Discussion on:

Build a great PC on a budget with these parts and procedures

Have you built a system similar to this one? Did you have any problems with the components or with the assembly?

it was built from parts from newegg.com. I just visited the site and a few items appear to be priced the same.

Although it woll probably be ok, I would think that getting a 330W PS for this system might be pushing it a little. I usually recommend plenty of leeway as far as power is concerned. a 400 W would be perfectly suitable, but if upgrades are planned later (like using the SLI, additional drives, etc.) I recommend a 500W

Again, 330 is double over kill. I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air. This system measured 110 watts at peak load at the power plug! Even if this were an extreme system with an NVIDIA 8800 GTX, it would still be less than 280 watt peak which a quality 330 watt Active PFC PSU can handle with ease.

Yes the parts came from newegg. The prices aren't rock bottom but it's pretty close to it and it's easier to get it from one place. People are free to look up the parts from elsewhere if they like.

I've built a number of systems, and unless you are using a RAID or 2 opticals or something else extraordinary, a QUALITY 330 will be fine.

I'm using a Radeon X1600 XT video card, where the manufacturer recommends a 450 watt PSU. I have a quality 300 watt PSU, and not had a problem in the least.

I will suggest that if you even think you want to overclock, you want to get a bigger PSU for a number or reasons - bigger runs cooler, and provides the extra you might need (increased voltages to the MB, added cooling fans etc). But most people buy either cheap crappy PSUs with high "rated" wattage outputs but less stable realistic outputs, or they buy quality with a lower rating. I'm in the latter camp.

James

Even with a Core 2 Duo overclocked to 2.67, two DVD burners, 3 HDDs, and an ATI X850, I peak less than 190 watts. I've had much higher power requirements when I ran a P4 clocked to 3.5 GHz in the same computer and that went up to 280 watts at times yet the quality 330 watt Active PFC power supply didn't even stutter.

People have run Core 2 Duo Extremes with an NVIDIA 8800 GTX (which uses dual power plugs) and still measured less than 280 watts! But again we're talking about a quality SeaSonic 330 watt PSU which is better than those dirt cheap 400 watt PSUs you get free with the chassis.

If I went that extreme I'd probably go with a Seasonic 400 watt PSU just to have the extra overhead to house 6 more hard drives. But truth be told the 330 watt PSU is technically enough even for an extreme PC if you don't put a lot of drives in to it.

The ammeter in a typical multimeter measures voltage across a small-value internal resistor. Likewise those meters they sell in computer accessories catalogs that go between the line cord and the wall socket.
You get an accurate measurement of a resistive load like an incandescent light bulb. But they can overstate or understate the power drawn by an inductive, nonlinear load like a switching power supply. This isn't a problem measuring direct current where there's no such thing as power factor, and negligible "harmonics," but it's surprisingly difficult to measure AC power accurately. Takes a rather expensive instrument. George, can you say how you're measuring AC input power?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

I "only" claim 99% accuracy which is pretty crude for a power measurement, but more than good enough for deciding what power supply is adequate. I?m using a cheap power meter at the plug that powers the entire PC.

I am building an FX62 system now, and the proc alone states 125 Watts

Edited to correct the Wattage: I was loking at other processors and mixed info

That "125" watt is the TDP or maximum theoretical value the CPU can take. Chances are an FX-62 computer (whole computer) will probably run at around 210 watt peak if all other components were the same as this system. This system happens to be around 110 watt peak which goes up to 120 watts if I clock it to 25% higher at 2.33 GHz. This CPU when clocked to a mild 2.33 GHz would murder the FX-62 and still use lower power. You're wasting a lot of money with the FX-62 and you get less performance and less energy efficiency. People have been known to clock the cheapest Intel E6300 to over 3 GHz.

Even so, the 330 watt PSU is plenty and I've even run a power guzzling Pentium 4 clocked at 3.5 GHz and I?ve had that system spike up to 300 watts in rare instances but the system worked fine.

