the computer i want to build

[yamahonkawazuki]

mcgyver is dying. so almost time to build new pc. i call it mcgyver because i have to hotwire it to start her. ive built every pc since 2002. this one is using hte hdd i had in my pc i built in 2008. mobo is dying cpu is good. ram is a hodgepodge. and wont be reused. dvd/cdrw will be reused, as will monitor keyboard andd my g5 laser mouse. saving boatloads of $$ heres what i want to get
motherboard and 3.6 quadcore amd: 154.99
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2204333&Sku=B69-5469
ram 8gb ddr3 10600 $44.99 free shipping lol
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1412140&CatId=4534
1gb ddr5 gpu ( video card ) 124.99
power supply
1000 watts 99.99
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3180035&Sku=P450-7770 DIRT 3
and a case
@ 59.99 after rebate
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1615013&Sku=U12-41568
already own windows 7 professional and drives so those are covered and no need to buy . so a futureproof pc would cost me $484.95 and not be obsolete for years to come shaZam! forgot the hdd
1tb for 89.99. hell screw that, i found this for 300. cpu is 3.2 quad. versus 3.5 but i can overclock but not needed. but everything i need in a case for 299 
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3381862&csid=_22 damn the broke ness lmao ahh well one can dream Eh?, now guys and gals?, if you were building a pc, what would you build? ( use any supplier you wish. ) i use td always because they ship out of my oild town i lived in, naperville il to east tn in 3 days. using the slow free shipping lol. and no tax.  anyhoo what would yall build if you decided to

[Phil B]

bestbuy. $1100(ish).

Gives you a quad core cpu, 500GB disk, 4 gigs ram, GREAT video card, AND a fantastic integrated display.
Not to mention wireless and bluetooth support (yes, in a "desktop"), plus that fancy new apple tranport, thunderwhatever.
The new 21" iMac.
Did I mention a 1920 by 1080 display?


If you dont like using macos, then rustle up a copy of windows 7 from somewhere, and it runs great on the hardware too.
That's my primary computer now. I figure it will be extremely "future proof", as you were saying.

[jdoorn14]

All right, I'll bite. If I was to upgrade/build a new PC right now, here's what I'd use. I prefer Newegg over TD. I find that TD's stock is rather limited and their prices are fluid. 

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106010 - 6 cores. I figure it's a little more future-proof than a quad-core CPU. Plus it will speed up my video rendering (aka Blu-Ray backups)

Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131851 - Max 32GB RAM...pretty future-proof.

RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231560 - 16GB should get me a ways down the road.

ODD: I'll keep the DVD+/-RW & Blu-Ray burner drives out of my current PC.

Case: I'll continue to use the same case. I'm happy with it and I have no immediate need to replace it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119137

Video Card: I'll keep my current as it's only 6 months old. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102948

HDD: Boot drive - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227706;  Internal Storage - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533 For future-proof application, don't I need additional storage? Nope, I currently run a file server with ~5.3 TB of storage in a RAID 6 configuration (8 - 1TB drives), and I have a 3TB external HDD as a backup drive.

PSU: I'll continue with my current PSU until I discover it needs to be upgraded/replaced.

Unfortunately for those who purchase a Mac if you wish to upgrade your CPU, you can't. Gotta pay another $1100 for next year's version. If you wish to upgrade your RAM, better take the machine to the Apple Store & buy Apple OEM RAM ($$$), or you'll void your warranty. If you wish to upgrade anything else? You're SOL.

[Phil B]

Unfortunately for those who purchase a Mac if you wish to upgrade your CPU, you can't. Gotta pay another $1100 for next year's version.

I thought the whole point of this excercise, was to buy something that is "futureproof". Something where you wont need to upgrade it next year.

with the quad core, I wont need to upgrade the cpu for a very long time. Probably at least 3 years.

People that want to get "the latest cpu every year", are missing the point of this thread, if I understand the original poster.

[jdoorn14]

I thought the whole point of this excercise, was to buy something that is "futureproof". Something where you wont need to upgrade it next year.

with the quad core, I wont need to upgrade the cpu for a very long time. Probably at least 3 years.

The way I see it, you understood the principle of the thread, but I'd like to point out a couple flaws in your logic.

Apple works very hard to make sure that the iMac is competitive with the technology available in other "budget" PCs. They do not use a future-proof processor in the iMac on purpose. Their plan is to have you buy a new iMac in a year or two. If you want a Mac that is future-proof you need to spend a considerable amount more and go with the Mac Pro...at a starting price of around $3000.

