Building one's own computer...

[Goliath]

I found a pretty good local PC shop in Sioux Falls (called PC Gold) that sells parts at wholesale--or near-wholesale--prices. The last time I was at Sioux Falls to shop, I stopped by and asked about what it would cost to get my dream system (which I'll get pretty soon...after I clear up a bit of debt).

Part of my dream system has a dual processor motherboard that holds two of the fastest processors I can slap on it. However the guy that I talked to at PC Gold said that they don't deal with dual processor boards, and that they could order one, I'd have to tell them exactly what I wanted.

So, I've been thinking that maybe it's time I learned how to build my own system. However, this kinda frightens me. I mean, I can install hard drives, optical drives, and video cards with no problems whatsoever, but putting an entire system together sounds excessively complicated.

I guess my question to those of you who know about such things is: Is it complicated to put together a system? Can you point me to some helpful sources of information detailing how to go about such a task?

[Scotty]

Eh, I don't consider it difficult to build them.

I like Asus motherboards though, they are my first choice even if they are a tad more expensive (there are other good manufacturers, check for information on http://www.tomshardware.com ). As for what to get _on_ the board, you can make the decision to have sound/network/video/RAID on the board. What I suggest it just the network and RAID, but not sound and video (gigabit network, maybe bluetooth or wireless built in if they have that).

Steps to build the machine:
Case: Get what size you want by how much disk you want to have and how many things like DVD players etc. You can get a case with built in liquid cooling system, which might be good if you want to overclock the CPU's, although I don't know if these exist for the Athon processors.

Power supply: Get a GOOD one, (probably Enermax, or www.pcpowerandcooling.com), 500watts or so, make sure you find a GOOD power supply. Yes, I mean that, they are very important to a stable running system. Don't bother to get the case with a power supply in it, unless you are going on the cheap or something.

A dual processor board, especially if it is a Pentium system will draw a LOT of power, although I would go with the 64 bit Athlon processors instead.

CPU's: I like the 64bit Athlon's right now, so I suggest those.

Memory: Crucial is good, Kingston, or Corsair (I think Corsair is a bit more expensive but good stuff).

Disk: You can get SATA drives, but for the most part they aren't much faster than the top ATA stuff, and 320 SCSI is pretty darn expensive. I would go with SCSI if you have good funds. The best thing about the SCSI is that the disk drives are individually tested (ATA is tested in batches) so your MTBF is much higher with SCSI. But, it isn't a requirement. I would use RAID to at least mirror your boot drive to another (performance hit) or stripe 4 drives (2 drives together, then mirror to the other two drives that are also stripped). Lots of drives, but great performance and redundancy. You don't need to use RAID 5 unless you want large storage or something. Depends on what you want to do. I would then pick smaller drives, less then 120gb each (I know, that is huge but hard to find the smaller drives nowadays). Promise has good RAID cards, if the motherboard does not support it.

Video: ATI is a good bet, Nvidia, tomshardware.com is still good to look at.

Sound: Eh, I would search around, I haven't looked at that stuff for a while. Digital fibre optic is a good thing to get (keeps noise down).

Disk drives: Who can tell these days. Western digital is good, Maxtor, others, it probably doesn't matter too much, just like DVD burners etc.


As for installing the machine, you must make sure you are grounded at all times. Always touch the case (leave it unplugged) when touching any components. Handle the components by the edges when at all possible. Don't touch any chips again if possible. A grounding strap is probably a good idea. Just keep static down, don't work on a carpet or move around a lot before handing components.

When installing the motherboard, that is probably the only thing that you might feel is the part you haven't worked on, and possibly the power supply.

You will need (most often) to put stand-offs where the screws go through the motherboard to hold it on the case. You place the motherboard in place then notice where you need to put in the stand-offs (most cases do have built in stand-offs in the most common locations that the motherboards are screwed down). Then, put the motherboard in place and screw it down. Don't go super tight on the screws, so you don't crack the motherboard. It really isn't that delicate, but if you haven't don it before, just be careful.

The CPU's can be a bit different, I don't know what the pin-outs are right now, but I would put the CPU(s) on the motherboard first before installing it, plus the fans if they are not too big that they get in the way when putting the motherboard in the case. Again, don't touch the pins on the CPU's (depending on the type of CPU), and the sockets are keyed so you can't put them in incorrectly. Again, be careful/gentle with them, they should not require much more if any to install. If the processors are still ZIF (zero insertion force, I don't know the new CPU's I have not installed Athlon ones, but they are probably still the same, some used to be card-edge not pins). You then have to "open" the ZIF socket, drop the CPU in, then close the ZIF socket, it has a little bar you open up and then snap closed.