.
[Correction 2/28/2007: The AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is rated at 125 watts TDP. ZipZoomFly.com was mistaken.]

[Update: 3/11/2007: Added Intel Q6600. This was not supposed to be a comprehensive list...pretty far from it actually...It's purpose is to illustrate that the new AMD and Intel CPUs operate at lower TDP than the older models.]

[Update: 4/26/2007: Corrected 65 nm AMD Athlon X2 5000+ (was listed as 5200+).]

The latest AMD "Brisbane" processors use 65 nm process and are rated at the same 65 watt TDP level that the Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs are. Except for your FX-62 and the 6000+, the older AMD "Windsor" processors have 89 watts TDP and use 90 nm process. So, the difference is either zero or 24 watts. This is not a big deal.


AMD "Brisbane" CPUs:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+, 1.9 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+, 2.1 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+, 2.3 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+, 2.5 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+, 2.6 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP


AMD "Windsor" CPUs
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+, 2.4 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 90 nm, 89 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+, 2.6 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 90 nm, 89 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+, 2.8 GHz, 2x512KB L2, 90 nm, 89 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, 2.8 GHz, 2x1MB L2, 90 nm, 125 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+, 2.8 GHz, 2x1MB L2, 90 nm, 89 watts TDP
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 3.0 GHz, 2x1MB L2, 90 nm, 125 watts TDP


Intel "Conroe" CPUs
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300, 1.86 GHz, 2MB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz, 2MB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2.40 GHz, 4MB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, 2.66 GHz, 4MB L2, 65 nm, 65 watts TDP
Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800, 2.93 GHz, 4MB L2, 65 nm, 75 watts TDP
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 2.4 GHz, 8MB L2, 65 nm, 105 watts TDP (2 separate dual cores)
Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700, 2.66 GHz, 8MB L2, 65 nm, 130 watts TDP (2 separate dual cores)

None of the names mean anything now like take Intel core 2 E6600 is only 2.4 gigahertz . .
Why not call them a E-2400 or something like that ? and AMD is worse with its names . .
What ever it says like 4600 is a 2.4 gigahertz
Dah when I buy a P4 and its a 3.0 gigahertz its 3.0 gigahertz not 1.5 gigahertz ! !

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=212361&messageID=2181192

to celerons & over time develop faults etc.
Intel chips operate much better.
ta mick

.
Reliability

I have been running AMD CPUs exclusively since the K6 (Pentium timeframe). They have been rock solid, very fast, and competitive with Intel offerings. I have never had one fault or fail, not a single one.


Speed

You should check your facts. The truth is, between 2003 and 2006, the fastest X86 desktop CPU was made by AMD, not Intel (Athlon 64). And, by comparing them to Celerons, I presume you are speaking about performance. You're dead wrong on that. AMD has a cheaper lower-speed processor line that competes with Celerons (Sempron line).

Finally, I never care about who has the fastest processor. I never buy that one. It is always very expensive (about $1000 now) and provides poor price-performance value. I always buy a CPU that is a little down the price-performance curve and get a great value. And, AMD has always had a CPU that fits those requirements. I have never ever sacrificed performance by using AMD CPUs.


Why AMD?

I really don't care about AMD, you understand. Except for this: Without AMD there, Intel would have the market to itself. Then, the cheapest CPU would cost $1000, not the most expensive one as now. So, as long as AMD keeps providing great price and performance, I will always buy AMD, a much much smaller company than giant Intel. When you're second, you try harder. For the full story, including a head-to-head comparison of the current CPUs offered by both AMD and Intel, see (1).


In closing...

If Intel CPUs are working for you and you are happiest that way, by all means keep on using them. That is what counts most.

All the best...



--------------------------

(1) ALWAYS use an AMD CPU when you build your PCs
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=212361&messageID=2180346

I've run AMD chips run longer than Intel chips...still have an old AMD K6-2 and mobo that still worked when I last had them in a case.