Also, if your idea of future-proof is a quad core CPU and 4GB of RAM, you should stop drinking the Apple kool-aid for a minute and see what's out there in the computer hardware world.  For the same price I spent on a dual core CPU 5 years ago, I can get a six or eight core CPU. Quad core will get you through the "right now" period. Or longer, if all you do is hit the GS twin forum, Facebook, and email.

If you do the math, the cost to upgrade what I currently have to something that should get me through the next 3-4 years would be around $600...which saves me around $500 over buying an iMac that will be obsolete within 2 years,,.then another $1100 on a new iMac in 2 years because I can't just upgrade a few components.

[Phil B]

The way I see it, you understood the principle of the thread, but I'd like to point out a couple flaws in your logic.

Apple works very hard to make sure that the iMac is competitive with the technology available in other "budget" PCs. They do not use a future-proof processor in the iMac on purpose. Their plan is to have you buy a new iMac in a year or two. If you want a Mac that is future-proof you need to spend a considerable amount more and go with the Mac Pro...at a starting price of around $3000.

when you quoted my post, you clipped out the bit that is most relevant
"People that want to get "the latest cpu every year", are missing the point of this thread, if I understand the original poster."

I dont care about "apple's plan". I can tell you, that *for me*, I will not have to buy another computer for another 3 years.

Also, if your idea of future-proof is a quad core CPU and 4GB of RAM, you should stop drinking the Apple kool-aid for a minute and see what's out there in the computer hardware world.  For the same price I spent on a dual core CPU 5 years ago, I can get a six or eight core CPU.

I don't care about "what's out there".
There are $500 video cards "out there". Does that mean I need to buy one?
no.
I know that I personally, am set for the next 3 years, with this computer.
(Well, I'll probably upgraded it to 16 gigs RAM at some point. But I dont need that right now)

I can play Portal 2, and Mass Effect 2, at maximum graphics detail, on this computer.
Can I play Mass Effect 3 on it at maximum detail? Probably not. But I dont care, it'll be "good enough", when I get around to buying it, which will be after at least a year, when the price has dropped.
(Side note: buying "the latest hardware" to buy "the latest games", has a secondary price painpoint: you pay more for the games, as well as the hardware, when they are just released!)


You only need "the latest superduperfast CPU/graphics card", if you're interested in either running the latest FPS shooter, or doing some crazy 3d rendering jobs or something.
I dont care about that stuff, and it doesnt sound like Yama cares about that stuff either, or he wouldnt be running what he's running now

jdoorn, I understand that YOU wouldnt be happy with it. But this thread isnt about what kind of computer will last YOU the next 3 years. It's about what would last Yama the next 3 years.

Yama, consider this:  Yeah, if you piecemeal, you'll get a faster cpu, and a bit more here and there, for $600.
but for $500 more, you get a KICK_ASS new video display as well. Plus less clutter, less cords, less heat, less noise....
you might want to just go kick the tires at an apple store or bestbuy or something before you officially make up your mind.

[Watevaman]

 You're throwing around the word "futureproof" which is possibly the biggest buzzword you can use when it comes to computers. The thing is, nothing is futureproof, and by your standards, it would seem everything is futureproof because it can simply run what's out there right now just fine.

When I built my current PC in 2009, I had no idea what type of software would be coming out in a few years, if it would be optimized for 64 bit architecture, if it would require an SSD's read/write speeds. I had no clue, so how would I have been able to build something that could handle every possible scenario? I couldn't, so I built a computer that would handle what was out there at the moment, but just happened to handle it better than most of the machines out there. Last year I changed out my graphics card and last month I threw in some more RAM. If my PC was futureproof I wouldn't have had to do that to keep running the applications I do at a pace that I enjoy.

Sure, everything in yama's build is fine at the moment, but ensuring him that it will last 3 years is a bit of an overstatement. You can't guarantee things like that.

[jdoorn14]

when you quoted my post, you clipped out the bit that is most relevant
"People that want to get "the latest cpu every year", are missing the point of this thread, if I understand the original poster."


I know that I personally, am set for the next 3 years, with this computer.
(Well, I'll probably upgraded it to 16 gigs RAM at some point. But I dont need that right now)



jdoorn, I understand that YOU wouldnt be happy with it. But this thread isnt about what kind of computer will last YOU the next 3 years. It's about what would last Yama the next 3 years.