Then, you have to hook up power to the moterboard (keyed) and some of them require another power connector from the power supply because the CPU's suck so much power. Then, fan power is taken off the motherboard (you will see the power connectors on the motherboard, and they are listed in the manual for the motherboard).

The only other thing I can think of is the hook up of the switches. The power switch, reset, IDE (disk) light, power light, and internal speaker. These are all little connectors off of the case that hook to the motherboard, some do have +/- connections. Usually white goes to -
The manual will show what goes where. The power hookup is the most important, then reset, then power LED, then disk LED then speaker. You can get away with just the power connected to get it all started up anyway.

That is really all of the stuff you probably haven't done. It isn't that hard. Use anti-static bags to set things down on before installing or when installing the CPU's in the motherboard if it is out of the case.


I probably missed something. Having the nice round IDE cables (instead of teh ribbon cables) can be nice in the case. It makes it easier to route cables, and airflow is better.

Okay, I am sure others know more than I do, see what they say.

-Scott

[livius drusus]

I'd like to state for the record that I don't know even the tiniest fraction of what Scott knows. Thank you. Carry on.

[wade-w]

First, let me second everything Scotty said. Especially his endorsement of Asus motherboards.

If you've installed drives and video cards without any problems, then you should be able to build a system yourself. It's not difficult.

What are you planning to do with this system. Goliath? I ask because of your desire for a dual processor system. If it's just the geek factor, I understand completely, and if you can afford it then go for it. However, unless you are going to be doing some very heavy duty computing (far more than the vast majority of home users) then that second processor will be wasted.

One other thing about memory. One, make sure you check the documentation on the motherboard you select, and get the right type and speed your motherboard. Two, get as much as you can afford. Having enough RAM available can often have a greater impact on overall performance than that extra processor. And it's even more critical to have plenty of memory with multiprocessor systems.

About RAID, if you decide to go that route, I recommend you do RAID 0+1. That's the stripe and then mirror option Scotty mentioned. It's a bit more expensive in terms of drives than RAID 5, but it'll give you better performance.

If you run into any problems, feel free to send me a PM; I have been building my own systems for about 11 years now.

[pzmyers]

I am always impressed with the skill of people who can bash a few rocks together and make a sharp edge, but me, I'd rather get a knife made of Sandvik steel.

Which explains why I always just get a Mac (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/brain_transplant_completed/).

[Farren]

I am always impressed with the skill of people who can bash a few rocks together and make a sharp edge, but me, I'd rather get a knife made of Sandvik steel.

Which explains why I always just get a Mac (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/brain_transplant_completed/).

Do they still have mice with only one button? I've always found that "feature" of macs so... quaint :D

Of course I haven't used one in a long time.

[Scotty]

Oh, I agree with you PZM, I own a G5 at home and I work on my G4 laptop at work (right now in fact).

But, the sad state is that for gaming (which I _think_ Goliath wants to do), really puts the focus on the PC at this moment, especially in terms of the newest and greatest graphics cards. There just isn't that support on the Mac side. You can wait for it, and it might come out on the Mac, but not always.

Plus, the fun factor of building your own machine comes into play.

Also, farren, yes, the dual processor won't do too much when most of the applications don't know how to use them (especially the crappy support that Windows has for SMP). Dual processors on a Mac though, that makes total sense and Linux and Solaris.

Plus, the memory suggestion by farren is valid too. Many motherboards can't handle very much, which is why I suggest the 64bit Athlon boards, as they can support a huge amount of memory.

-Scott

[freemonkey]

Do they still have mice with only one button? I've always found that "feature" of macs so... quaint :D

:glare:

You can always just get a better mouse. :wink:

[Scotty]

Actually, yes, I forgot to mention the ability to use other mice.
I use a MS mouse on one machine, the only product they make (and they probably don't make it) that I will think of using.
On the G5 I use a Kingston mouse.

The product USB Overdrive does a great job of letting you use all of the functions of nearly any mouse on the Mac (plus, bluetooth support soon, which will be fantastic). www.usboverdrive.com/

(Oh, and freemonkey, I am updating my G3 with a Sonnet Technologies 1Ghz processor so I can give it to my nephew....I actually got the thing working again, yeah! Plus, the price dropped $100 for the upgrade so that helped too).