I had Pentiums burn up before AMDs I got in the same period. And, I ran machines around the clock doing huge file transfers at the time.

Maybe you just got some bad AMDs. It happesn with all electronics.

Core2Quad Q6600, 2.4GHz, 8Mb L2, 1066 Bus, 65nm, 105 watts TDP

Your information is great, the step by step pics are absolutely perfectly done, but the use and recommendation of tools makes me wince.

PLEASE George, buy some tools and use the right tools for the job.

thank you for the consise build though.

I have bought right tools, but I always lose them or people took them from me at work. Anyways, building a PC isn't rocket science and it's not like you're building a car. The most important thing I mention is that you don't strip the motherboard spacers and having the "right tool" might actually let you strip the screws. I've seen plenty of people treat building a PC like they're building a car and they don't realize that the materials involved aren't that strong. Furthermore you're not talking about a device that has to handle 100 mph. A little care and common sense goes a long way though I wouldn't mind having better tools and some arctic silver handy.

I saw that you mentioned Artic Silver, but have you tried Ceramique? It is made by the same company and the difference is that Ceramique won't fried your chips if it gets into them by mistake since it does not contain micronized silver, making the compound conductive. I have used it extensively when buidling systems and I like it even better than Artic Silver.

You can find information about Ceramique here: http://www.arcticsilver.com/ceramique_instructions.htm

... I suppose it was decent stuff. It is hard to tell, without making a chart of temp/CPU with before/after. Put simply, the system didn't turn into an ashtray, so I am assuming it worked.

Interesting enough, my FreeBSD system was having stability issues. I scraped all of the thermal paste off, re-applied it, and reseated the CPU & fan and it appears to be working fine now. I am not going to blame the paste, but I may have put too much (or too little!) on, or it could have just been a slightly loose heat sink. The current Intel heatsink design is miserable. Sure, I don't run the risk of slipping & driving a screwdriver through the MB like I used to, but half the time the heatsink does not seem to be firmly attached, or is a touch looser than I thought it was after a bit of jiggling.

J.Ja

I just want something relatively cheap and safe with high thermal conductivity.

Wouldn't a drop of superglue on one side of the motherboard spacers, after screwing them into position, be a good idea? I realize that the spacers will be harder to remove should one wish to replace the MB with one needing spacers in a different position, but it would sure keep the spacers from backing out when trying to remove the MB screws.

Depending on the location of the spacer, it could be providing a ground for the MB to the chassis. Super glue or a thread locking compound could wick up and cause problems with the thread to chassis connection. It is better to torque the spacer a little tighter than the screw (but not too tight).

If you want screws to stay in a hole, Loctite is the right glue. "Superglue" (cyanoacrylate cement) is hygroscopic. It deteriorates over time, and it's not as strong as epoxy.
Then if you really want the spacers to stay put, dab a tiny bit of anti-sieze compound (or silcone plumber's grease) on the threads of the mounting screws. But mainly, don't tighten the screws down that hard. They shouldn't be much more than finger tight, to avoid straining the plated-through barrel in the motherboard.
In twenty years of designing motherboards and add-in cards, and getting them through safety and emissions testing, I've never seen any physical or electrical reason for making an electrical connection through the motherboard standoffs. Threaded nylon standoffs and screws are just fine. They're better than metal for emissions. So don't worry about the Loctite or the anti-sieze breaking any electrical connection. And don't be afraid to protect the mounting holes with those little fiber washers that come with the standoffs and screws. That's what they're for.
Ideally there should only be one electrical connection from the chassis to the circuitry, and that's where the safety ground lead connects to the case inside the power supply. Logic ground can connect to the same point. That way you don't get current loops in the chassis. With no current flowing in it, it can act as a proper Faraday cage.

If I might ask, how are you measuring it?

It doesn't sound like you're using the listed manufacturer's power ratings. I'd love to se how much power my new system is really consuming.

