Loman Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) My friend's dad saw my computer and now wants me to build one for him. He is a musician, so he will be doing a lot of audio/video work, he won't be using it for gaming, though. He's given me a price limit of $750, and here is what i've picked so far: Sony Optiarc 24X DVD He wants two DVD burners Rosewill R218-P-BK Case Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB HDD ECS Geforce 9800GT 550W PSU w/ [email protected] 4GB OCZ RAM ASUS P5N-D Motherboard Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz CPU Windows XP Home Any recommendations would be welcome, let me know if I'm forgetting anything. This should do everything he needs, and give him a little room to upgrade down the line. Oh yeah, I forgot, I have to order from newegg.com Edited August 31, 2009 by Loman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Everything looks good to me except if it were me I would choose the cheaper Asus 9800GT which is not only cheaper but actually runs at reference 9800GT speeds as opposed to the one you picked out that runs 50MHz slower than most other stock 9800GT's. Also, I would choose the Q8400 over the Q8200 because not only is it 333MHz faster but it also supports Virtualization Technology as opposed to the Q8200 which does not. So basically it will only be $9 more for 333MHz on the CPU and 50MHz on the GPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tornado Rex Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Just one question. Why are you going with XP instead of Vista or (preferably) Windows 7? ~ Proud Supporter of the Child's Play Charity! | GTANET + Child's Play ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loman Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) Great suggestions, definitely changing the cpu & gpu to those. Awesome, Thanks I'm ordering the stuff tomorrow, so any other suggestions are welcome Edit: @TornadoRex: He is really adamant about using XP over vista, and he thinks 7 is just like vista, even though he's never tried it. Cost is another factor in the descision. I prefer 7 to XP, myself. I'll eventually convince him to switch, though, ha ha. Edited August 31, 2009 by Loman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) Just one question. Why are you going with XP instead of Vista or (preferably) Windows 7? I love Vista and 7 myself, use them both all the time, as well as XP sometimes. Typing on 7 RC1 right now, but anyway my point is I'm not biased. My guess is his choice for XP Home is because it's cheaper than most Vista editions other than Home Basic, and Windows 7 isn't out yet. I doubt Vista Home Basic would have a free upgrade to 7. Could be wrong though. Anyway for the topic starter, Vista Home Basic is actually $5 cheaper than XP Home, and is comparable to XP Home in every sense. Vista's Superfetch would really shine on that 4GB of RAM compared to XP. Also, there is a 64-bit flavor available of Vista Home Basic available if your friend's dad ever plans on upgrading to more than 4GB of RAM, or utilizing more than approx. 3-3.5GB of the current 4GB RAM you will be installing. EDIT: Fixed a link. Edited August 31, 2009 by SyphonPayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tornado Rex Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I'm pretty sure if you order Vista Home Premium right now you can get a free upgrade to 7 Home Premium when it comes out. Double check on that before you go that route though. That's off the point though. I was mainly asking out of curiosity. ~ Proud Supporter of the Child's Play Charity! | GTANET + Child's Play ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[CTD]LaBan Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 but Vista is sloow. 7 RTM has more horses. Significally gained speed from switching to 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 LaBan' date='Aug 31 2009, 03:51'] but Vista is sloow. 7 RTM has more horses. Significally gained speed from switching to 7 I think that has more to do with having a fresh install of Windows 7 versus a no-telling-how-old install of Windows Vista you had that had more programs installed. Anyway overall as shown here all three operating systems have advantages and disadvantages in different areas. Most of the differences were really within the margin of error as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democrab Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 LaBan' date='Aug 31 2009, 19:51'] but Vista is sloow. 