-Scott

[nvexio]

i built my first computer a few weeks ago, and for my first time, it went off without a problem, and was completed in about an hour 1/2.

what i went with:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64bit 3000+ @ 2GHZ
RAM: 1GB DDR400 Corsair XMS
Video Card: Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (took it out of my previous computer, as nothing requires anything better as of right now)
Sound Card: Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum
Motherboard: ASUS K8V Deluxe SE
Harddrive: 2 x 120GB Western Digital @ 7200RPM
Power Supply: Antec 430 Watt
Plextor 16X DVD / 48X CD-ROM
NEC 8X DVD +RW/-RW
Case: Chieftec Ultra Dragon Glossy Black w/ Side Window

The price was just over $1100.

[Scotty]

Good choice of machine components :)

-Scott

[viscousmemories]

I'll just reiterate what I told you on another thread, but with a modification:

Get a Compaq, Dell, or a Mac. pz and Scotty convinced me of the Mac virtues during a thread on this subject last year. I haven't gone that route only because I can't afford to. But anyway you will have problems if you build your own PC, I promise. Probably not insurmountable problems, but you will have problems. I have never gleaned any benefit from building my own PC that made it worth the problems, except that I learned enough about PC's to do it for a living for a while. And if I didn't still have problems every time I built a PC even after years of doing it professionally, I wouldn't be suggesting you not do it now. But I did, and you will too. Don't do it. :D

[nvexio]

from personal expierce, i highly advise NOT going with dell. every, and i mean every, time i've dealt with dell, parts were included in the tower that i did not order, where i specifically (and was notified that those parts were available and WOULD be included in my purchase) ordered something else.

i've never owned a compaq, although i have a friend who had previously owned one, and basically says it was a piece of shit.

if you're going with a retail computer (and note that this is all personal opinion based off of personal occurances), i hightly recommend HP. i've never once had a problem with any HP computer i've previously owned...

but, building a computer yourself is MUCH cheaper (as you're not paying for labour or added costs so whichever company can make some proffit), and a great learning experience.

[viscousmemories]

from personal expierce, i highly advise NOT going with dell. every, and i mean every, time i've dealt with dell, parts were included in the tower that i did not order, where i specifically (and was notified that those parts were available and WOULD be included in my purchase) ordered something else.
Not to deny your bad experience, but I worked on a network project at a hospital wherein we replaced 30 servers and over 1500 desktops with Dell's and we had almost no problems with them. Same for every Dell I've personally ordered or ordered for clients.

i've never owned a compaq, although i have a friend who had previously owned one, and basically says it was a piece of shit.
I've worked on two projects with Compaqs and my current laptop is a Compaq, and I've never had any hardware problems with them either.

if you're going with a retail computer (and note that this is all personal opinion based off of personal occurances), i hightly recommend HP. i've never once had a problem with any HP computer i've previously owned...
I've had nothing but good experiences with HP computers too. However they used to have a lot of proprietary hardware (not sure if they still do) which limited your expansion options significantly. In this plug-n-play day, though, that's probably not a big issue even if it's still the case. PCI is PCI, after all. Even Mac's (I think...) use PCI these days.

but, building a computer yourself is MUCH cheaper (as you're not paying for labour or added costs so whichever company can make some proffit), and a great learning experience.
It is cheaper and a great learning experience, but if your time is valuable to you won't get much benefit from learning how a PC is put together (like if it's not exciting to you or you can't make money from it) I think it's totally worth the extra cost to get a retail system. If getting a Dell, though, I would recommend that you get a refurbished one. You can usually knock a couple hundred off the price that way and get the same quality and warranty. Just look for the "Dell Outlet" area at the Dell website.

[nvexio]

like i said, personal experience. not saying anything about the companies themselves, just the business i've had with them.

[Scotty]

The thing I don't like about the retail machines is you can't pick what is inside the machine, or if you can, it really ends up costing too much.

They might work okay together, but the parts they use, I guarantee you, are the cheapest thing you can possibly get. I mean, they can be a cheap way to get a machine and if it is what you can afford, then I say go for it because they will do what you want for the most part.

But, if you really want a good machine, with good components and performs as good as you possibly can get it, for the best price, you have to build it yourself.

