# Building your own computer?



## Heretic Apostate (Jul 13, 2004)

How hard is it?

I bought an interim computer when my last one had an OS crash.  I needed a computer, but not one that was cutting edge.  I got one cheap, but it's only marginally acceptable.

So, I want to get a new computer.  But by the time I toss in decent RAM (at least 512MB, but preferably 1GB of RAM, since that seems to be required to run WinXP and three or four other programs at once), a decent hard drive (at least 120GB, but preferably in the 200GB range), and is strong enough to run some _older_ computer games (newest I have is over a year old; most are two to five years old, but I have a LOT of them), as well as Office XP Pro _and_ 2000 Pro (I like both, and have full versions of each; I can install them both, right?)...

Anyway, by the time I get those requirements, we're hitting over $1500.  I'm hoping to get a computer for under $1000, so that may mean I have to build it myself.

As someone who is not technically proficient, how hard is it to build one?  I don't want fancy, I just want middle-of-the-tech-curve, with lots of room to put stuff.  (I'm tired of uninstalling games to play new ones, see?)

Help?


----------



## Planesdragon (Jul 13, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> So, I want to get a new computer. But by the time I toss in decent RAM (at least 512MB, but preferably 1GB of RAM, since that seems to be required to run WinXP and three or four other programs at once), a decent hard drive (at least 120GB, but preferably in the 200GB range), and is strong enough to run some _older_ computer games (newest I have is over a year old; most are two to five years old, but I have a LOT of them), as well as Office XP Pro _and_ 2000 Pro (I like both, and have full versions of each; I can install them both, right?)..



 Let's take this a few steps at a time.

 1: It's not hard AT ALL to build your own computer... provided that you're competend with a screwdriver and know to properly ground yourself.  (Touch something that's bare metal _that is plugged into a grounded outlet_ before you touch any "computer board" parts.)  The best thing to do is price your processor (go AMD--better bang for the buck), motherboard (match it with your processor & the features you want), and case/power supply as a single item.  

 You might even be able to get them all from the same vendor, and have them all nicely put together for you.  (If not, it's not TOO difficult to put the CPU in.  Just be careful, follow instructions, and _don't forget the fan._)

 2: Yes, it's entirely possible to install both versions of office.  Install the older version first, though--just to be safe.

 3: Your spec selection looks "about right."  When using sites like Pricewatch.com and froogle.google.com to search for prices, don't forget to look for at least one critical review from each vendor and manufacturer before you buy from them.

 I will note that I run XP, with Word and iTunes and Excel and Mozilla, just fine with less than 256 MB of ram on a four-year old Duron 700, and I have yet to fill up my 30 GB drive, although I don't leave a lot of games on there.


 Oh, two final notes.

 * Be sure that  you can install your OS on a different computer.  Some OEMs (like Compaq) don't give you real Windows CDs, they give you near-worthless "recovery" CDs.  (OTOH, XP pro OEM is only about $100 or so extra, and you can buy it from an online screwdriver shop.)

 * When you setup your computer, you might want to consider making one partition for "windows" and one partition for "data", so that if Windows completely FUBARs you can whipe and reformat that partition without hosing your data.  I use a FAT drive to keep all of my music and documents on, and it works nicely.


----------



## Malar (Jul 13, 2004)

The hardest part about building your own computer is selecting the appropriate parts.

First, you should begin with the processor or motherboard, since those limit the options of the other parts. If you want optimum bang-for-the-buck you should select a processor a little older than the newest one. I can recommend Athlon 2800XP series for example (around 2Ghz). Then choose a motherboard that has the appropriate gadgets for you, and the right FSB-speed. There is no use buying faster components than the slowest component in the box.

For example, a 2Ghz Athlon 2800XP runs with 333Mhz FSB. That means you don't need a motherboard or memory that support 400Mhz. So you will have to be certain all parts fit together. 

Be sure to select a fan and heatsink that are appropriate, or to be on the safe side, buy the boxed version of the processor that comes with fan and heatsink. The other stuff you can buy as bulk since you are going to throw the fancy boxes in the trash anyway.

Now, if you want to play the newest FPS-type games you will probably need a kickass graphics card, but if you don't play, or you play games that do not require really high-end graphics, you can save a lot of money on this part. A Radeon 9600 runs most games today really well, and it costs only a fraction of the newest cards today. 

Be sure to select a case with a good power source. 350W is probably the bare minimum for today's computers. Harddrives are cheap and standardized as long as you stick to IDE-drives and not Serial-ATA or SCSI. In that case you must check that your motherboard supports them. 

Where I live, you can put together a good office-computer for just under 400€ (about 400$) and a little more powerful machine for around 600€ (gaming etc). Above that, you gain much less by the buck. 

As for assembling the machine, it is pretty straightforward these days. A screwdriver and some common sense is all that you require. The motherboard always comes with a manual and as long as you follow those instructions you cannot do anything wrong really.

Beware of static discharges though. Before you touch any electronic components, always touch the computer case or some big metallic object to ground yourself. You can preferrably ground yourself by touching the radiator and the case to be on the safe side. Professionals use a grounding bracelet that is connected to something similar.

In most countries you can buy an OEM version of your favourite operating system as long as you buy a new computer, (buying a mobo, processor and memory should suffice) but it will have to be done in the same purchase. 
Installing the OS is so easy I won't go into that


----------



## Thanee (Jul 13, 2004)

Some random stuff.

 CPU power is not very important, really. Don't buy a high end CPU, it's not worth the money. Just buy one in the moderate to low price range. You cannot buy CPUs that are so low-powered, that they won't be able to do what you are looking for these days. Something in the 2 GHz range is more than enough. The AMD Athlon is a better choice than the Intel line (Pentium, etc) here.

 DEFINITELY buy a CPU that comes in a complete box with a cooler (heatsink) already installed, so you do not have to do that part yourself, as you can easily kill your CPU this way, if you do not know what you are doing!

 GFX card power is quite important, if you want to play the latest games (or use other graphics intensive software, but there really isn't much besides games). However, you won't need a super impressive high end card here either, but I'd rather spend more money on the graphics adapter, so you get at least something above average.

 A decent mainboard makes some difference, too. I'd buy one with a brand name, and not some cheap imitation. ASUS produces very good mainboards. Be sure to check what stuff comes with the mainboard (onboard). Many have sound controllers installed already, so you don't need anything else, unless you want surround sound or other luxuries. Be sure to get the right one for your CPU.

