review on the anandtech
    site that bears out what misfit was saying about Power supply
    efficiencies - they are most efficient at 50-80% operating capacity
    http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.aspx?i=3146&p=15

    Reviews on all three sites also bear out what he said about the Asus
    P5K boards and Intel CPU and Seagate hard drives

    I will however invest a little extra on name brand memory, get myself
    2Gb of Corsair or Kingston rather than 4 of Transcend. I have had
    experiences with crook memory in the past, very frustrating and if can
    be avoided by spending an extra 30-40 bucks will do so

    Regards
    Peter Jenkins
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
     
    Peter Jenkins, Jul 5, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgRGF5?=

    DNS error or Time Out error following Broadband Upgrade

    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgRGF5?=, May 4, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    791
    BrainLock
    May 6, 2005
  2. damon

    Time for an upgrade ?

    damon, Apr 8, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    464
    damon
    Apr 13, 2004
  3. Rowdy Yates

    Time to upgrade

    Rowdy Yates, Feb 1, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    436
    Rowdy Yates
    Feb 1, 2004
  4. cisconewbie

    Cisco 837 upgrade IOS upgrade gone wrong

    cisconewbie, Sep 22, 2006, in forum: Hardware
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,371
    kuruvi
    Oct 5, 2008
  5. Agent86
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    758
    Computerflyer
    Feb 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page