As for building a PC from Newegg, yes you can build a great machine on a budget. Ijust did it myself, although mine was build more with gameing in mind.

The power usage I speak of is for the entire box. I simply measure the power usage at the plug and look at the watt number at idle and peak usage.

The problem is not much about the total power of the supply than the power that is delivered on each voltage.

I have burned a motherboard because I had installed a recent graphics card on my existing motherboard. I also had 3 internal harddisks (harddisks don't consume a lot, but the graphics card causes lots of the power dissipation of the system, but they take a significant part of the energy of the 12volt supply).

The problem is that the old power supply (which was rated at 200W did not survive and then my motherboard was supplied with deregulated power, and I crashed it!)

I had to buy a new mathoerboard and a new box with a 400W power supply!

Really, a 400W supply does not use 400W at runtime, because the power is regulated according to use, but it provides more energy on the voltages that are needed.

The fact that you have chosen a "silent" model for your graphics card is significant: this means tht this card is not top rated, and runs at lower frequencies; others may use faster graphics cards that need more power; note also that the power usage of the graphics card highly depends on the selected graphics mode: it will need more power when you set the display frequency at 75-80Hz instead of the default 60Hz.

Take your measures when running a 3D scene, or when playing a video, after you have installed the graphics drivers on Windows that will maximize the use of the GPU. and you'll see immediately that the GPU uses a lot of power!!!

Although your system apparently consumes less than 300W, in fact the 300W are split between the 5V supply (used partly by the processor and RAM) and the 12V suppply). In fact you'll be at the limit of the capacity of the powersupply unit on the 12V supply, and you risk burning it! That's what happened to me.

Today, 400W supplies are not so expensive, and you can buy it with a box at about 68 euros (about 80 USD) in a retail street shop (I live in France), or 49 euros (about 59 USD) without the box. You can find it at even lower prices on the Internet if you don't need to wait for about 4 days to one week for the postal delivery... something you cannot if your system is crashed and you need to repare it for your work.

A good power supply will NOT produce more noise (in fact it will produce LESS because of better passive heat dissipation, and additional separate transistors for the regulators that will need less air cooling with fans). It will also adapt more smoothly to changes of power needs (when you run a video or play a DVD or run a 3D scene, or starts a intensive computing). It will give you more security.

In fact, my system, once repaired with a new motherboard and a new 400W power supply is less noisy than the previous one with a 300W supply in the same box and the same disks, and the same processor.

Remember that if you need to change your motherboard, you will loose your licence activation for Windows, even if you have not reinstalled it (same processor, same graphics card, same harddisk, same memory modules, same files): when Vista restarts, it will resintall a few motherboard-related devices, notably the LAN device that has changed: for Vista it is enough that it will require reactivation despite only the motherboard was changed... So activation will have to be completed by phone with the Microsoft online desk where you'll have to justify your changes in order to get a new activation key.

You can do that only during extended office hours (from 08:00 to 21:00 max from monday to saturday), but the Microsoft assitance desk is often closed much sooner (I called it at 20:00 on tuesday and I had the message explaining me that I will have to call later during open hours despite I was calling during that period). I had just passed the begining of the evening to buy the new hardware and mount it, so i could not call before.

----------------
MOUNTING ISSUES
----------------

You don't explain in your article that the various cables need to be repositioned in the box so that they will not create "spaghettis" in the box, that limit the ciuculation of air; this is critical in all installations that use passive cooling without fan!

So once your system is ready to start, pull the cords, you can use rubber band to attach them to the box or even place it just above the mother box.

Be careful with large PATA cables that are often used with your CD/DVD readers/burners: these are blocking the air.

Also, you should choose the place where your disks or CD/DVD readers are positioned in the box because the top place is just in front of the power supply cables and the internal air aspiration; this is not the best place to put a reader.