There is no substitute. I mean, you can have somebody put it together for you too, and most shops that let you order the parts will put it together for either free or for a minimal fee. That way if something doesn't work you can at least take it back.

Now, as for the Mac's, I suggest them over anything right now because of the good components they include, and the operating system. I have been using O/S's for a long time now, and my top choices in my mind are in this order (not necessarily by ease of use ;) ):
Solaris
Mac OS X 10.3+
Linux (most versions, SUSE being my favorite right now, because it is easy to configure by the command line).
HP/UX
anything else.
Microsoft Windows product.

If you want a machine to use for work (work meaning doing Internet "stuff", word processing, mail etc), to edit video and do graphics design and carry with you anywhere, I suggest the 15" G4 powerbook (or the 17" if you can afford it).

If you want to do gaming, build your own machine running Windows software of some sort, but be VERY CAREFUL with being on-line, the "time to scan from virus" is about 20 minutes now. You need to get all sorts of hardware and software to keep from being attacked. You might be able to get away with much gaming with a Linux O/S, but availability may be scarce.

If you want a server, use either Solaris Sparc/x86 or Mac OS X, or Linux.

There are a lot of games for the Mac, but it just isn't the same coverage as the PC, especially when dealing with graphics cards and such.

Anyway, I am done.

(I am using the G3 for my nephew right now, just to make sure it is stable, and it is 400Mhz and works just great).

-Scott

[Goliath]

Jeez, I leave this thread for a day......

Anyways, yes, I want a system for gaming. After doing a bit of research, I've realized that dual processors will, unfortunately, have very little effect on gaming performance.

I definitely plan on getting lots and lots of RAM. I'd like to get at least 2GB of it (ideally more like 4GB).

As for the macs, I don't want one at home because I do a lot of gaming at home, and if I want a mac for work, I have to pay for it out of pocket (whereas I'll be getting a brand new PC for free for office use, courtesy of the State of South Dakota).

Anyways, I'm still thinking about putting it together myself, but I'm leaning right now towards either getting the components myself (or ordering them via PC Gold) and letting the PC Gold people put it together for what I'm sure will be a minimal fee. This way I get an uber quality system and I don't have to worry about screwing anything up (if I were to put a system together here, the only uncarpeted places are the kitchen and bathroom).

And I really do want a very high quality system. I'm not ready to get it yet, but when I do, I expect to pay at least a couple of thousand on it, and I would have no problems going as high as $10,000 (but not any higher).

[wade-w]

Also, farren, yes, the dual processor won't do too much when most of the applications don't know how to use them (especially the crappy support that Windows has for SMP). Dual processors on a Mac though, that makes total sense and Linux and Solaris.

Plus, the memory suggestion by farren is valid too. Many motherboards can't handle very much, which is why I suggest the 64bit Athlon boards, as they can support a huge amount of memory.

-Scott

Farren? I think those were my comments.

[wade-w]

vm, my experience has been almost the complete opposite of yours. I've never had any serious problems with systems I've built myself, and I've had nothing but problems with Dells. When you order 8 systems and 5 of them will not boot out of the box there's something wrong.

One thing I really dislike about retail systems these days is that they do not give you the real system disks. You get their heavily customized OEM "restoration CD's". These are fine if you never upgrade anything in your system. But as soon as you replace the video card or any other component, they become virtually useless.

And what Scotty says about the quality of parts in retail PC's vs custom built is dead on. The ONLY way to insure that you have top quality parts throughout the system is to build it yourself, or at least order the parts and have someone else do it.

[wade-w]

Jeez, I leave this thread for a day......

Anyways, yes, I want a system for gaming. After doing a bit of research, I've realized that dual processors will, unfortunately, have very little effect on gaming performance.

I definitely plan on getting lots and lots of RAM. I'd like to get at least 2GB of it (ideally more like 4GB).


In that case, definitely take a hard look at Asus motherboards for 64-bit Athlons.


And I really do want a very high quality system. I'm not ready to get it yet, but when I do, I expect to pay at least a couple of thousand on it, and I would have no problems going as high as $10,000 (but not any higher).

If you're willing to go this high, then I recommend you get SCSI drives instead of IDE. IDE is the industry standard because it's cheap. SCSI gives you far better performance. Also, get a RAID controller and configure it for RAID 0+1. You'll get even better performance due to the stripping, and while RAID is not a substitute for backups, if a drive fails you won't lose anything.