7 RTM has more horses. Significally gained speed from switching to 7 Yeah, Vista is slow when you install it on a 386 with 16Mb RAM and a nVidia TNT2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Well, I hope I don't sound like I'm being critical, but what I see is a budget gaming computer, not something that would be ideal for a musician to do audio/video work on. Frankly, the system components you've picked out are overkill. A 9800GT and a $150 CPU? What justification do you have for this? I'm quite certain that he would be just as happy with onboard video. I don't want to start an Intel vs. AMD thing either, but $150 for 2.3 Ghz is not a very good deal considering you could get an X4 at 3.2 Ghz for virtually the same price as the other CPU suggested. Not to mention that a quad core system is probably not needed, considering there are very few audio/video editing applications that are multi-threaded. Then there's the motherboard. Why do you need an SLi motherboard? There's a lot of overhead just in that right there. Not to mention if you went AMD, you'd probably find a much cheaper motherboard overall. Seriously, I would expect you could probably save close to $200 with different system components. I'd keep that amount of RAM for video editing purposes, but really you're lacking where it counts. I mean, if this guy is a musician that wants to do audio/video work, then I think you should probably invest more money in a good sound card, and a capture card so that he could edit the video he's taken and record quality sound. Take off the video card, and get these instead Phenom II X2 955 BE -- $99 GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H 79.99 G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 $54.99 Then you could get a soundcard like this, and this and still come out to just under $750. Might want to shop around to make the sound and capture card work under shipping, but I think he'd be much happier with this system. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) Well, I hope I don't sound like I'm being critical, but what I see is a budget gaming computer, not something that would be ideal for a musician to do audio/video work on. Frankly, the system components you've picked out are overkill. A 9800GT and a $150 CPU? What justification do you have for this? I'm quite certain that he would be just as happy with onboard video. I don't want to start an Intel vs. AMD thing either, but $150 for 2.3 Ghz is not a very good deal considering you could get an X4 at 3.2 Ghz for virtually the same price as the other CPU suggested. Not to mention that a quad core system is probably not needed, considering there are very few audio/video editing applications that are multi-threaded. Then there's the motherboard. Why do you need an SLi motherboard? There's a lot of overhead just in that right there. Not to mention if you went AMD, you'd probably find a much cheaper motherboard overall. Seriously, I would expect you could probably save close to $200 with different system components. I'd keep that amount of RAM for video editing purposes, but really you're lacking where it counts. I mean, if this guy is a musician that wants to do audio/video work, then I think you should probably invest more money in a good sound card, and a capture card so that he could edit the video he's taken and record quality sound. Take off the video card, and get these instead Phenom II X2 955 BE -- $99 GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H 79.99 G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 $54.99 Then you could get a soundcard like this, and this and still come out to just under $750. Might want to shop around to make the sound and capture card work under shipping, but I think he'd be much happier with this system. While I might agree that the video card is overkill for audio/video work, I don't agree at all with your statement that the Quad-Core Intel is overpriced. The Q8400 I mentioned competes with the Phenom II X4 940 (3.0GHz) and performs practically just as well. Not only that, but if you'll see there the Q8400 is a bit cheaper (quite a bit when you look at the X4 940's original price.) Also, it's not all about the freakin gigahertz. It's about how the processor actually performs. That's like saying you could get a 3.6GHz P4 for much cheaper than the 2.66GHz Q8400. I guess that means it's better, right? I also don't agree that for someone who is going to be working with audio/video he would be better off getting a dual core processor over a quad core. It's a known fact that with video in particular, such as encoding, quad core blows away dual core any day of the week. Dual core is on it's way out. Quad core is here now, and octo-core and beyond is the future. On the other hand, an SLI mobo is probably also overkill, and if he's gonna be doing audio work, why the heck would he want onboard sound? EDIT: Upon further research I noticed the Phenom II X4 955 (3.2GHz) is indeed $10 cheaper, BUT this is after newegg's discount, and not the original price of the processor. While that may not matter in the end, we're still talking about a marginal performance increase and the Intel Q8400 is FAR from a ripoff as you imply it is just because it has less gigahertz (really it's less megahertz, but I was sorta implying sarcasm there.) Edited August 31, 2009 by SyphonPayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Well, I hope I don't sound like I'm being critical, but what I see is a budget gaming computer, not something that would be ideal for a musician to do audio/video work on. Frankly, the system components you've picked out are overkill. A 9800GT and a $150 CPU? What justification do you have for this? I'm quite certain that he would be just as happy with onboard video. I don't want to start an Intel