 Memory (RAM) is also quite important, as you mentioned yourself. With 512 MB you should be on the safe side for a while, but you can also go with 256 MB and if you really think it isn't sufficient, get another 256 MB one and install it later (that's no problem at all). Be sure to get the right one for your mainboard/CPU.

 Harddisk, just get one that is big enough for your tastes. You can't do much wrong here. Be sure to buy an IDE hdd, tho, not an SCSI one, as you would need an extra card to use it.

 The trickiest part when putting it all together, is doing the cable lines right (power connectors, data cables, etc), and setting any jumpers on the board, if that would be necessary. It's usually explained in the mainboard manual (another reason to buy a brand name product here, as they have better manuals ). Other than that, after everything is put together, you might need to customize your BIOS settings, which might be another tricky part. If possible, try to get some help there, so you are on the safe side.

 And one final word. Many vendors will try to sell you stuff you don't need. Be sure to get more than a single opinion before you make your decision on what components you are going to buy.

 Most computer parts vendors here in germany also sell completely customized machines, that is you say which parts you want to have exactly, and they put it all together for you at no extra cost or a very low cost. Maybe they do the same where you are. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Thanee is absolutely right on several points. My PC at home is an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ with 512 megs of dual channel corsair PC3200 and a Radeon 9800XT video card. these specs run even the most taxing games (such as Farcry) in high resolution and with good framerates. In fact, to illustrate the processor to video card importance for games, my work pc is a P4 dual 3 ghz 800mhz fsb multithread with 2 gigs of ram but with a much lower end Geforce FX5200. It runs Farcry and many other games much less efficiently. Now, granted that most games will not use the power of the second proc on a dual proc system, the raw power of this P4 is >my home PC and yet runs games much less efficiently. Apps run SLIGHTLY better here at work, but not enough to justify the price difference.


----------



## mps42 (Jul 13, 2004)

*Building your own*



			
				Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> How hard is it?
> 
> I bought an interim computer when my last one had an OS crash.  I needed a computer, but not one that was cutting edge.  I got one cheap, but it's only marginally acceptable.
> 
> ...



$1500??? Where are you shopping?! you gan get a good to VERY good computer with similar specs (and build it your self, which is easy if you're carefull) for closer to $800 if you shop around a bit.
 I can't tell you how many times I'v had this discussion with prospecive computer buyers. If you want to go buy a Dell or Compaq or something similar, go ahead. Just be aware that you are most likely NOT getting a system that you can upgrade in 5 years when you are ready to play that awesome new game or run that new office app. On the other hand, the job of "matching" all the parts has been done for you and it's built, ready to go.
 If you go custom-built, YOU have to do the research to mach all the componants and sometimes build it yourself (which is easy as long as you're carefull). HOwever, you get a system that is (in theory) EXACTLY what you want and, in general, you get more for your money.
 As to the question of "how har is it", I've built literally dozens, if not hundreds, of PC's and I can say that, as long as you're carefull about grounding and making sure you plug everything in the right way, it's EASY.
 Now, in my opinion, the REAL question is "what should I buy?" which no-one can really answer but you. I am assuming you want a system that can run office apps, a few games, internet, etc, yes? If so look at the following system I priced in about an hour on the internet:

Case: Aspire X-Dreamer II (with 350W PSU) - $52
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ Barton Retail - $144
Cooling: included Retail HSF - $0
Motherboard: MSI K7N2 Delta-L - $63
Memory: 512-MB (2x256-MB) Corsair PC3200 DDR - $97
Hard Drive: 200 GB Western Digital SE  - $151
Video Card: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128-MB OEM - $184
Sound Card: SB Live! 5.1 OEM - $25
CD/DVD-ROM: AOpen COM5232 Combo Drive - $45
Communications: Onboard LAN - $0
Mouse: Microsoft Intellimouse Optical - $15
Keyboard: Microsoft Multimedia Keyboard - $15
Operating System: Windows XP Home - $81
Floppy: - $6

Total: $895

 Now I didn't price a monitor or speakers since I assumed you had those and shipping would be extra but, even so, that is a VERY nice system for the price. You just have to put it together.


----------



## redhawk (Jul 13, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> How hard is it?
> 
> I bought an interim computer when my last one had an OS crash.  I needed a computer, but not one that was cutting edge.  I got one cheap, but it's only marginally acceptable.
> 
> ...





Time to pimp the wonderful folks at Ars Technica.

If you're on a budget, but you still want to play games, try this:

http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/budget.html

If you've got some extra coin to burn, try this:

http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/hotrod.html

Prices are all listed, as of roughly today. Links to webvendors are also provided for acquiring said parts.

Oh, and about the MS Office thing? It can be done, but you're setting yourself up for a _world_ of pain. If you MUST install both Office 2K and Office XP, install O2K first, then OXP _into its own directory_.

Very important, that last step.

I'd recommend against it, but it can be done.

Redhawk


----------



## redhawk (Jul 13, 2004)

*PC Builds*

*deleted - double post. Sorry!*


----------



## Cullyn (Jul 13, 2004)

Another good place to check out is Newegg.  You can find them over at http://www.newegg.com and while they might not have the lowest price on every single item they have excellenet service and shipping speed.  Their shipping prices are generally much better than you'll find other places and their internal review system and product links give you a reasonable amount of information which leads to an informed purchase.

Early this year I purchased all my parts from Newegg to build a monster machine.  The machine itself cost me about $1300 which included the shipping of about $45.  I didn't get a monitor or printer, but I did purchase everything else.  This machine is a little pricer than what you're looking for, but it's also much more powerful.  I'm not going to spec the entire thing out, but it does use dual Serial ATA 160GB drives in a RAID array .  You should be able to price out an entire machine there for under $1000 easy.

I also agree with what has been said.  The actual process of putting together a computer is much like putting together legos.  The time consuming process is making sure that your components will all play nicely.


----------



## LiVeWiRe (Jul 13, 2004)

There has been good advice and comments on components, where to shop, etc. so I will just provide a link to an excellent step-by-step guide to building your own PC--that is, if you decide to go that route. 

