Hi I'm looking for ideas for a new build. The problem is, I have no clue what I need because I tend to adapt what I run to my computer instead of my computer to what I need to run.
My budget range is 200$ - 1000$
I don't really care about how much I spend so long as I get a good deal.
There's only one constraint: it must be virtually inaudible.
What kind of builds give you the best value / price ratio?
Cost-efficient builds?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Core 2 Duo E7200 $120
Tower Heatsink $40
G31 Motherboard $60
Passive Geforce 9600GT $90
4GB DDR2 800 $40
WD6400AAKS $75
Case $50
2 - low speed 120mm Fans $15
Total $490
This is a good place to start. It is possible to get a decent quiet system for less than $150, but there are good reasons to spend more than what I outlined above too.
Tower Heatsink $40
G31 Motherboard $60
Passive Geforce 9600GT $90
4GB DDR2 800 $40
WD6400AAKS $75
Case $50
2 - low speed 120mm Fans $15
Total $490
This is a good place to start. It is possible to get a decent quiet system for less than $150, but there are good reasons to spend more than what I outlined above too.
-
bonestonne
- Posts: 1839
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
- Location: Northern New Jersey
- Contact:
that's a tough question, moreso than a lot of other questions asked. i mean, it doesn't have one answer. it has hundreds.
You could go the route of the SSD. go for a good mATX motherboard, maybe a nice dual core, E8600 maybe, and then 3GB of RAM for a 32bit OS, 4gb of RAM for a 64bit OS.
In my firm opinion, Core i7 is not worth it yet, coolers are not out yet (aside from the one Thermalright). The speed is immense, but you can't push the system with much today. At the same time, while you could pair a PICO PSU with an ITX board sporting an LGA775 socket, you could throw an E7200 with 2gb of RAM or so on that. you can add a solid state drive for the OS, and then one high capacity data drive for everything else. ITX cases are expensive and useless though, so mATX would be a better choice.
Solid State drives are getting bigger and bigger, but not cheaper yet, so i don't see the point in relying on that for a build.
i'm not exactly hot on chipsets, but i think intel would have a more efficient build, unless you went for an EE AMD processor and integrated GPU.
as for inaudible, i'd say it could be done easily, but there would be different sacrifices to make, how much graphics, how much CPU...what power supply...
You could go the route of the SSD. go for a good mATX motherboard, maybe a nice dual core, E8600 maybe, and then 3GB of RAM for a 32bit OS, 4gb of RAM for a 64bit OS.
In my firm opinion, Core i7 is not worth it yet, coolers are not out yet (aside from the one Thermalright). The speed is immense, but you can't push the system with much today. At the same time, while you could pair a PICO PSU with an ITX board sporting an LGA775 socket, you could throw an E7200 with 2gb of RAM or so on that. you can add a solid state drive for the OS, and then one high capacity data drive for everything else. ITX cases are expensive and useless though, so mATX would be a better choice.
Solid State drives are getting bigger and bigger, but not cheaper yet, so i don't see the point in relying on that for a build.
i'm not exactly hot on chipsets, but i think intel would have a more efficient build, unless you went for an EE AMD processor and integrated GPU.
as for inaudible, i'd say it could be done easily, but there would be different sacrifices to make, how much graphics, how much CPU...what power supply...
-
angelkiller
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:37 am
- Location: North Carolina
It depends on what you're doing. If you are doing say, video encoding, and your software can utilize 4 cores, than the quad core will be a better choice. But unless your software is able to use 4 cores, than the dual core will have a better performance / $ ratio.rill2 wrote:Does a quad-core give me more performance / $ or less?
I'll simply use it for what it can do. Almost everything I want to do is optional, not a need. I think most software that I run can take advantage of four cores.
According to bit-tech.net, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Overclocked to 3.6 GHz gives you the best performance / cost.
I think they didn't factor in silent cooling costs and energy costs. Do you get a different answer if you factor in these costs? For example, would it better to overclock it a little less, saving power and cooling costs? Would a different chip be a better idea if you factor in those costs?
According to bit-tech.net, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Overclocked to 3.6 GHz gives you the best performance / cost.
I think they didn't factor in silent cooling costs and energy costs. Do you get a different answer if you factor in these costs? For example, would it better to overclock it a little less, saving power and cooling costs? Would a different chip be a better idea if you factor in those costs?
-
angelkiller
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:37 am
- Location: North Carolina
I think the answer lies in the second place winner. A 4GHz E8400 still has amazing value while running much cooler than a 3.6GHz 65nm Q6600. The OC'ed E8400 can easily be cooled quietly.rill2 wrote:I think they didn't factor in silent cooling costs and energy costs. Do you get a different answer if you factor in these costs? For example, would it better to overclock it a little less, saving power and cooling costs? Would a different chip be a better idea if you factor in those costs?
That said, it would be interesting to see an efficiency (work per power) versus cost comparison.