Also, be careful with the place of the graphics card on the PCI-express or AGP connector: many cards are quite long and they may block the circulation of air if you put a hard disk just in front (remember that harddisks are also producing heat): choose the right place for your harddisk so that it remains enough place for the air to flow, otherwise the passive cooling of your graphics card will not be efficient and you risk to burn it!

Also, if you want less noise, it's important to fix the harddisk on the box, and to fix all mobile parts securely so that no vibration will remain; I have found that you could get less noise when you secure the support of harddisks using a plastic ring between the screw and the hole on the support... generally, all what can be fixed should be so that you get a better rigidity to the system.

Using thermal paste or grease for the processor is also a must-have! It allows reducing the speed of the fan (a good motherboard should be able to regulate the fan speed according to temperature).

You an also reduce the noise and improve the dissipation of heat by using metallic rubberband to interconnect all unused metalic parts; I have used it tolink the power supply to the box and reduce vibrations caused by the internal fan. With less vibrations, your system will also consume less energy with the fans because they will be more efficient.

Finally, modern graphics card with air-cooled active fans often have a plastic box that guides the air to the GPU. This plastic box is not a very good heat dissipator, so you can improve the dissipation by applying a mettalic rubberband above it (you don't care about the logos displayed on these boxes).

These metallic rubberbands are very effective to get a better passive heat dissipation thoughout the internal box and to reduce the vibrations that will be absorbed by the whole box instead of vibrating locally; that's why they are useful to reduce noise too. If you have not seen that before, look at the internal of every notebook: lots of plastic, but most of the rigidity of the notebook comes from those special mettalic bands; they are effective to reduce the heat produced locally by a nearby cheapset. The more you link those hotspots together, the more efficient will be the cooling system.

You can also improve the cooling of the chipset by using thermal paste to fix a large electic copper wire on its dissipator and then fixing the other end to the external box near the power fan. This chipset alsone produces heat that remains within the box and reduces the efficiency of passive cooling.

Finally, remember to clean the box every 6 months of its accumulated dust: clean the grids, and the processor fan, using compressed air... and don't smoke near your PC!

This system consumes 110 watts peak and I've powered P4 systems that have peaked at 300 watts before off this quality 330 watt PSU and I've done it for years and never a problem.

Good advice on cleaning though, I use a powered blower I got for $40. Much cheaper in the long run than compressed air cans.

Watts used at the plug won't give you any insight into how those watts are used in the PS. Also, very few game apps push the CPU to anything near full load. Graphics, on the other hand...
An 8800GTX uses 20 AMPS @ 12v continuous
when pushing the GPU's. A proper PS for this
card is 550W with dual 12AMP 12v rails. We tried an 8800GTX in a Dell Dimension with 375w supply and in a SuperMicro with 450w supply and both systems switched off when running the nVidia frog demo. Putting the card in a system custom built for it with a 550W dual rail ps made everything work well.
Moral:
Don't skimp on the PS, especially if you plan
to expand.

Even an overclocked dual core system with an 8800 GTX will work on this 330 watt PSU peaking at about 280 watts of power consumption. I use to run two old P4 system that peaked that high for many years. You just can't add any more drives or DVD burners to it. However, I'd probably recommend the 400 watt Seasonic at $90 for that kind of system so that it has room to grow. If you've ever noticed, the Seasonic power supplies are very conservative with their ratings. There are plenty of free PSUs you get with a cheap chassis that's labeled "400 watts", that doesn't mean it's reliable at any where close to that.

This business of spending hundreds of dollars on a quarter, half, or one ton power supply is getting absurd. There?s a tendency for power users to think more is better, but that?s just a nice way to sell more expensive power supplies.

is 100% efficient, so if the power meter on the high-voltage is peaking at 110 Watts, the computer is going to be "using" somewhat less than that.