PCMechanic Build Your Own PC

HTH,
-LW


----------



## drothgery (Jul 13, 2004)

mps42 said:
			
		

> $1500??? Where are you shopping?! you gan get a good to VERY good computer with similar specs (and build it your self, which is easy if you're carefull) for closer to $800 if you shop around a bit.
> I can't tell you how many times I'v had this discussion with prospecive computer buyers. If you want to go buy a Dell or Compaq or something similar, go ahead. Just be aware that you are most likely NOT getting a system that you can upgrade in 5 years when you are ready to play that awesome new game or run that new office app. On the other hand, the job of "matching" all the parts has been done for you and it's built, ready to go.



Err... when you get to the point that you're replacing the motherboard (which you'll probably need to do to make a system capable of playing the latest games after two or three years), you're not upgrading -- you're building a new system and scavanging a few parts from the old one. Also note that the days of office apps being even remotely taxing are long gone; Office isn't significantly faster in 'apparent speed' on my new P4 3.2C than it was on my old P3-800. And as long as you avoid the extreme low end (bargain basement major brand PCs often have non-upgradable integrated graphics), and don't want to swap in a new motherboard, a Dell desktop is just as upgradable as a home-built one.


----------



## mps42 (Jul 14, 2004)

*okay...*



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Err... when you get to the point that you're replacing the motherboard (which you'll probably need to do to make a system capable of playing the latest games after two or three years), you're not upgrading -- you're building a new system and scavanging a few parts from the old one.



 This is essentially true but my point was that most (not ALL) "pre-built" systems do not allow upgrading by the user (e.g. swapping out the now-low-end video card or CPU). Sometimes there is no upgrade path so you _have_ to replace the system, spending _another_ $600-$800 to re-build rather than just upgrade the video card or whatever.


			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Also note that the days of office apps being even remotely taxing are long gone; Office isn't significantly faster in 'apparent speed' on my new P4 3.2C than it was on my old P3-800.



 Essentially also true (with the possible exeption of Publisher, Powerpoint, Quark, Quickbooks, Peachtree and a few others), but the OS and Office apps have gotten BIGGER. Remeber when windows came on 7 1.44 floppies (dont get me started on the OS I have that fits on TWO)? Well, if things keep going the way they have been, the next windows OS will have to be shipped on MULTIPLE CD's or a DVD disc. This is one reason why, in my opinion, MS needs to make all the "options" of Windows truly optional, but that's another thread  .


			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> [And] as long as you avoid the extreme low end (bargain basement major brand PCs often have non-upgradable integrated graphics), and don't want to swap in a new motherboard, a Dell desktop is just as upgradable as a home-built one.



  Now I will admit that they (the "big" vendors) have gotten better about this in the last 5 years or so, especially companies like Dell, Gateway and, most surprisingly, E-Machines. I will also agree that, mostly, it's the bottom-feeders you need to stay away from when it comes to upgradability.
 I guess I still haven't really forgiven Dell, Compaq and, most epecially, Packard Bell for the travesties of systems they were building not too long ago. Also, I have always been, and will pry always be, a do-it-yourself kind of guy.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 14, 2004)

mps42 said:
			
		

> This is essentially true but my point was that most (not ALL) "pre-built" systems do not allow upgrading by the user (e.g. swapping out the now-low-end video card or CPU). Sometimes there is no upgrade path so you _have_ to replace the system, spending _another_ $600-$800 to re-build rather than just upgrade the video card or whatever.



Swapping the CPU is almost always a bad idea, even if it is possible (which it usually is). It's rare that upgrading your CPU to another with the same socket and FSB speed will help much. Swapping video cards on prebuilt systems is not a problem, except on the afforementioned extreme low-end boxes (and some small form-factor boxes, lately) with non-upgradeable integrated video.



			
				mps42 said:
			
		

> Essentially also true (with the possible exeption of Publisher, Powerpoint, Quark, Quickbooks, Peachtree and a few others), but the OS and Office apps have gotten BIGGER. Remeber when windows came on 7 1.44 floppies (dont get me started on the OS I have that fits on TWO)? Well, if things keep going the way they have been, the next windows OS will have to be shipped on MULTIPLE CD's or a DVD disc. This is one reason why, in my opinion, MS needs to make all the "options" of Windows truly optional, but that's another thread  .



Windows has been on 1 CD from Win95 to Windows XP (that's four major releases of 'home user Windows', over 7 years -- Win95, Win98, WinME, and WinXP Home). Office has been on 1 CD from Office 95 to Office 2003 (five releases of Office -- 95, 97, 2000, XP, 2003). In that time span, average hard drive size have gone from under 1 GB to over 80 GB, average system memory has gone from 16 MB to 512 MB (and from PC66 SDRAM to DDR 400), CDs have gone from 4X to 48X (with DVD readers now common), and an average CPU has gone from a 75 MHz Pentium to a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. Applications have gotten bigger, sure, but for the most part they've gotten bigger a lot slower than average desktop capabilities have increased.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 15, 2004)

I've had home-built computers since that travesty I had with IBM that was my first computer. I found out several years later that a) it was registered to someone else and b) someone had man-handled the RAM socket so that the metal pieces were twisted in all sorts of ways. Never again will I buy an IBM POS sorry excuse for a computer!!!!    

I've stuck with AMD processors since then. My latest is a 2.167GHz proc on an Asus A7V8X-X board. With 516MB DDR Ram. A Radeon 9600 128MB video card. That was the new stuff added. I've still got my 6.4GB hard drive, 40GB hard drive, 24x CD-Rom, 8x DVD/RW drive (note: RW only on CDs, not DVDs). The only thing that still exist from that IBM-$*** is the keyboard. I got rid of the mouse because I wanted a scroll-wheel mouse. When it died, I got a scroll-wheel optical mouse.


----------



## Joe Shmoe (Jul 15, 2004)

Ummm...
I built my linux box, and it wasn't that hard, but i don't have any good advice... My dad (who supervised the construcion) told me to use hand/skin lotion to avoid static discharde and touch the frame whenever possible, other than that i can't tell you much.
Unless you want a sound system, then, i'll tell you to try to find a sound card with two speaker ports so that you can get a surruond sound like thing. Cambridge Soundworks has reasonably priced speakers.
And don't use an e-machines parts, they won't touch linux
EDIT: and in case you can't guess, i don't REALLY know what i'm talking about...