[copiae]

Jeez, I leave this thread for a day......

Anyways, yes, I want a system for gaming. After doing a bit of research, I've realized that dual processors will, unfortunately, have very little effect on gaming performance.


Dual processors are very powerful when it comes to heavy multitasking, and in an OS that effectively utilises them, can be quite a bit faster than a single processor with the same speed (to give you a rough idea, not as fast as a single processor with double the speed). You are correct though, As far as I am aware, with respect to gaming, the bottleneck for performance no longer occurs at the CPU.


I definitely plan on getting lots and lots of RAM. I'd like to get at least 2GB of it (ideally more like 4GB).


*shrug* You can do that if you want, but 1GB of RAM is plenty for Windows XP & gaming. Anything extra (especially 4gig) is overkill.


Anyways, I'm still thinking about putting it together myself, but I'm leaning right now towards either getting the components myself (or ordering them via PC Gold) and letting the PC Gold people put it together for what I'm sure will be a minimal fee. This way I get an uber quality system and I don't have to worry about screwing anything up (if I were to put a system together here, the only uncarpeted places are the kitchen and bathroom).


I wouldn't worry too much about carpet. just touch the metal plate every now and again to ground yourself, and don't shuffle your feet =). If you are really worried about it, you can get a nifty anti-static band for about $5 or $10 that goes on your wrist, and, gets rid of any excess static.

You could opt to let those guys build it, but by doing so, you are robbing yourself of a chance to build the thing yourself, which isnt really that hard any more. Computers have come a long way, and most of the installation process is idiot-proof... Also, practically all components come with very detailed directions on how to properly install them.


And I really do want a very high quality system. I'm not ready to get it yet, but when I do, I expect to pay at least a couple of thousand on it, and I would have no problems going as high as $10,000 (but not any higher).

Yikes, most servers don't cost as much. Goliath, computer components tend to follow a y=1-e-x style relationship, with y=1 representing the current "maximum" performance, and x representing cost.

My advice is not going to be advice that you want to hear, but I'll say it anyway. Spend two thousand on a PC if you are so inclined, and save the rest, or go and buy a motorcycle or something. Two thousand (and even that is starting to approach overkill) is more than enough to get you a very powerful system that will easily last for many years if properly cared for.

[Scotty]

Sorry wade-w, even with the HUGE lettering for the names I still mess up who said what. :) (dyslexic til the end I guess)

I would suspect that you can spend about $2000 for a really good system, I spend about $3000 on server systems to get what I want, but that is a wide variation of items and quality and I can get them for less.

When you start talking SCSI drives, you can up the price substantially, but you will have some of the best drives out there and the really won't let you down (RAID controllers for SCSI are more expensive too). I would go SCSI for everything you use for speedy access, then RAID a bunch of IDE drives (RAID 5) for storage.

What they really need now, is a tape backup system that costs less than $500 and can hold a terrabyte of data on each tape that cost $10. I REALLY need that.

Anyway.

-Scott

[pescifish]

I would suspect that you can spend about $2000 for a really good system, I spend about $3000 on server systems to get what I want, but that is a wide variation of items and quality and I can get them for less.
Sssssh, don't tell him that! It ain't hawt enough unless it costs enough to be in the outrageous zone! :nap:

What they really need now, is a tape backup system that costs less than $500 and can hold a terrabyte of data on each tape that cost $10. I REALLY need that.
Don't forget that you want to be able to get that terrabyte of data onto each tape in less than 15 minutes, too!

Sorry for a quick derail, but do you really think serial access magnetic tape is still the best medium for backups? I've been thinking redundant disks (or other solid state device) that are stored offline and offsite might be a better way to go these days. We still use DAT for our backups, but yikes! try and get one little thing off of them and the expense in time is rather prohibitive.

[viscousmemories]

vm, my experience has been almost the complete opposite of yours. I've never had any serious problems with systems I've built myself, and I've had nothing but problems with Dells. When you order 8 systems and 5 of them will not boot out of the box there's something wrong.
Was this recent? 'Cause I confess the bulk of my experience with Dell's is from about five years ago, so things may well have changed in that time.

One thing I really dislike about retail systems these days is that they do not give you the real system disks. You get their heavily customized OEM "restoration CD's". These are fine if you never upgrade anything in your system. But as soon as you replace the video card or any other component, they become virtually useless.
Good point. I've been using my own copy of Win 2k for so long I forget that some people depend on the OS that ships with the system.

