Computer parts - this stuff good?

As per my previous post, and all your responses, from a while back,

I've narrowed it down to this stuff.

 

Is this what I need? I assume I can use video built in for now, with a

stupid Samsung 997DF, and I can use my case, and a pair of 7700 Maxtor

drives (60 & 200Gig)...and buy those things later?

 

 

http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=3575

 

 

http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=4124

 

 

http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=3524

 

 

http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=3303

 

 

Going to go this route if it is what you recommend. I can't spend more

than this, and a few hundred less would be nice...might get 2G of ram

to knock the initial price down a bit and get 2G more later.

 

This stuff is good for CS2?

 

Shawn

It sure looks good. I don't know if it's cost effective. For the cost of your CPU alone you can buy one of the better mid-range machines from major computer makers. Back off a few steps on the CPU clockspeed.

 

Don't buy the bleeding edge of today at a cost of nearly $US1,000. Buy last years bleeding edge on clearance for $300. (And get 85% of the performance and save the extra $700 for:

 

-drives set in in a RAID array

 

-premium power supply

 

-a new case with good airflow to cool the newer higher-heat components you're going to be using.

I am looking to design my own computer now and I am learning from a book called hardware buyers guide. It recomends the fastest processor you can find around $175-250. You get the most for your money there.

 

Because you are looking for at the new high end dual processor, you may spend a little more but the difference you will get for the extra $700 for the processor is minimal.

 

If you spend $300 now you will have a sligthly slower processor now than if you spend $1000, then wait 2 years and spend $300 more to upgrade your processor you will have a much faster processor then. At least thats what I have bought into and the way I am leaning.

 

Jordan

Ditto the answers on selecting the top end cpu. Your money would be much better spent on a

lower speed cpu and load up on the ram. A premium/silent power supply is also a great idea.

And buy name brand ram.

 

PCCanada is great, I've dealt with them for many years, although less since I switched to the

light side.

It all looks good, but you're blowing a LOT of money on it. If you could live with something like a 10% speed cut, the cost of your parts would probably drop by 50% or more.

 

steve

I was recently pricing some RAM, thinking of going 4gb on a new machine. Buying 4 1gb sticks was much cheaper then buying 2 2gb sticks; might want to look into it.

 

Alan

HI guys, thanks for the answers. OK, so I can get this for a few hundred less:

 

http://www.pccanada.com/viewitem.asp?id=3572

 

And save $200 by going 4x1G ram (what do I get?). This actually all brings the stuff directly into my reach with no digging for extra $.

 

I like that idea...just thought to get the best was good, but your reasoning makes more sense.

 

Also, what is this new Vista? Is it an extant OS? Is it available 64 bit? I find the idea of XP64 attractive since it's got 2 SPs already...but that might be dumb on my part. I think if Vista was yet available, I'd know more...

 

My earlier post took up a lot of space, I really would like not to waste forum space, just want to know exactly what to buy...

 

Shawn

Get the 64 X2 3800, it's $100 less and in stock. Rule of thumb is you only notice cpu

speed

gains of 50%. So a 3800, you will never notice the difference between it and the 4200. Buy

the OCZ value ram, it is guaranteed for life. Remember, "Better" is the enemy of "Good

Enough". You can always spend more for better, but it's irrelevant, because it 2 months

there'll be something better again. Put some of the money you saved aside and upgrade

components in a year.

 

Vista is Microsoft's next operating system. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/

default.mspx

 

Sure you don't want an iMac G5?

I kind of doubt that dual core will buy you anything. Most desktop applications are not designed to be run one multiple processors. I don't see how a big image can be divided into small pieces, thus don't believe you can actually use the 2 processors to work on the image simultaniously.

I never know who to believe with this stuff. Internet people who say this-or-that, or internet people who say that-or-this.

 

 

?

 

 

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041%5E13077%5E13116,00.html

I decided to budget for the 4600. It can't hurt.

"And enthusiasts who edit a large of amount of photos, video, or music files will benefit from the additional memory and processing capability."

 

Like I say, who to believe...

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_exploringx64.mspx

The cheapest AMD dual core is the Althon 64 X2 3800 - it costs about $322 in USD. Photoshop is dual core aware and if you have other applications running dual core will help. Most computer benchmarks have not been redesigned to accurately measure the "real world" difference that dual core makes. Most views are simply opinions - I think its worth it. I've been using an Intel dual core with office productivity apps at work and it is fast.