I agree with the "don't skimp" message, but don't necessarily agree that the cure for skimping is big numbers on the power supply. You will be much better off with a slightly lower wattage power supply of a higher quality, preferably one that keeps the output voltages within a couple of percent of design values. Especialy since one that delivers a voltage that's too high may cause components to draw more power than they were designed to, which can lead to premature failure (run a light bulb at 130 volts instead of 120 and you'll see what I mean)

The Seasonic has insane efficiency levels of over 80%. It's insanely quiet and I've loaded the 330 watt PSU to 300 watts peak in the past on two separate computers for more than a year and those PSUs still work well. I wouldn't recommend pushing it that close and I was doing it because I had it all measured for peak values, but the point is that it's a solid power supply at a very reasonable price.

For this PC that measures 110 watts at the plug, that would mean that the PC actually uses around 90 watts peak. I don't know how anyone can consider a quality 330 watt PSU as inadequate. The main reason I first looked at this PSU was because of how quiet it was. Turned out it had a lot of other nice properties too.

I've seen ATX supplies that fall out of voltage regulation delivering less than half their rated "wattage." That is, they're marked "300 watts" but they can't deliver more than 150 watts at the nominal output voltages. It's gotten to the point where you can tell more about a supply's capacity by weighing it than by reading the label. A feather-light "300 watt" supply is lying.

Name brand PSUs I've measured have been more honest about output power than generics. I measure voltage into a calibrated resistive load.

What do you think a Seasonic is? That isn't name brand? That's one of the cheapest premium power supplies you can find with superb low-noise and efficiency characteristics. I don?t know what you?re talking about when you say a ?feather-light? 300 watt PSU is lying. I?ve loaded multiple Seasonic 330 Watt PSUs to 300 watt peak loads for more than a year and they took it just fine. I?m not recommending that anyone pushes their PSU that hard, I?m just pointing out the facts and capability of what I?m recommending. As for the PC I?m building here, it?s more than 3x overkill.

Chill out George. No need to take things personally. No I've never heard of Seasonic, sorry. Looking around my place, the light weight PSUs that don't deliver anywhere near their label rated power are: Deer Computer, King Yes International, Macron Power, Max Power International, no visible brand, and Tough Power. The heavier ones that work right are Antec, Delta, Lambda, PC Power and Cooling, Sparkle, Thermaltake. That's just what's here right now. I like Switching Power Inc. too.
Your inline power meter is fine for what you're using it for. It's probably accurate within 1% with resistive loads, and within 20% with nonlinear inductive loads like switching power supplies.

Why not go with a single 1 gig memory stick? That allows adding another (especially important if you only have two slots). I had 3 sticks and
2 "carried" the third that worked 99% of the time -- grim experience. No testers would find. When I pulled all out and booted one a time --
walla! Twas a bad motherboard that was toasting memory -- I learned after a second stick went! Less is better.

I have clear top and sides on my new case. Lights on the fans and on the front -- sexy? Looks like a juke box -- but is functional in that you can look inside and 1) see if your fans are running and 2) look and side and remember what guts it has?? mmm! Anyhow I am getting off on the plastic and lights!

I'm not sure what anybody does with 400 gb drives except those who save movies and DVD burns. My outspoken opinion is that if you can't afford another and better two of equal size for backup you shouldn't own a computer. I'd rather have 3 - 120's -- or something like that. One for OS and programs, one for data, and one for backup. Personal preference and experience.

Since on Intel based chipsets dual channel memory requires two seperate channels to work properly, in other words, Channel A and Channel B need to be populated with equal amounts of memory to utilize the capability.

One stick, no dual memory, just standard memory access.

Yup, dual channel is very important and I've got dual channel action going now for double the bandwidth!