----------



## Fenlock (Jul 15, 2004)

tomshardware guide and anandtech has some nice guides for choosing hardware . i prefer anands guides (http://www.anandtech.com/guides/).
what you want is propably their midrange system (http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2087&p=1), which comes in at 1000$ with a monitor. if you allready have a monitor go for 2x512mb memory instead. if you want better graphics look for 128mb radeon 9800pro.

/f


----------



## reanjr (Jul 15, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> How hard is it?
> 
> I bought an interim computer when my last one had an OS crash.  I needed a computer, but not one that was cutting edge.  I got one cheap, but it's only marginally acceptable.
> 
> ...




It's trivial.  Unless you want it to actually perform...

Make sure you read as much as you can on memory/processor/motherboard combinations.  You can build a P4 2GHz, using excellent memory and motherboard and outperform a P4 2.8GHz not built so well.  The numbers don't mean everything (well, the ADVERTISED numbers)


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 15, 2004)

mps42 said:
			
		

> Case: Aspire X-Dreamer II (with 350W PSU) - $52
> CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ Barton Retail - $144
> Cooling: included Retail HSF - $0
> Motherboard: MSI K7N2 Delta-L - $63
> ...



Yeah, it's definitely a nice system... you're making me drool.     Good thing I got that new job...

One thing though, I can not reccommend highly enough getting XP Professional over XP Home.  It's more expensive, but it just runs _so_ much nicer, and on a nice machine there's no point in having something sub-par for your OS.  Well, except for needing Windows to play a lot of games...


----------



## mps42 (Jul 16, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Swapping the CPU is almost always a bad idea, even if it is possible (which it usually is). It's rare that upgrading your CPU to another with the same socket and FSB speed will help much. Swapping video cards on prebuilt systems is not a problem, except on the afforementioned extreme low-end boxes (and some small form-factor boxes, lately) with non-upgradeable integrated video.
> 
> Windows has been on 1 CD from Win95 to Windows XP (that's four major releases of 'home user Windows', over 7 years -- Win95, Win98, WinME, and WinXP Home). Office has been on 1 CD from Office 95 to Office 2003 (five releases of Office -- 95, 97, 2000, XP, 2003). In that time span, average hard drive size have gone from under 1 GB to over 80 GB, average system memory has gone from 16 MB to 512 MB (and from PC66 SDRAM to DDR 400), CDs have gone from 4X to 48X (with DVD readers now common), and an average CPU has gone from a 75 MHz Pentium to a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. Applications have gotten bigger, sure, but for the most part they've gotten bigger a lot slower than average desktop capabilities have increased.




 Great discussion, drothgery! Yes, windows has been on 1 cd since 95. I have to call your attention to Office Professional though, which comes on 2 cds. The fist cd being word, excel, access and power point. The second cd being Publisher and it's clipart...
 LightPhoenix, I agree with you. I MUCH prefer XP Pro over home but not everone needs the extra "power" that is offers. Plus, like I said, I only spent an hour on it. 
 I think, however much I am enjoying this debate, we've kinda strayed from the original question so I'm gonna pull myself outta the mud, stop slinging, and say to Heretic apostate that the answer to his original question is "it's not that hard at all to build your own system". Furthermore, at least in my opinion, it's well worth the time and effort.


----------



## Planesdragon (Jul 17, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> One thing though, I can not reccommend highly enough getting XP Professional over XP Home. It's more expensive, but it just runs _so_ much nicer, and on a nice machine there's no point in having something sub-par for your OS. Well, except for needing Windows to play a lot of games...



  Hate to burst your bubble, but "no, it doesn't."

 XP Home is XP Professional with some group management and intranet security programs removed. If anything, HOME would run faster than PRO due to the smaller ammount of services that are left on by default--and after optimization (i.e, turn off services, set your desktop how you want it, etc.), they'd both run just about exactly the same.

Here's a page which details the differences. (Yes, I know that WinXP-pro supports SMP while WinXP-Home doesn't... but no one in this thread has suggested wasting the money for a dual-processor system.)


 Oh, and one more thing: processor swapping is good if you get a great motherboard and buy a sub-optimal CPU, intending to save money and upgrade in a year or so when prices drop. (I bought a new PC more than three years ago, and I can still buy a chip-compatable CPU today that would drop in and work.)


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 20, 2004)

> no one in this thread has suggested wasting the money for a dual-processor system.)




That's because none of us seem to have the need, want, gotta have it, setup to use both procs. Most of our software we use don't use both procs so it'd be a waste of time. They're really only practical in high-graphics jobs or servers. It costs more money for the motherboard to plug those puppies into!


----------



## LrdApoc (Jul 20, 2004)

*Another build guide..*

If you're looking for an easy to print out How-to build then I can recommend this PDF.

http://www.dispatch.com/connect/may02/BuildaPC.pdf
 if you can't get there I know this pdf is cached in Google. (do a search for Shawn Sines and connect)

It's a little out of date, but the advice and step-by-step still apply and really make it worth the download.

I know the author pretty well


----------



## Krieg (Jul 20, 2004)

Planesdragon said:
			
		

> but no one in this thread has suggested wasting the money for a dual-processor system





			
				Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> That's because none of us seem to have the need, want, gotta have it, setup to use both procs. Most of our software we use don't use both procs so it'd be a waste of time. They're really only practical in high-graphics jobs or servers.



I actually have a dual proc server which I certainly don't consider a "waste of money", I just realize that it isn't practical for 99% of home users.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jul 21, 2004)

Okay.  In about a month or so, I'll have enough money saved up to actually do this. 

The thing is, I'm a ditz when it comes to technical specs.  My eyes glaze over, and I start drooling, and it just ain't pretty.

So if any of you would be kind enough to help me out, I'd appreciate it.

Given $800, what stuff would you buy to make a decent system?

Some limitations:

*PROCESSOR/MOTHERBOARD*
I'm not planning on going Intel, obviously, for these prices...  So I'm hoping that there's a good chip out there, common enough to not cause many compatability problems.  An Athlon, maybe?

*OPERATING SYSTEM*
I would like to get Windows XP Pro.  So I'm guessing I need a dealer that will sell OEM software with the usual workaround of shipping it with a piece of computer hardware (thus fulfilling the letter, if not the spirit, of the OEM agreement).

*CD DRIVE(S)*
I would like a CD Burner, with the possibility of being a DVD-ROM player, as well.  If possible, I'd also like a fast CD drive, as well.