And what Scotty says about the quality of parts in retail PC's vs custom built is dead on. The ONLY way to insure that you have top quality parts throughout the system is to build it yourself, or at least order the parts and have someone else do it.
True, too. If you want every part to be the top of the line you have to build it yourself. I guess I just don't believe that most people really need every part to be the top of the line. There's no way Goliath uses his computer more than I use mine, for example, and I'm still using a computer I built myself years ago with a 750mhz Athlon processor, 512mb of RAM and a 30gb drive. And even though it's sufficient for what I do, if I wanted I could get a computer that has literally 5 times the speed and capacity for about $300. I just can't believe someone whose primary interest is gaming needs to spend thousands of dollars and hand-pick all the top of the line components and teach himself how to build a PC just for that.

[viscousmemories]

*shrug* You can do that if you want, but 1GB of RAM is plenty for Windows XP & gaming. Anything extra (especially 4gig) is overkill.
Yeah, that part amused me. :D

I wonder if this (http://www.cray.com/images/systems/X1-LCIOPC72.jpg) would be adequate for Doom III. :didi:

[pescifish]

I just can't believe someone whose primary interest is gaming needs to spend thousands of dollars and hand-pick all the top of the line components and teach himself how to build a PC just for that.
Maybe it's the high tech equivalent of ski boats. When I was in my 20s I had some friends who were into water skiing. When they would take me to the lake, they use to point out the difference between the good solid boats for towing and the ones they referred to as D.E.s: Dick Extenders.

To me, what's scary about chasing that dream in the world of electronic equipment is that the technology advances so fast. You really do screw yourself by spending two, three, maybe even five times more money than you really need to to have the biggest and bestest, when it's gonna be a piece of shit (in the measure of competitive geekdom) in a very short time. Cars and boats (and even audio/visual equipment) don't depreciate anywhere near as quickly and the technology advances in those areas won't knock you off the big rock as fast as it does for computer stuff.

[wade-w]

Was this recent? 'Cause I confess the bulk of my experience with Dell's is from about five years ago, so things may well have changed in that time.

IIRC, it was in 96 or 97. While I was working at GSU anyway, and I left the university in 99. The cause was easily fixed, but it still gave me a bad impression of Dell.




True, too. If you want every part to be the top of the line you have to build it yourself. I guess I just don't believe that most people really need every part to be the top of the line. There's no way Goliath uses his computer more than I use mine, for example, and I'm still using a computer I built myself years ago with a 750mhz Athlon processor, 512mb of RAM and a 30gb drive. And even though it's sufficient for what I do, if I wanted I could get a computer that has literally 5 times the speed and capacity for about $300. I just can't believe someone whose primary interest is gaming needs to spend thousands of dollars and hand-pick all the top of the line components and teach himself how to build a PC just for that.

It's not how much you use it, it's what you use it for that's important. Gaming requires the most power of any typical home use. The latest and greatest games generally require the latest and greatest in a PC. For a truly serious gamer, that $300 system will probably not make the cut.

I don't try for top of the line parts when I am building a system for myself. The last PC I built was just a little over a year ago, and I was on a tight budget, so I have a 1 ghz athlon with 512 mb ddr ram. I did splurge on the video card, but I also recycled the floppy, cdrw, dvd-rom and hdd's (a 13 gb and a 20 gb) from my previous system. My total cost including a new case and 400 watt power supply was around $250. The most important thing is that I know exactly what's "under the hood."

[Scotty]

Sorry for a quick derail, but do you really think serial access magnetic tape is still the best medium for backups? I've been thinking redundant disks (or other solid state device) that are stored offline and offsite might be a better way to go these days. We still use DAT for our backups, but yikes! try and get one little thing off of them and the expense in time is rather prohibitive.

The reason I like the tapes is control over what I am doing and what I back up. I can get a "service" to back up stuff, or get a big RAID array and back up data to that. All that is good and fine for a company, a large company. But, a small one, with limited budget, and for myself, I would want a less expensive tape drive and tapes to handle all of the data. As it is, at home, I can't back up anything because my video files are 5-7gigs each, and whole projects range into 100's of gigabytes. Time to backup is a big factor too.

I could double-up on drives, but that gets expensive too.

Sorry, just finishing up the derail :)

Back on topic. Gaming machines require hard-core amounts of memory (or fast memory) and fantastic graphics, then fast disk speed for loading up stuff.

