General discussion


Building my own PC -- Any opinions or comments are welcome

By Garion11 ·
Case -- Aero Cool -- $63.50

Powersupply -- Aspire -- $55.50

Motherboard -- Intel D925XCVLK -- $192.00

Processor -- Intel P4 2.8 Ghz -- 158.00
Intel P4 3.0 Ghz -- $179.00

Leaning towards the 3.0 Ghz at this point.

Memory -- DDR2 PC4200 (512 MB) -- $137.99

Hard Drive -- Western Digital (80 Gb) -- $66.00

Optical Drives -- DVDRW/CDRW -- $67.00

Sound Card -- Not buying right now but will purchase Sound Blaster Audigy 2

Video Card -- XFX Nvidia GeForce 6600 -- $140.50

Serial ATA -- $2.50

IDE -- $15.00

Fans -- Aero Cool -- $14.00 (x2)

Operating System - Windows XP Professional ($100.00) (But I have the Acadamic licence version so it might not cost me anything at all)

What do you guys think?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by TechNJ In reply to Building my own PC -- Any ...

I would look into an AMD 64bit....

Collapse -


by willcomp In reply to

I believe you get more "bang for the buck" with an Athlon 64 3200+ or higher. The 3200 is sitting on the sweet spot at present. Will also save some on mobo.

Also consider an Antec Sonata case. They are elegant, quiet, and fairly easy to work in. Also come with a top quality Antec True 380 power supply. Add a front 120mm fan to cool drives if you install Raptors or multiple drives.

If speed is your objective, invest in a WD Raptor (either single or in RAID array) as primary drive and add a larger drive for data drive. It's amazing the difference those 10K RPM drives make and they have a 5 year warranty.


Collapse -

good idea, if . . .

by apotheon In reply to Agreed

A 64-bit processor is probably a good idea if you need very high performance, but generally only if you're using a true 64-bit OS (such as Debian "pure 64" GNU/Linux). The only way a Windows-based system would be worth running on a 64-bit processor, at least until Microsoft gets its act together in regards to properly supporting the hardware, is if you're willing to spend the increased money to have the very bleeding edge top-end incremental performance boost for a gaming system because you simply Must Have The Best.

Collapse -

Have Seen Both, AMD 64 is Superior

by willcomp In reply to good idea, if . . .

I build custom systems including small office servers (basically a desktop in a bigger box with mirrored RAID). Having seen P4's and Athlon 64's in very similar systems, the Athlon 64 is superior in almost all respects when running Windows. It really shines on a small server running Windows 2000. The difference is noticable without running benchmarks.

Also Athlon 64's are less expensive and motherboards are very reasonable.

His selected mobo has an LGA775 socket which I am hesitant to tackle until absolutely necessary.

The 10,000 RPM Raptors also make a significant difference.


Collapse -

I'm with willcomp, AMD 64 (even if not 64bit OS)

by TomSal In reply to Have Seen Both, AMD 64 is ...

I don't know what the intentions of this system are (business/recreation?) and perhaps I should of read more to learn the answer to

Anyway.. as an avid pc gamer (aside from pc geek) I've built more custom game boxes (for me and others) than the amount of years I am old.

Right now you simply will not find a better performance value than the AMD 64 - period.

If you do happen to be into building a box for game and your budget is can shave down the drives a little and devote more money into the video card...theoretically either of the latest line from ATI or Nvidia are great...but on a personal note I'm a Nvidia guy. I have an Over Clocked 6800 I picked up for just around $300, plays every game (includes Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half Life 2) I can throw at it and very high res with respectable frame rates.

Definitely go for the dual channel memory too if you *do* want a game want atleast 1 gb ram.

Sound cards...still the best bang for the buck .. the Santa Cruz (Turtle Beach Systems).

Even supports surround sound.

Now for a business the reverse...crank down the video card and get the best hard drives you can afford...the 10k drives as talked about earlier in this thread are good ideas.

Either way the AMD64 is an excellent choice (what even more power and you got the bucks...look into a socket 939 motherboard and the AMD FX-55, we all know how fast technology changes but as of 1 month ago the FX was deemed the world's fastest processor (for consumer PCs). The testing was done by Anandtech, if you know about those guys they test pretty strict.)

Collapse -

processor differences

by callupchuck In reply to Agreed

Where would I find out or compare the different processor types? I too am looking at a new system, but have always been a strict Pentium user. Why would one choose an Athlon over a Pentium? Don't you run into compatibilty issues with some software if you're not using a true Pentium?

Collapse -

Been using AMD since K6 first came out

by AcesKaraoke In reply to

I've had a processor from each generation whenever I get a new PC, upgrade or build I try out the next generation. Got my eyes set on building an AMD64 system next year if money allows.

Consistent reliability, great performance, and low cost. What's not to like?

Some AMD64 motherboards have FSB speeds that rival and surpass P4 motherboards. It doesn't look like price has been a concern for you though.

If you're looking to really put a gorgeous system though, treat yourself to a whole gig of memory, your computer will thank you (especially if you want to run Win XP Pro).

Collapse -


by dafe2 In reply to Building my own PC -- Any ...

Just a thought:

You could get a bare Dell, HP or IBM WORKSTATION and build up and out from there? I only added up your expenses & rounded off but I think your in range.

I'm curious as to why you would build?

Collapse -


by Garion11 In reply to Curious

I would love to get a link from you on where I can find a barebones Dell system with Dell parts and Dell warranty. When I priced out similar features on a Dell machine, I am getting $1500 to $2000 (unless it has been changed recently) range and that is beyond what I am willing to spend on a PC.

Collapse -

clarification and answer

by apotheon In reply to Cost

I think dafe2 was talking about getting a cheaper, lower-performance Dell and upgrading it with parts purchased separately. While I'm skeptical about the likelihood of being able to get the same performance for the same money, I suppose it is possible if you happen on a good deal. At the very least, though, you'd avoid some of the initial gruntwork of assembling the system.

Of course, there are other reasons to avoid getting a Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM, et cetera when you have the option of building it yourself. For one thing, when you buy a complete system from one of those vendors, you don't get as much control over what parts are in the system. For another, many such systems are intentionally designed to be difficult for a home user to open up and muck about in. For many years, for instance, the only way to more quickly dismay a computer tech than to ask him to support an Apple was to ask him to support a Compaq, beause of the highly proprietary, idiosyncratic, generally aggravating design features of the things. I'm not sure whether that's still the case, now that HP has owned the Compaq brand for a while, though.

In any case, I get exactly what I want when I build my system myself or go through a high quality "white box" computer vendor. I get it at a good price, too. I'll stick with building my own, generally, when I'm not dealing with high-volume corporate accounts.

Related Discussions

Related Forums