The system as you spec'd was 1 stick of memory. I just built with MSI Socket AM2 with AMD 64 3200 - 512 ram til I can afford or need more.
I've got about $200 into it and will sell my old AMD 1300 system for maybe $125 - $150 or so or just keep to play with Ubuntu & wife Solitare. Not a Mazerati but good enough for email and surfing 12 hours a day. I'm happy camper!

nt

I went to a major computer site and configured almost the exact same system with a very surprisingly close price. The main difference I saw was a 250GB versus 400GB drive. The graphics card was the same type but a slightly different model. It would appear that one would only build the PC for the thrill of it. I am worried about the risk of not knowing what went wrong and which part is really bad if it does not work well, not to mention the time it takes to figure it out and fix it. I am not young any more and spending a full day and maybe more on this would make building the PC a hobby, not a cost savings. However, if you prefer the ?sport? of building your own computer then go for it. You are investing your time and assuming the risk as in any other hobby. Like building a model RC airplane you might crash the first day out. For me, the cost savings need to be much bigger before I invest the time and assume this much risk on a "do it yourself" computer.

there is definately a thrill to piece together a system and not have all of the preloaded crap from suppliers.
Last time round, I didnt want to spend the time/effort into building a system, so I went way of a pre-built. I spent hours uninstalling crap that I didnt want, I had to open the case because they forgot to plug in the cardreaders. I spent an hour troubleshooting the upgraded DVD burner (could only be found as a cd reader), etc.
I ended up spending a few days tuning it because of all of the crap on it.
So time wasted really depends on a few things.

After all of that, I decided I wanted to build a system. So I have been piecing it together slowly when 'play' cash is avail..
It is very satisfying to build up the system. Especially because you Know it better and researched what was wanted. A pre-built usually has a good stack, but often they fall short of getting it right.

to be honest, what is the thrill of putting together a PC?

I have built litterally hundreds of PC's over the years, and although technology has changed, assembly is assembly whatever way you look at it....

You argued that you know the system better. A Pre-assembled system comes with a manual telling you whats inside, as does the spec before you buy! If you read it, you will know.

Yes, you're right, pre-built's have alot of crap on them. To be honest, when i buy a Dell i spend a good 3-4 hours removing crap for it, but for it's presence i pay less for my PC. Companies sponsoring software preinstalled pay Dell, who pass the savings on to me the consumer.

OK, you're right, i too have had a pre-built where a cable wasn't connected right. It's becoming less common, and wasn't a big hassle. I have also assembled machines while half asleep or chatting, forgotten to attach the fan and killed the CPU....it happens whoever assembles the kit....

My biggest distaste for pre-built's is i don't get a genuine (hologram'ed etc) windows CD any more. I find this a little offensive, but thats the way the world is going! and i have little option but to buy windows with my machine!

I have a genuine Win2K disk, why do i need another if i am replacing my current system?

What if i wanted to use Linux instead?

I do feel this is out of order, but in every other way it saves me time, effort and money to buy pre-built....

Could George please explain why he hasn't listed the motherboard in the components list?

Maybe you should post BEFORE you go to the pub!

Something which SHOULD be mentioned, but rarely is: DO NOT use a case with a window in it!!!

Power supplies, m'boards, video boards, etc. can generate a great deal of radio frequency noise with subsequent interference to other electronics - known as RFI (radio frequency interference). Cases with windows or inadequate shielding allow this noise to escape, causing broadband radio noise (sometimes exceeding S9 levels). The FCC does act on complaints of RFI, and depending upon where in the RF spectrum the interference is and its impact, fines can go into the thousands of dollars per DAY! You do not want to be cited for interference with aeronautical, public safety, or other radio services (or even your neighbor's TV or radio reception)... Like the IRS, ignoring FCC regs can cause grief and cost $$$. You will want a case with the best possible shielding, to avoid any potential RFI issues.

I have had a great case with a window on the side for 3 YEARS and have never had any problem with it interfering with any TV, radio, ect. My TV was sitting on the other side of the wall directly behind the TV for 2 of those years. Right now I am running another system with the side off and have been for weeks right beside my TV and have had NO issues. Where I used to work my tech system NEVER had a side panel on it and all of the TV's and radios in the store worked without issue. I don't think that companies could put out something that is unsafe to the public.