The other place where you require large amounts of this is for video editing. Which is why I have tons of disk and tons of memory. But, I chose the Mac because everything I tried on the PC stucked ass so bad I can still taste it and that was a year ago.

I either jumped to a Mac and bit the bullet and just hoped it all worked correctly (it did), or spend as much getting the PC up to snuff and hoping it all worked together since it didn't at all up to that point (I know the culprit too).

-Scott

[wade-w]

About tape backup... dat and similar mag tape has another serious drawback: it's highly volatile. I've been burned more than once by a bad spot on a tape. DLT still has the other problems, but at least a lot more robust than dat or other types of tape media. So pesci, if you are still using dat for your backups, I highly recommend you talk to your systems people about switching to DLT. That is, if they are wedded to the idea of using some sort of tape.

[viscousmemories]

It's not how much you use it, it's what you use it for that's important. Gaming requires the most power of any typical home use. The latest and greatest games generally require the latest and greatest in a PC. For a truly serious gamer, that $300 system will probably not make the cut.
Uh-oh, I guess I'm not a True Gamer™. :D

Seriously, though, I am a gamer so I do definitely understand that the latest and greatest games require some hardcore hardware. But I'll eat my hat if there's a game on the market that can take advantage of more than a gig (maybe 2 tops) of RAM. If you can load the entire game and all the associated data files into < 2gb of RAM, what will another 2gb of RAM allow?

I don't try for top of the line parts when I am building a system for myself. The last PC I built was just a little over a year ago, and I was on a tight budget, so I have a 1 ghz athlon with 512 mb ddr ram. I did splurge on the video card, but I also recycled the floppy, cdrw, dvd-rom and hdd's (a 13 gb and a 20 gb) from my previous system. My total cost including a new case and 400 watt power supply was around $250. The most important thing is that I know exactly what's "under the hood."
I'm jealous. :)

[wade-w]

Uh-oh, I guess I'm not a True Gamer™. :D

Seriously, though, I am a gamer so I do definitely understand that the latest and greatest games require some hardcore hardware. But I'll eat my hat if there's a game on the market that can take advantage of more than a gig (maybe 2 tops) of RAM. If you can load the entire game and all the associated data files into < 2gb of RAM, what will another 2gb of RAM allow?


Oh, I agree completely, 1-2 gb of RAM is plenty for a game system. For that matter, 512 mb is enough if you aren't playing the latest and greatest.

Now, if you were doing something like Scotty describes, you'd want as much RAM as your mobo will take. But if you're not doing heavy duty graphics (and if you are trying to render images big enough that 1 or 2 gb of RAM becomes inadequate I would argue that you need to look into an SGI) or editing huge video files it's definitely overkill.

I must admit that I tend to think in terms of enterprise level systems, where an 8 processor server with 16 gb of RAM is considered small.

[Goliath]

It's true that my new system will be a bit of a dick extendor....but I'll soon be making real money for once, so I think I'll extend away. :D

Also, I want a system that I don't have to upgrade for a long time.

[Corona688]

My current system is fairly close to your dream system then, Goliath. Dual Opteron 242(1.6GHz) with a gig of ram on a Tyan Thunder K8W running Gentoo Linux. It never makes me wait, and I've learned a ton building it and coercing it into doing what I want. 64-bit is the future.

I'm an AMD fanboy, and would fully reccomend Opterons as your best price/performance point. AthlonMP's are crippled Opterons, Sledgehammer/FXes are Opterons with some VERY expensive extra glitz of dubious worth. Opterons are the middle road and the apparent standard.

Couple things to keep in mind when considering a dualie:

Not all boards come equal. Tyan makes two nearly identical motherboards, the Tyan Thunder K8W and the Tyan Tiger K8W, but the Thunder is considerably more expensive for a very good reason. The Tiger K8W only has one memory channel but the Thunder has two, allowing both processors to access memory independently and simultaneously. Not the SAME memory, mind you, it's more akin to two systems running in parallel. I've got 512MB plugged into each RAM channel.

You probably can't get off-the-shelf memory for them. Dual processor systems in general need registered DDR ram, often with features like ECC. Returning mail-order products isn't as easy as walking up to Staples' complaints counter, so make sure you get good RAM and the right kind of RAM the first time. Often manufacturers will list reccomended brands and makes of RAM for their boards. I picked some Kingston Hyper-X RAM from Tyan's list and it Just Worked(tm) and ought to be fast enough to let me upgrade if I want.