Yama, consider this:  Yeah, if you piecemeal, you'll get a faster cpu, and a bit more here and there, for $600.
but for $500 more, you get a KICK_ASS new video display as well. Plus less clutter, less cords, less heat, less noise....
you might want to just go kick the tires at an apple store or bestbuy or something before you officially make up your mind.

A couple notes of clarification:

A. I'm not trying to offend you. It seems you took my responses as a personal attack on your decision. It was not meant to be...it was supposed to be more of a commentary. It seems the interface between my brain and the forum seems to have garbled the transmission.

B. Nowhere did I state that I was after the latest CPU every year. But if I'm going to buy something like that and expect to be happy with the performance for several years, I am going to weigh not only what I do fit now, but what I'm likely to do in the next several years, especially knowing how quickly technology advances. My choice, is to buy more than what I currently NEED so that I don't have to buy new parts all the time.

C. Reread Yama's original post. He asks if we were going to build/buy a computer now, what would we buy. It was not what would we choose for Yama to buy. Or, if it was, I must have missed something. But, even if I were supposed to be picking stuff for Yama, I still wouldn't choose a Mac. Simple reason, many of Yama's posts state how close his budget is...$1100 is a lot to put out all at once for someone without a lot of disposable income. Building a pc piecemeal is much easier to squeeze into a tight budget.

D. Your iMac must not be the model available for $1100...otherwise, there's no way you could upgrade to 16GB of RAM in the future. That model is limited to 8GB.

Long story short, we will have to agree to disagree on our choice of computer purchases. I guess that's why we live in a capitalistic country...so we can choose what to spend our money on. (And no, that's not an attempt to get a political argument going.)

[Phil B]

D. Your iMac must not be the model available for $1100...otherwise, there's no way you could upgrade to 16GB of RAM in the future. That model is limited to 8GB.

I stand corrected. I checked specs for "the 21.5 inch", but I was not aware that the more expensive 21.5 inch one, also had a higher memory limit. Grr.
But, I still anticipate that for my needs, that should be fine for the next few years.
Other peoples' needs, may vary

[yamahonkawazuki]

Unfortunately for those who purchase a Mac if you wish to upgrade your CPU, you can't. Gotta pay another $1100 for next year's version.

I thought the whole point of this excercise, was to buy something that is "futureproof". Something where you wont need to upgrade it next year.

with the quad core, I wont need to upgrade the cpu for a very long time. Probably at least 3 years.

People that want to get "the latest cpu every year", are missing the point of this thread, if I understand the original poster.

right. i dont get the latest, i wait. then i get it futureproofed then macs, can be repaired, theyre using roughly the sa,me equipment now. when i build i plan on running a hackintosh/win7 build

[yamahonkawazuki]

i do like newegg as well as zipzoomfly ( when they were around) but newegg has a warehouse in memphis so i have to pay tax. but td no tax and free shipping on most items. going to save up 300-350 and build a 5 year futureproof system. many parts are being re-used hence the  low price

[yamahonkawazuki]

the 4 or 6 core machine i want is for futureproofing, editing etc videos for youtube and running multiple apps. same with 1gb or even 1.5gb vid card, and the 1tb hdd. 300 is CHEAP for all of that and a case lol

[yamahonkawazuki]

You're throwing around the word "futureproof" which is possibly the biggest buzzword you can use when it comes to computers. The thing is, nothing is futureproof, and by your standards, it would seem everything is futureproof because it can simply run what's out there right now just fine.

When I built my current PC in 2009, I had no idea what type of software would be coming out in a few years, if it would be optimized for 64 bit architecture, if it would require an SSD's read/write speeds. I had no clue, so how would I have been able to build something that could handle every possible scenario? I couldn't, so I built a computer that would handle what was out there at the moment, but just happened to handle it better than most of the machines out there. Last year I changed out my graphics card and last month I threw in some more RAM. If my PC was futureproof I wouldn't have had to do that to keep running the applications I do at a pace that I enjoy.