vs. AMD thing either, but $150 for 2.3 Ghz is not a very good deal considering you could get an X4 at 3.2 Ghz for virtually the same price as the other CPU suggested. Not to mention that a quad core system is probably not needed, considering there are very few audio/video editing applications that are multi-threaded. Then there's the motherboard. Why do you need an SLi motherboard? There's a lot of overhead just in that right there. Not to mention if you went AMD, you'd probably find a much cheaper motherboard overall. Seriously, I would expect you could probably save close to $200 with different system components. I'd keep that amount of RAM for video editing purposes, but really you're lacking where it counts. I mean, if this guy is a musician that wants to do audio/video work, then I think you should probably invest more money in a good sound card, and a capture card so that he could edit the video he's taken and record quality sound. Take off the video card, and get these instead Phenom II X2 955 BE -- $99 GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H 79.99 G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 $54.99 Then you could get a soundcard like this, and this and still come out to just under $750. Might want to shop around to make the sound and capture card work under shipping, but I think he'd be much happier with this system. While I might agree that the video card is overkill for audio/video work, I don't agree at all with your statement that the Quad-Core Intel is overpriced. The Q8400 I mentioned competes with the Phenom II X4 940 (3.0GHz) and performs practically just as well. Not only that, but if you'll see there the Q8400 is a bit cheaper (quite a bit when you look at the X4 940's original price.) Also, it's not all about the freakin gigahertz. It's about how the processor actually performs. That's like saying you could get a 3.6GHz P4 for much cheaper than the 2.66GHz Q8400. I guess that means it's better, right? I also don't agree that for someone who is going to be working with audio/video he would be better off getting a dual core processor over a quad core. It's a known fact that with video in particular, such as encoding, quad core blows away dual core any day of the week. Dual core is on it's way out. Quad core is here now, and octo-core and beyond is the future. On the other hand, an SLI mobo is probably also overkill, and if he's gonna be doing audio work, why the heck would he want onboard sound? EDIT: Upon further research I noticed the Phenom II X4 955 (3.2GHz) is indeed $10 cheaper, BUT this is after newegg's discount, and not the original price of the processor. While that may not matter in the end, we're still talking about a marginal performance increase and the Intel Q8400 is FAR from a ripoff as you imply it is just because it has less gigahertz (really it's less megahertz, but I was sorta implying sarcasm there.) In my experience, clock speed is the most important factor when talking about encoding practices, so yeah I think the P4 would clean the floor with the C2D with that kind of disproportionate clock speed, in something like a LAME encoding benchmark. I also realize the significance of multi-threaded encoding, but I don't think you realize just how much a/v production is still dominated by single-threaded software. XviD, DivX and x264 are the only video codecs I know supporting multi-threaded processing, and I know of even fewer applications that support those features of them. I'm not assuming I know everything either, but I don't know of any multi-threaded audio codecs. I kind of resent the fact that you assume I'm just a buffoon that likes big numbers, man. Just for my own defense though, I've been building audio/video production computers for people for the last year or so ( and just general desktops for I don't know how long ), and I did an encoding farm that the guy needed to do 200 movies a day. The i7s had just came out, and I didn't even consider AMD for that type of production setting. Anyway, long story short, they wound up pulling him close to 300, and he's already paid for the damn things because of his productivity. I don't think that would have happened with Phenoms, and I had to do so much practical benchmarking and RMA'ing to make my head spin. So I guess in short what I'm saying, is I've got a little bit more experience in choosing AMD or Intel than browsing Newegg spec pages, and I wasn't trying to insinuate that it was a ripoff. I simply think that with that kind of budget, and with what sounds like a guy that's going to be doing more recording than encoding anyway, the money ought to be spent on better sound components than on processing power. By saving the money on being cost-efficient with the main system components, he could have a much better soundcard than what most on board sound offers, as well as a capture card to get the video onto the computer in the first place. It's not like I said there weren't any cheaper Intel chips he could get. In all reality he could probably get a somewhat cheaper sound card than what I suggested that would still far exceed the quality of onboard sound, and be able to afford a quad core CPU. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Russian 9 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) This is the setup I say he should go for: CASE: Cooler Master Centurion 5 $50 CPU: Q8200 $150 GPU: 9500GT $45 MOBO: Asus P5Q P45 $97(-$10) SOUND: Omega Striker $90 CAPTURE: Asus My Cinema $80(-$30) SPEAKERS: Logitech X 540 5.1 $80 RAM: G Skill 2x2GB $55 HD: WD Caviar 500 GB $70 Total: $677 with all rebates, no OS, no burners. Edited August 31, 2009 by Drunk Russian 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-Lord Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I think the design the OP posted will do nicely. You have to think future, just because he might not required the current specs right now as a musician doesn't mean he will not required them later on. When you built a rig you must built for at least a couple years ahead, otherwise you'll be constantly upgrading spending more money than you need to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) Well, I hope I don't sound like I'm being critical, but what I see is a budget gaming computer, not something that would be ideal for a musician to do audio/video work on. Frankly, the system components you've picked out are overkill. A 9800GT and a $150 CPU? What justification do you have for this? I'm quite certain that he would be just as happy with onboard video. I don't want to start an Intel vs. AMD thing either, but $150 for 2.3 Ghz is not a very good deal considering you could get an X4 at 3.2 Ghz for virtually the same price as the other CPU suggested. Not to mention that a quad core system is probably not needed, considering there are very few audio/video editing applications that are multi-threaded. Then there's the motherboard. Why do you need an SLi motherboard? There's a lot of overhead just in that right there. Not to mention if you went AMD, you'd probably find a much cheaper motherboard overall. Seriously, I would expect you could probably save close to $200 with different system components. I'd keep that amount of RAM for video editing purposes, but really you're lacking where it counts. I mean, if this guy is a musician that wants to do audio/video work, then I think you should probably invest more money in a good sound card, and a capture card so that he could edit the video he's taken and record quality sound. Take off the video card, and get these instead Phenom II X2 955 BE -- $99 GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H 79.99 G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 $54.99 Then you could get a soundcard like this, and this and still come out to just under $750. Might want to shop around to make the sound and capture card work under shipping, but I think he'd be much happier with this system. While I might agree that the video card is overkill for audio/video work, I don't agree at all with your statement that the Quad-Core Intel is overpriced. The Q8400 I mentioned competes with the Phenom II X4 940 (3.0GHz) and performs practically just as well. Not only that, but if you'll see there the Q8400 is a bit cheaper (quite a bit when you look at the X4 940's original price.) Also, it's not all about the freakin gigahertz. It's about how the processor actually performs. That's like saying you could get a 3.6GHz P4 for much cheaper than the 2.66GHz Q8400. I guess that means it's better, right? I also don't agree that for someone who is going to be working with audio/video he would be better off getting a dual core processor over a quad core. It's a known fact that with video in particular, such as encoding, quad core blows away dual core any day of the week. Dual core is on it's way out. Quad core is here now, and octo-core and beyond is the future. On the other hand, an SLI mobo is probably also overkill, and if he's gonna be doing audio work, why the heck would he want onboard sound? EDIT: Upon further research I noticed the Phenom II X4 955 (3.2GHz) is indeed $10 cheaper, BUT this is after newegg's discount, and not the original price of the processor. While that may not matter in the end, we're still talking about a marginal performance increase and the Intel Q8400 is FAR from a ripoff as you imply it is just because it has less gigahertz (really it's less megahertz, but I was sorta implying sarcasm there.) In my experience, clock speed is the most important factor when talking about encoding practices, so yeah I think the P4 would clean the floor with the C2D with that kind of disproportionate clock speed, in something like a LAME encoding benchmark. I also realize the significance of multi-threaded encoding, but I don't think you realize just how much a/v production is still dominated by single-threaded software. XviD, DivX and x264 are the only video codecs I know supporting multi-threaded processing, and I know of even fewer applications that support those features of them. I'm not assuming I know everything either, but I don't know of any multi-threaded audio codecs. I kind of resent the fact that you assume I'm just a buffoon that likes big numbers, man. Just for my own defense though, I've been building audio/video production computers