They're hot. Running a dualie means not having to heat your room come winter. You'll want a case with good airflow and plenty of fans, and that means it could get loud. Things like CPU speed scaling help but dualies still run twice as hot as a single-processor board by definition.

They're big. Really big. When my motherboard arrived in the mail, I was shocked. The unpopulated board alone must have weighed ten freaking pounds, and used(abused?) the ATX specification to the max, taking every square millimeter of available board space in my big server case. And don't forget they're not flat, either; installing processors and heatsinks meant removing 1.5 drive bays with tinsnips. On the other hand, I once saw specs on a tiny Shuttle system with dual opterons crammed into it. That thing must make my system look roomy. :eek:

They're power-hungry. Make sure you get a power supply that has the proper connectors - my motherboard absolutely requires EPS12V power connections - and enough wattage to sustain your system. Skimping on this can mean it'll work but you'll get inexplicable problems and early failure of the board and power supply and especially hard drives. That's true of any system, not just dualies. I'm running my system off a 550w power supply, and that seems about right.

Double the processors isn't always double the fun. Multiprocessor PC-compatibles are built to the Symmetric MultiProcessing design model. Multiple processors working almost completely independently of each other. An analogy might be two people sitting at one big desk writing different letters... Twice as much work is happening but the letters themselves aren't being written twice as fast. Some specialized programs are capable of spreading the work around to take full advantage of multiple processors, but most are not. Some OSes aren't capable of multiprocessing either; there'd be no point installing Win98 on a dualie. Win2KPro and most Unixes are SMP capable.

Be prepared for trouble. If bleeding-edge hardware didn't give you new and strange problems, it wouldn't be bleeding edge. :D

[edit - I keep thinking of more to say]

[wade-w]

64-bit is the future.



You may not have meant it, but this gives the impression that 64 bit CPU's are a new thing. They are fairly new in the wintel compatable world, but Sun Microsystems and SGI were shipping 64 bit CPU based systems (complete with 64 bit OS' to take full advantage of the larger registers) at least 7 or 8 years ago. In terms of computer technology that's ancient history.

I wonder how long it's going to take Micro$haft to put out a 64 bit version of winblows?

[Scotty]

Good post Corona688.

As to the 64bit WinBlows, I thought they had a special version for the Alpha processor? I could be wrong though, maybe the Alpha wasn't 64bit.

Sun is now using Opteron based machines. it should be pretty kick butt. They still charge to much for them though. ;)

-Scott

[Corona688]

Good post Corona688.

As to the 64bit WinBlows, I thought they had a special version for the Alpha processor? I could be wrong though, maybe the Alpha wasn't 64bit. Not all 64-bit processors MUST run 64-bit. Opterons can run 64-bit, 32-bit, and 16-bit code, being backward-compatible like any other x86. It's my understanding that Windows for Alpha ran in 32-bit mode regardless of the capabilities of the processor.Sun is now using Opteron based machines. it should be pretty kick butt. They still charge to much for them though. ;)I'd heard that IBM was trying some Opteron-based servers as well. Try pricing a Xeon or Itanic^Gum.. Compared to Intel, AMD's practically giving them away. :)

[Corona688]

You may not have meant it, but this gives the impression that 64 bit CPU's are a new thing. They are fairly new in the wintel compatable world, but Sun Microsystems and SGI were shipping 64 bit CPU based systems (complete with 64 bit OS' to take full advantage of the larger registers) at least 7 or 8 years ago. In terms of computer technology that's ancient history. I know 64-bit isn't exactly new. :) Neither were 32-bit computing, paged protected memory, and multitasking anything new when the 386 came out, but it was significant anyway because it brought it to home users.(I know technically the 80286 had paged protected memory and multitasking, but such things weren't too practical within such a small address space.)

The Opteron is something unique: A 64-bit processor, inexpensive enough for small businesses and some home users, designed with multiprocessing in mind, and capable of running 95% of the software already on the market natively.

Another way I think it's important is we're beginning to approach the physical speed limits of silicon. Without some major breakthrough, we'll continue getting diminishing returns from pushing clock speeds higher. But there's nothing but engineering preventing us from making processors do more per clock and having more processors work together and that's where the Opteron comes in.</derail>

[edited many times to get it just right]