Sure, everything in yama's build is fine at the moment, but ensuring him that it will last 3 years is a bit of an overstatement. You can't guarantee things like that.

you are correct. but i overbuild a pc. i call it futureproof, if it WILL run 3 years down the road. and run later on with minimal upgrades. futureproof, perhaps a misnomer, howabout futurecapable
i want to add this as well @ some point
nothing requires SSD sppeds as of yet. it is nice ot have. but ive no need for it. 64 bit? many programs will run fine. some will not. but 3 yeas ago with quadzilla there  was no need for either a quad, or 64 bit. hardly anythign used it. but it ran everything great. that is my plan iwht next machine. with a tad of overclocking. arounf 3.5x4 or 3.5x6 x4&x6 = number of cores

[Phil B]

going to save up 300-350 and build a 5 year futureproof system. many parts are being re-used hence the  low price

mrrr.. I'm not sure it's really possible to build a *5* year system.
After 3 years, all the interconnects tend to change.
eg:  PCI -> PCIe -> PCI-xpress  and so on.

technically, it's still possible to "upgrade" an AGP video card system from 5 years back or so, but options are extremely limited, and the overall system slows down benefit from the card.

(i know this, because I recently did this with one of my standby systems :/  I have 4 different systems in my house.
erm, make that 5 comps + 3 game boxes + 2 .. erm.. 3 wireless-capable handhelds. My router's DHCP table has gotten QUITE large )

[jdoorn14]

mrrr.. I'm not sure it's really possible to build a *5* year system.
After 3 years, all the interconnects tend to change.
eg:  PCI -> PCIe -> PCI-xpress  and so on.

technically, it's still possible to "upgrade" an AGP video card system from 5 years back or so, but options are extremely limited, and the overall system slows down benefit from the card.

On this, we agree. However, I'd like to point out that AGP has been considered "old technology" for closer to 6-7 years. More than that if you require cutting edge technology.

I'd also like to note that I only really see Apple's thunderbolt connector becoming mainstream in the Mac world because Apple is forcing it upon their customers. When the new MacBook Pros are released this fall, they will no longer have a built-in RJ-45 ethernet port. People will be forced to buy a "docking adapter" that connects to the thunderbolt port in order to hardline into a network. If not for this, I could see thunderbolt going the way of Firewire 400/800 with very little use outside of the Mac world.

you are correct. but i overbuild a pc. i call it futureproof, if it WILL run 3 years down the road. and run later on with minimal upgrades. futureproof, perhaps a misnomer, howabout futurecapable

Yama and I think alike. My parents are still using the pc I built 6 years ago. They got it almost 4 years ago when I built my current pc. I can still upgrade the cpu, RAM and video card, but not to anything crazy fast due to the mobo's limitations. Though compatible parts are getting harder to find...CPU is AM2 socket, DDR2 RAM (limited to 667 MHz), and PCI-Xpress 1.0. It wasn't cutting edge at the time, but it was ahead of the curve when I built it, and it still runs as well now as it did then. (After several virus cleanups/rebuilds    and subsequent forced conversion to Ubuntu Linux.)

[Phil B]

I'd also like to note that I only really see Apple's thunderbolt connector becoming mainstream in the Mac world because Apple is forcing it upon their customers. When the new MacBook Pros are released this fall, they will no longer have a built-in RJ-45 ethernet port. People will be forced to buy a "docking adapter" that connects to the thunderbolt port in order to hardline into a network. If not for this, I could see thunderbolt going the way of Firewire 400/800 with very little use outside of the Mac world.

you left out, "[people who want a network jack] will need to buy an adaptor".
I'm seeing thunderbolt just as the new firewire replacement.

I have a macbook pro.
I havent physically plugged it into a network, in a loooong time now.
My wireless internet speeds, and my wired internet speeds, are exactly equal.
(I get 15/5 either way)

It's semi-tempting to just use wireless for my imac as well but I'm saving spectrum bandwidth for my macbook.
and my ps3.
  ... and my iphone
    ... and kids' ipod
      ... and the wii
        ... and the PSP

[jdoorn14]

you left out, "[people who want a network jack] will need to buy an adaptor".
I'm seeing thunderbolt just as the new firewire replacement.

I have a macbook pro.
I havent physically plugged it into a network, in a loooong time now.
My wireless internet speeds, and my wired internet speeds, are exactly equal.
(I get 15/5 either way)

I didn't accidentally leave it out.    Wireless is good for convenience, not performance. There are still a great many strides to be made before they are comparable in performance. But, if it's good enough for your purposes, go for it. 

You are correct that your internet download/upload speed doesn't change based on wireless or wired...but that's just from the router out to the internet.

