advice on budget DIY PC...

[colonel kurtz]

ok, so after having the same PC for 6 years, i'm finally in the market to upgrade from my 3.0ghz pentium 4 dell. after doing a lot of looking around, i've decided to go the DIY route, but am pretty limited on funds, so i'm trying to get the most bang for the buck for around $500 including the OS. after doing a lot of searching around, i've pretty well decided on a couple of options. 1 is this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.606690

the other would be

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.614415

with

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...e=10&IsFeedbackTab=true&rdm=16#scrollHelpful1

now, i've looked up the benchmark ratings, and see that the 6-core phenom is significantly faster than the quadcore athlons...but the issue i have is that the mobo and HD with the phenom are both 3 gb/s, where the athlon combo has a 6 gb/s SATA. the question now is, which is going to provide me better performance for mixing - the extra processing power, or the faster transfer speeds? i'm assuming the faster processor would be more beneficial, but i'd like to verify this before ordering the thing and pissing off the wife, lol.

 

[Empathy]

You're probably correct assuming that the processor would be more beneficial. If you're using a lot of samples or a metric shit-tonne of audio files in one session, those faster transfer speeds may make a noticeable difference.

Still, I'd go with the extra processing power. Not a huge fan of the AMD stuff, I'd like to recommend you to look into an Intel, but I won't complicate things if you just want quick and easy.

 

[John_C]

unless you're using SSDs, 3GB/s is plenty. The limiting factor is the speed of the drive, not the interface

 

[kvoid]

what John_C said, and even with SSDs, only a few can fully saturate the old SATA I.

I have a Phenom II six core rig and love it. But there's been a lot of dust kicked up over the next breed of AMD processors and motherboard compatibility. I would frankly wait a little or get an Intel Sandy Bridge platform PC. The AMDs out today are going to get replaced/bumped down in price by the summer. So if you're still on a bleeding P4 (awful processors by the way), I'm sure you can hold out a little or just go the Sandy Bridge route. Though, for 500$, it will be a little hard

 

[colonel kurtz]

Not a huge fan of the AMD stuff, I'd like to recommend you to look into an Intel, but I won't complicate things if you just want quick and easy.

i'd much prefer intel, but the AMD's in that price range perform so much better. $415 for a hexcore, to me, is a no-brainer!

 

[DanLights]

I'm on pretty much the same boat as the OP, does anybody know of a good website in Europe where I could buy this? Like the parts?

 

[John_C]

http://www.scan.co.uk/

I've never had any problems with them and i've ordered from them several times. Plus the prices are good and their scansure insurance thing is a good idea, although i've never had to claim on it myself

 

[Sloan]

Just in time for Tom's Hardware $500 gaming pc build:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-gaming-pc-phenom-ii-radeon-hd-6850,2903.html

 

[Audiosprite]

here's a document that's continually updated about the pc components market, matching parts to a budget and such. you might find it useful: http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png

 

[Sloan]

One thing that sucks about pc charts is that they don't really specify performance per dollar. I wish someone would come up with this, so I don't spend $50 for a %5 performance increase in something i don't need (physx processing etc). When I upgrade, I want to know where I am getting the most boost for the lowest price.

 

[luismars]

I'm on pretty much the same boat as the OP, does anybody know of a good website in Europe where I could buy this? Like the parts?

I built one here once, no problems.

Take a look here too: http://www.citriq.com/

 

[colonel kurtz]

One thing that sucks about pc charts is that they don't really specify performance per dollar. I wish someone would come up with this, so I don't spend $50 for a %5 performance increase in something i don't need (physx processing etc). When I upgrade, I want to know where I am getting the most boost for the lowest price.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

 

[Sloan]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

that's pretty cool, but we need that for all components!

 

[sprack]

There's no clear way to do that without have a specific application in mind and then benchmarking correctly for it.

Passmark is good for burn-in testing, but it has no relevance on real use of a computer. For that matter none of the synthetic benchmarks do either.

One thing that sucks about pc charts is that they don't really specify performance per dollar. I wish someone would come up with this, so I don't spend $50 for a %5 performance increase in something i don't need (physx processing etc). When I upgrade, I want to know where I am getting the most boost for the lowest price.

 

[DanLights]

I built one here once, no problems.

Take a look here too: http://www.citriq.com/

Thanks a lot dude!