*FLOPPY DRIVE*
I have little need for a 3.5" disk, so we can skip that.  Though, if it's cheap, and I have a 3.5" bay open and the means to connect it (see slots, below?), I'd consider it.

*MEMORY*
As much memory as is possible.  My system, with 640MB, runs like molasses, so I'm hoping more memory would clear that up.  (Either that, or I have WAY too many things in my startup files and running files...)  Either way, bare minimum would be 512MB, though I would like to have 1GB of RAM.

*STORAGE*
I'd like to have 120GB of storage, if possible.  If not, I'd settle for 80GB.

*SLOTS*
I'd like to have at least two 4-slot plugins.  The computer I have now only came with one 4-slot plugin thingy (sorry, don't know the term; it's where you plug in your CD drives, hard drives, and so on).  Since I'm hoping to save some of the stuff

*CANNIBALIZED EQUIP*
I've got an old CD-Burner/DVD-ROM, but it's been giving me trouble.  I've got a questionable fast CD-ROM player, but it's also been giving me trouble.  I have a ZIP drive (250MB capacity disks) that I'd like to keep, if there's an open 3.5" drive, but that's only if possible.  I've got a 20GB hard drive, that I can use as a slave drive, once the rest of the stuff is connected.  I've got about 512MB of RAM that's probably good, so I need the slots to connect it in.  The pentium 4 chip & motherboard is probably still good, maybe?  (1.7GHz, so possibly good, since I don't play FPS or do graphic design, just spreadsheets and older games).  I'll keep the DSL (they'll get me back on dial-up over my dead body...).

*CASE*
Looks like a tower will be necessary.  I need at least one opening (CD-burner), but would prefer two 5.25" openings (CD-burner/DVD Rom and fast CD-player) and two 3.5" openings (ZIP and 3.5" floppy).  I would like at least two internal bays (main hard drive, my current 20GB hard drive--until I get everything I want off of it).

Anyway, I'm hoping on spending only about $800.  I don't know the specs on the parts in my computer, so if you need to know, tell me how to find out (hopefully without actually _opening_ the case?).

Thanks for all your help so far!


----------



## Fenlock (Jul 21, 2004)

and again anandtech to the rescue 


```
CPU & Cooling  	AMD Athlon 64 2800+ (retail cooling included)  	$185
Motherboard 	MSI K8N Neo Platinum 	$125
Memory 	2 X 256MB OCZ PC3200 EL 	$126
Video Card 	128MB Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro 	$126
Monitor 	Samsung 955DF (19") DynaFlat CRT 	$212
Computer Case 	CaseEdge TS1 Mid Tower plus 360W PSU 	$72
Sound Card 	Onboard sound 	$0
Speakers 	Logitech Z640 5.1 	$55
Networking 	Onboard 10/100/1000 Ethernet 	$0
Hard Drive 	Seagate 120GB Barracuda IV 	$85
CD-RW 	Lite-On 52x32x52x16 Combo Drive 	$42
Bottom Line 	- 	$1028
```
(hope this is readable)

if you remove the monitor and speakers it will cost you ~750$


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jul 21, 2004)

Eep!  I don't see any provision for the operating system in there...

Is that a pre-build, or are those parts?


----------



## D+1 (Jul 22, 2004)

My rule for upgrading/buying a computer:

Spend as much as you can PAINFULLY afford.  You should wake up at night in a cold sweat worrying about how much you spent.  Buy as close to bleeding edge as you have enough Band Aids and Bactine to make possible.

Your computer will last much longer.  It will do what you want it to do NOW.  It will remain capable of running newer games much much farther into the forseeable future.  You should not NEED to upgrade it for at LEAST a year.  When you do upgrade it, it will be because you are so bored with having NOT upgraded anything on it for so long.  The sole exception to this is having one or more components commit smoking, ritual suicide.  That is, think very seriously about a raid configuration.  I know I will with my next machine because I've had too many hard drives just frag themselves, occasionally taking irreplaceable material with them, though the sheer tedious annoyance of having to start over with a clean hard drive reinstalling everything will make it worth the extra money even if it only is needed once.

If possible/practical, salvage ram from your older machine to help power your newer machine.  Ditto, the hard drive and monitor.  Use your older hard drive as a backup.  For that matter, reuse the old case if the old computer is going to be unused.  That'll save a few bucks if you absolutely have to.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jul 22, 2004)

What is a "RAID" configuration?  (Aside from the ant pesticide, that is...  Sorry, got to beat people to that joke...)


----------



## drothgery (Jul 22, 2004)

D+1 said:
			
		

> If possible/practical, salvage ram from your older machine to help power your newer machine. Ditto, the hard drive and monitor. Use your older hard drive as a backup. For that matter, reuse the old case if the old computer is going to be unused. That'll save a few bucks if you absolutely have to.



You do realize you're giving contradictory recommendations here, right? Buying a high-end machine and hanging on to it as long as possible pretty much makes keeping RAM from one box to another impossible, and keeping a hard drive impractical (my old 10GB HD would be nearly useless on my new box, with a 120 GB HD -- and that's ignoring the flip from ATA/100 to SATA).


----------



## Fenlock (Jul 22, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> What is a "RAID" configuration?  (Aside from the ant pesticide, that is...  Sorry, got to beat people to that joke...)




Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.
It is a method where you use two or more cheap harddisk as one disk. Either to create a faster access or to mirror data. 
google to the rescue: raid 

Regarding the price of os i cant help you there  :\  
I could suggest you try out a version of linux. It wont cost you money, but it will cost you time...


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jul 22, 2004)

Regarding linux:
Could I run all my Windows games and applications (designed for everything from DOS 3.0 to Windows XP) on linux?  That's the question.  I've got hundreds (thousands?) of dollars invested, and don't want to have to start from scratch.


----------



## Fenlock (Jul 22, 2004)

well, the short answer is no and the long answer is probably 

you can get libraries for linux that emulates the win32 api. some applications will work, some wont. 

personaly i dual boot between linux and windows. I use windows for games and linux for everything else. but then, i dont mind spending a whole evening trying to get something to work. and since google came around, the amount of information for linux is as easy to get as for microsoft.... 
but back to the topic. if you are not computer savy then go with what you know.

If you have dsl or cable connection, remember to get all patches to windows, virus scanner and firewall up and running before you connect to the internet. 