The speed from the device to the router is affected by wireless vs wired. One's actual internet access is only as fast as the slowest link in one's network. The fastest consumer-grade commercially available wireless network is currently limited to a theoretical 300Mbps (approx 130Mbps if both wireless G and N devices are used in the same network) and wired ethernet is currently limited to a theoretical 1000Mbps.

Which has the capability of being faster?

Which generally has more interference, slowing connection speeds?

Which slows down significantly depending on the number of devices utilizing that connection method?

A wired ethernet connection using at least CAT5e cable from a computer with a 1000/100/10 ethernet port to a router with 1000/100/10 LAN and WAN ports to a cable/DSL modem with a 1000/100/10 port to the world will pass traffic faster than a computer using wireless-N to the same router connected to the same cable/DSL modem. The only typical interference in a wired network would come from cable imperfections/poor wiring, while interference can be caused by an almost infinite number of sources for wireless devices.

We are free to disagree on our preferences and what is acceptable performance for each of us. Considering I often move large (7-15 GB) files between machines in my house and stream HD content from a file server to multiple machines in the house, wired networking cuts the file transfer time roughly in half and prevents pixelation/buffering issues.

...

And here I thought we were going to be able to keep one of Yama's threads on topic. Sorry Yama!    Though at least we have thus far managed to keep this discussion from devolving into name calling and childish behavior. 

[Flux Maven]

A few things I thought I would chime in on:
Why the 1000w power supply? A 600w would be more than enough for that build.

iMacs really are designed to be replaced every couple years (but so are all-in-one windows machines). The Mac Pro on the other hand is a workstation, not just a normal PC with a shiny case. I wouldn't say they are more "future proof"  than your average mac or PC, but they do last longer. They are built with server grade components and are designed to run 24/7. Granted so are other workstations (like the HP z800 series). Unfortunately, they have been holding out on updating for far to long so most people are turning to building hackintoshes.

I work in a school and we are just got rid of the old PowerMac G5's (They are from 2003 so they lasted quite a while) we still have some 2006 Mac Pros that are still going strong.

Unlike FireWire, Thunderbolt was developed by Intel, not Apple.

I probably seem like a total Apple fanboy, but thats mostly because I use them at work and they are really nice to work on. Before that I was all Windows. Now I still have a windows tower, but I have a newer MacBook Pro that dual boots into Win7 so I don't use the tower as much.

Back to the original post, It's cool that you are willing to upgrade your PC yourself and save some money. Although that MoBo only has 2 memory slots and not many pci slots so upgrading in the future might be a little limited.

[Phil B]

You are correct that your internet download/upload speed doesn't change based on wireless or wired...but that's just from the router out to the internet.

...
Which has the capability of being faster?

You are kind of having and argument about looking at a honda accord,and a porche targa, and saying, "yeah the porche is WAY FASTER!"... .while staring at them both sitting in the same 5mph freeway gridlock 
It really doesnt matter what its "capable of", when what its *actually used for* never goes above a certain speed

I have measured both, with the same external speed testers (you know, those websites that measure ISP speed)

They get exactly the same results.

Which generally has more interference, slowing connection speeds?

I dont have any interference problems. See above.

(plus, an unfortunate number of my computers only have 100Mbit cards    )

We are free to disagree on our preferences and what is acceptable performance for each of us. Considering I often move large (7-15 GB) files between machines in my house and stream HD content from a file server to multiple machines in the house, wired networking cuts the file transfer time roughly in half and prevents pixelation/buffering issues.

yah I almost never do LAN transfers, so it doesnt matter to me.

[jdoorn14]

Why the 1000w power supply? A 600w would be more than enough for that build.

Missed that part, but I agree. A 1kW power supply is generally not necessary unless you're planning to run multiple graphics cards in SLI/Crossfire. Yama, do you have a link to that power supply? I'd be interested to see which 1kW psu you found for $100.

Phil, your last response reminded me of a guy I knew in college who was drunk on the Apple Kool-Aid. Complete Apple fanboy...would never accept that there is room in the computer market for more than one manufacturer. No amount of evidence, citations, etc were enough to even allow him to think about buying something other than a Mac. This was back in the late 90's, so we are talking about first gen Pentium CPUs, versus whatever Apple was using at the time in their power macs, G3 maybe? As It so happens, one of his best friends in college was the complete opposite...Intel/PC all the way. Let me tell you, they had some discussions. :lol:

I will accept that Phil and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of the performance we require. But, for the record, I am not conceding defeat...I am just tired of discussing it.