/f


----------



## D+1 (Jul 22, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> You do realize you're giving contradictory recommendations here, right?




Yep.  But that's the nature of the beast.  On one hand nobody wants to spend a lot of money.  They desperately want to get a lot of computer cheaply.  If their older computer is at least adequate or tolerable in some areas one can compromise the "spend money on it until it hurts" notion by say, taking ram from an old machine that will work in the new machine.


> Buying a high-end machine and hanging on to it as long as possible pretty much makes keeping RAM from one box to another impossible, and keeping a hard drive impractical (my old 10GB HD would be nearly useless on my new box, with a 120 GB HD -- and that's ignoring the flip from ATA/100 to SATA).



Depends on HOW old we're talking about and how low-end those components are compared to what you want or is available.  this is not a science, it's an art.  I've salvaged ram plenty of times, but never hard drives until recently(only because the reason for moving up was often a unrecoverable HD crash.)

I've also sworn before never to build my own machine again because there are too many good systems out there at cheap prices, but my latest machine I once again assembled myself.  I have had too many instances where I've fought with one thing or another about a system when putting it together, but I find that I must like the fight because I keep doing it against my better judgement.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 22, 2004)

I probably won't ever do it myself, but if it weren't for the disturbing trend in favor of integrated video that's both non-upgradable and not very good on low-end OEM boxes, I'd probably advice people to buy a cheap (~$500) PC every other year, instead of doing what most people recommend, which is to buy/build an upper midrange ($1000-$1500) system every three or four years. I think you'd usually have a better system that way, and you'd spend less money.


----------



## Zepherus Bane (Jul 23, 2004)

As bad as it sounds, a cheap e-machine or something along those lines may be your best bet.  

You can build a much better machine yourself for the same price but if you don't feel comfortable figuring out what individual pieces of hardware to purchase you probably are just as likely to screw up all those expensive pieces as to get something working.

My last PC was one I pieced together buying parts from places I found on pricewatch.com and it's lasted me three years to now without any problems until I added some new hardware to capture analog and digital video and started trying to make my own DVD's, now my P4 2ghz and 512mb ram are not enough.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 26, 2004)

Fenlock said:
			
		

> and again anandtech to the rescue
> 
> 
> ```
> ...




Fenlock:

You can get a Radeon 9200 128MB card from Best Buy for around $100.

Get a case with at least 4 5.25" bays, 2 open 3.5" bays (for your zip drive, floppy drive) and 2 internal 3.5" bays for your hard drives. Get at least a 350W power supply. You don't have to spend booku bucks on the case, just make sure you have a good power supply.

DVD drives run abt $100 or just under at Best Buy. And you can also burn regular CDs with them. DVD burners cost a bundle of money.

Speakers: optional if you have your stereo nearby. Mine's plugged into my stereo.

Monitors: shop around. You can get a 17" CRT (standard) monitor for between $100-130 nowadays. This is big enough for most things unless you like bigger monitors but remember, these things are HEAVY!!! Unless you can afford a flat-screen but they only run optimal at one set resolution.

Go on ebay and look for processor/motherboard combo packages. They're cheaper than buying the processor and motherboard separately. I got my Athlon 2700 and an ASUS motherboard for less than $200. 

Make sure the motherboard has 4-5 PCI slots, one AGP slot 8x speed (for your videocard).


----------



## Davek (Jul 26, 2004)

If you have a licenced OEM CD for Win 95 or Win 98, all you need is an ***UPGRADE*** CD of Win XP. The Win 95 or 98 Does not have to be installed, but you need to have the physical CD. That will save you a few bucks.


----------



## JediSoth (Aug 1, 2004)

I had my system go ker-plunk a few weeks ago, and out of desperation I found myself purchasing a system from *gag* Best Buy. For $850 I got:

 P4 3.0 GHz @ 800 Mhz FSB (Prescott)
 512MB DDR RAM
 160 GB 7,200 RPM Seagate SATA drive
 8x Sony DVD+-RW drive (does DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, CD-R & CD-RW)
 48x CD-ROM drive
 128MB PCI Express GeForce FX5300
 Windows XP Home
 9-in-1 front panel card reader with 2 USB 2.0 ports

 It's made by a German company called Medion. Plus, it came with a $70 mail-in rebate. So, it IS possible to get a fast system for under $1000. So far, it's run everything I've thrown at it without a hitch. Of course, the only "modern" game I have in it right now is UT2004, but I'm running it at a pretty high resolution and it's smooth as silk.

 JediSoth


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 2, 2004)

The original poster has not mentioned yet what he wants it for.

If portability or space premium is important to you, I'd look at one of the new Shuttle Athlon mini PCs. They are tiny and work well. Premium cost for such a case/mobo combo is about $100 - but this may well be something you would appreciate. Sound and Ethernet are on board. They also are largely pre-assembled mobo/case wise, so it's a matter of:

1- pop in Ram
2- pop in CPU and clip down the shuttle cpu cooler
3- insert vid card
4 - insert Lite-on CD/RW/DVD combo 
5- insert hard drive
6- plug cables in  

There is only one slot for each component. It's pretty straightforward and marginally more complex than Lego or Ikea furniture building- but not much more.

Then it's install time fore the software. Off you go.

A few other points:

Shuttle system aside...


I recommend an Asus NV8x for an Athlon Mobo. 
Athlon 2800 is the sweet spot for that CPU line right now.
DO use the on board sound on an NForce2 chipset equipped Mobo (yes, the NV8 is an NForce2). It's *excellent* sound.  Don't get a non-Nforce2 or Nforce 3 based mobo if you are getting an Athlon.
the Samsung 19" 955DF is a good recommendation and probably the best CRT you can get price/performance right now. I would also recommend that, as have others in this thread.
Assuming you want to play PC games on your system, do NOT get an LCD screen with 17 ms or more response time. The minimum response time for an LCD monitor to use for games is 16 ms response.  You'll want at least that and preferably 12 ms.  You'll also notice a 12-16ms LCD monitor costs a fair bit more.  Response times are like Golf - lower is better

Moral of the story: CRT monitor is still the way to got for gaming. The Samsung 19" DF is a good buy.

Lastly - all of this advice should just illustrate to you that building a system is little more than Lego for grown ups. Take the plunge. You'll be fine.

Monitor aside, don't cannibalize your old system for the sake of a hundred dollars.  Keep it intact and keep it running so you can access the web reliably for help should something go wrong when building your new one.  Then you can use it as a back up system, give it to kids, family, as a second system for some head to head gaming, NWN server - whatever.


----------



## The Goblin King (Aug 4, 2004)

When I rebuilt my box I had problems.  Hopefully my experiences can help someone.

First, the power supply was way way outdated.  So, I had to get a new one.  I don't know exactly how old my computer was since I got it second-hand but it didn't have the plugs to put in the motherboard and video card.

After that I still couldn't get it to work so I asked a friend and found out the board was grounding out.  The motherboard was touching the metal of the case and messing it up.  Four little spacers later it worked like a charm.

When I got it working and started playing UT2004 I noticed it was getting hot.  Really really hot.  I could see the fans running but it still concerned me.  Then, I realized that when I had put the video card in my wireless NIC was in the first PCI slot.  It had less then half an inch of clearance between the two.  What I did was move the NIC down to the last slot.  After that the fan on my video card didn't seem to have to work as hard and it didn't get as hot.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Aug 4, 2004)

For under $1000 and no hassle I'd reccomend you go through Dell.  It isn't that I am inexperienced in putting computers together... I did it for 9 years for the Air Force.  Dell has the benefit of getting their parts super cheap because they buy in volume... you won't get that discount when you are buying single parts.  My father can get the parts at cost and even he can't beat Dell's price because of that volume discount.

The only way that I'd ever build my own is if I was building a hot-rod of a speed machine but then I'd expect to spend WAY more than $1000.  For a good middle ground machine at around $1000 your best bet is to go with Dell.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Aug 4, 2004)

mps42 said:
			
		

> If you want to go buy a Dell or Compaq or something similar, go ahead. Just be aware that you are most likely NOT getting a system that you can upgrade in 5 years when you are ready to play that awesome new game or run that new office app. On the other hand, the job of "matching" all the parts has been done for you and it's built, ready to go.




I've got a Dell and I've never had a problem upgrading it.  Well... only once but it wasn't major.  I needed a new power supply when I got my Radeon 9800 Pro Graphics Card which requires a minimum of 300 Watts and my old power supply only pumped out 250.  I bought the new supply at Microcenter but the holes on the Dell Case don't match up with the plug ports on a third party supply.  I just used a Nibbler to cut out the holes that I needed and it worked just fine.  For the uninitiated a Nibbler is a little tool that takes little bites out of sheet metal (computer cases) and you can eventually bite out as big a hole as you need.  Other than that I've never had a problem.

Edit: If you manage to get some significant cash to spend on a machine this is what I'd go with.
Falcon Northwest Mach V


----------



## Jarrod (Aug 6, 2004)

And get to know someone who builds machines so that when it just doesn't work (rare, but possible) you can call for help 

I've been poking around system upgrades myself, and I noticed something very interesting. Systems (in particular video cards) are about to shift from a PCI connector to a PCI Express connector. Despite the similarity in names, the two are entirely incompatible. 

That means don't buy a high end video card, as there's a ~0.5-1 year time span before it won't plug in anymore. As far as I can tell. 

Better yet, Intel is pushing a new board layout (BTX) instead of the current (ATX) format. That means that new motherboards (once they go BTX) won't fit in current cases.

Or, as I told my wife: so you have current vidcards that won't fit in new motherboards; new mobos will require a new case and power supply. Oh, and RAM will probably change because they like to make us sweat.

Sigh.


----------



## Stormfalcon (Aug 7, 2004)

Instead of panicking about PCI Express and basing purchases based on its arrival, it's probably smarter to take a wait-and-see attitude towards that (as well as BTX).  It'll take a while for true PCI Express cards to hit the market (what we're seeing so far are actually AGP chipsets with bridge circuits as far as video cards are concerned...even the planned 6800-series nVidia cards that are to be PCI Express ones use bridge circuits), and even longer for BTX to hit the shelves in appreciable numbers.  For all we know, both PCI Express and BTX will wind up being the MCA of the new millenium (how many of us remember MCA?).

If you're planning on building a new system, may as well do it now and not worry about PCI Express or BTX.  By the time you're ready for a replacement, it's likely that both technologies will have matured and will have proven their worth, assuming they've done either.  Even if you outgrow your new system within a year, the appearance of PCI Express and BTX will not shove AGP or ATX into the technological dustheap right away.  There'd be too much inertia on the part of the industry at large.  You'll likely still be able to use your cards and other parts for a while yet.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 7, 2004)

Stormfalcon said:
			
		

> Instead of panicking about PCI Express and basing purchases based on its arrival, it's probably smarter to take a wait-and-see attitude towards that (as well as BTX). It'll take a while for true PCI Express cards to hit the market (what we're seeing so far are actually AGP chipsets with bridge circuits as far as video cards are concerned...even the planned 6800-series nVidia cards that are to be PCI Express ones use bridge circuits), and even longer for BTX to hit the shelves in appreciable numbers. For all we know, both PCI Express and BTX will wind up being the MCA of the new millenium (how many of us remember MCA?).



I don't know of any forthcoming chipset that's not PCI Express-capable. And it's a Good Thing, though more because PCI needs replacing than because graphics cards need the extra bandwidth of PCI Express x16 vs AGP 8X. So it's coming.

DDR2 memory is less certain; the 9xx chipsets support DDR, and aren't all that much faster with DDR2 533 than with DDR400, and the Athlon 64's integrated memory controller means that AMD will need to release new CPUs to support DDR2. But memory makers aren't having any trouble producing DDR2 667, so I've got to think that's extremely likely to catch on, too. AMD's pushing back a little, but they're mostly saying "later" to DDR2, not "never", like they were to RAMBUS.

The BTX form factor is the one that might very well not catch on. The case & motherboard people don't like it, and AMD doesn't see the need for it (and the board layout doesn't work well for AMD CPUs). But CPUs keep running hotter (this isn't just a P4 thing), and we might really need something like BTX in a few years.

Still, waiting for the Next Big Thing can keep you in system-purchase paralysis for months or years. I bought a new 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 in April -- just before Intel launched the 9xx chipsets, with PCI Express support, DDR2 memory support, and a new socket design. I'd decided that my 800 MHz Pentium 3 really was getting old, and I'd been "going to replace it soon" for almost a year. And the new PC will be fine for another three years or so, I think.

Ultra-high-end graphics cards will probably be PCI-Express only starting in 2006 sometime, but by that time I'd be able to replace the rest of my system with something better for less than the cost of an ultra-high-end graphics card, and so wouldn't dream of putting one in my box (I imagine a hypothetical GeForce 8800 would be severely CPU-limited by a 3.2 GHz P4, anyway). DDR memory will be around at reasonable prices for a few years after it stops being the normal system memory.


----------



## Stormfalcon (Aug 8, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I don't know of any forthcoming chipset that's not PCI Express-capable. And it's a Good Thing, though more because PCI needs replacing than because graphics cards need the extra bandwidth of PCI Express x16 vs AGP 8X. So it's coming.




Forthcoming chipsets should be true PCI Express-capable and not just AGP parts with bridge circuits (like nVidia's 5xxx and 6xxx chips on PCIe boards).  Right now though, it's not worth going bleeding edge and going PCIe since the benefits are still quite negligable with the exception of nVidia's new variant on dual-card configurations.  Also, I'm not all that sure that we're at the point of needing 16x bandwith just yet.  Right now, we're just barely pushing 8x, and that's only needed if you're pushing extremely high resolutions.  Doom 3 and maybe Farcry can take advantage of 8x right now with the textures involved, but that's about it right now.  Until now, the difference between 4x AGP and 8x AGP has been pretty negligable until you get into current ultra-high resolutions.



> The BTX form factor is the one that might very well not catch on. The case & motherboard people don't like it, and AMD doesn't see the need for it (and the board layout doesn't work well for AMD CPUs). But CPUs keep running hotter (this isn't just a P4 thing), and we might really need something like BTX in a few years.




True, though I suspect that the something will probably be much more easier to upgrade from ATX to than BTX is.  The AMD factor is a very good reason for ATX to still be around for a while yet and a good part of it inertia potentially slowing down the move to BTX.



> Still, waiting for the Next Big Thing can keep you in system-purchase paralysis for months or years. I bought a new 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 in April -- just before Intel launched the 9xx chipsets, with PCI Express support, DDR2 memory support, and a new socket design. I'd decided that my 800 MHz Pentium 3 really was getting old, and I'd been "going to replace it soon" for almost a year. And the new PC will be fine for another three years or so, I think.




And that's the important thing.  By the time you outgrow your current system, PCIe and everything associated with it will truly be ready for primetime.  Right now, it isn't except for the bleeding-edge crowd, and even that's questionable at the moment. 



> Ultra-high-end graphics cards will probably be PCI-Express only starting in 2006 sometime, but by that time I'd be able to replace the rest of my system with something better for less than the cost of an ultra-high-end graphics card, and so wouldn't dream of putting one in my box (I imagine a hypothetical GeForce 8800 would be severely CPU-limited by a 3.2 GHz P4, anyway). DDR memory will be around at reasonable prices for a few years after it stops being the normal system memory.




Very true on those counts.  By the time a few years rolls around, you'll want to replace everything (or pretty near everything).


----------



## drothgery (Aug 8, 2004)

Stormfalcon said:
			
		

> Forthcoming chipsets should be true PCI Express-capable and not just AGP parts with bridge circuits (like nVidia's 5xxx and 6xxx chips on PCIe boards). Right now though, it's not worth going bleeding edge and going PCIe since the benefits are still quite negligable with the exception of nVidia's new variant on dual-card configurations. Also, I'm not all that sure that we're at the point of needing 16x bandwith just yet. Right now, we're just barely pushing 8x, and that's only needed if you're pushing extremely high resolutions. Doom 3 and maybe Farcry can take advantage of 8x right now with the textures involved, but that's about it right now. Until now, the difference between 4x AGP and 8x AGP has been pretty negligable until you get into current ultra-high resolutions.



I was talking about motherboard chipsets (like Intel's 865, 875, 915, and 925; Nvidia's Nforce 2 and Nforce 3; VIA's KT600, KT800, and KT880), not graphics card chipsets. The current PCI Express graphics cards are 'bridged' solutions (except possibly ATi's X800 series, depending on who you believe), but the PCI Express x16 sockets they're plugging into are not (the only PCI-Express capable motherboards available now are based on Intel's 915 and 925 chipsets, which are PCI-Express native, and don't support AGP at all). It seems like Intel, NVidia, and VIA are planning on phasing out their AGP-capable chipsets, which means we're getting PCI Express.

PCI-Express x16 provides somewhat more bandwidth than a hypothetical 'AGP 16X' would. But the big thing about PCI Express, really, is that PCI-Express x1 provides far more bandwidth than PCI.


----------



## Stormfalcon (Aug 8, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I was talking about motherboard chipsets (like Intel's 865, 875, 915, and 925; Nvidia's Nforce 2 and Nforce 3; VIA's KT600, KT800, and KT880), not graphics card chipsets. The current PCI Express graphics cards are 'bridged' solutions (except possibly ATi's X800 series, depending on who you believe), but the PCI Express x16 sockets they're plugging into are not (the only PCI-Express capable motherboards available now are based on Intel's 915 and 925 chipsets, which are PCI-Express native, and don't support AGP at all). It seems like Intel, NVidia, and VIA are planning on phasing out their AGP-capable chipsets, which means we're getting PCI Express.




Okay, looks like we were thinking different things in regards to chipsets.  You were thinking "motherboard" while I was thinking "video card".  Yeah, the motherboard chipsets are obviously going to be true PCIe chipsets while current PCIe graphics cards are not.  We both agree there.  We'll probably have to wait until the next generation of videocards before we see a sizeable number of true PCIe chipsets among them and what the true impact of PCIe will be with them.



> PCI-Express x16 provides somewhat more bandwidth than a hypothetical 'AGP 16X' would. But the big thing about PCI Express, really, is that PCI-Express x1 provides far more bandwidth than PCI.




Very true, that.  It's just a question of what, besides graphics cards and hard drive interfaces, truly need the bandwidth.  PCIe will provide a lot of bandwidth, no doubt.  It's just a question of whether or not the I/O ports on the cards (networking, USB, FireWire, legacy I/O, etc.) will be enough of a bottleneck to negate the benefits and whether or not we'll see meaningful upgrades to that I/O that will work better with that increased bandwidth.


----------