for people for the last year or so ( and just general desktops for I don't know how long ), and I did an encoding farm that the guy needed to do 200 movies a day. The i7s had just came out, and I didn't even consider AMD for that type of production setting. Anyway, long story short, they wound up pulling him close to 300, and he's already paid for the damn things because of his productivity. I don't think that would have happened with Phenoms, and I had to do so much practical benchmarking and RMA'ing to make my head spin. So I guess in short what I'm saying, is I've got a little bit more experience in choosing AMD or Intel than browsing Newegg spec pages, and I wasn't trying to insinuate that it was a ripoff. I simply think that with that kind of budget, and with what sounds like a guy that's going to be doing more recording than encoding anyway, the money ought to be spent on better sound components than on processing power. By saving the money on being cost-efficient with the main system components, he could have a much better soundcard than what most on board sound offers, as well as a capture card to get the video onto the computer in the first place. It's not like I said there weren't any cheaper Intel chips he could get. In all reality he could probably get a somewhat cheaper sound card than what I suggested that would still far exceed the quality of onboard sound, and be able to afford a quad core CPU. Haha, I'm sorry but you're WAY off if you believe even for a moment that a 3.6GHz P4 would even outperform hell even a 2.0GHz Core 2. It's not all about the clock speed, it's about how much gets done per clock cycle as well. The Pentium 4 has very long, deep inefficient pipelines compared to the Core 2, hell it would take a 5GHz P4 to even come close to a 2.4GHz Core 2. Clock-for-clock, Core 2 still outperforms Phenom II. A P4 would get cremated by Core 2 in LAME encoding, or anything for that matter. Just look here and see for yourself. Do a CTRL + F for LAME, and you will see that the E6400 (2.13GHz) encodes faster than the Pentium 4 570 (3.8GHz,) faster than the Pentium D 960 (3.6GHz,) and the Pentium 4 661 (3.6GHz.) This is by a significant margin as well. Hell the 3.6GHz P4 just outperforms the Core 2 Duo E4300 at 1.8GHz, by not nearly as significant a margin as one would suppose, just looking at the clock speed. Even at that, just look at all the other things even the 1.8GHz C2D cremates the P4 3.8 and PD 3.6 in? Clock speed isn't everything. So yeah anyway, the P4 3.6GHz can't even clean the floor with a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo, much less a 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad. Lol, excuse my assumptions, I do not think you are a buffoon, but mistaken . I know there are tons of single-threaded things still around, but day-by-day there are more and more things taking advantage of multithreading. Anyway, we really don't know specifically what his friend's dad actually is going to do other than "a lot of audio/video work." Therefore I just assumed that for the most part what he already listed was what he determined is what his friend's dad would benefit from the most. Although I once again do agree that the video card was overkill, and a sound card is definitely needed for far superior audio quality, I don't even know if having a video capture card would be beneficial at all, and I still don't think that CPU power should be sacrificed for Video work, and if anything should be increased. Although, now that I think about it, with stuff like CUDA hell he could be using the video card to encode, but once again I don't know the details. @Drunk Russian 9: I think your setup looks nice, but have a Q8400 instead . EDIT: Fixed a link that was broken. Edited August 31, 2009 by SyphonPayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pico Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Get an even cheaper GPU or none at all and spend that money on a better processor. He doesn't need any real graphics power since he won't be gaming. Save the $90 and spend it on a quicker CPU. He can always get a GPU later on if he wants. And if you know for sure he's never gonna put a big graphics card in you can save even MORE money and buy a 300W PSU. It should be able to power everything else just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cold fusion 33 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Getting no GPU sounds like a good idea, in order to get a better CPU, but the topic starter said he would want to do Video work too. I don't know if he'd want to do HD video work, which would need a half decent card to do well? I tried playing a HD video on an nVidia 6100LE, and it was simply terrible, I wouldn't want the guy to have to suffer in the same way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Integrated GPU's such as the GeForce 7050 decode HD quite well, but I think something like that 9500GT would be the best compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog_day_sunrise Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I'd go Phenom II over the Core II. I'm not sure I believe it outperforming the AMD processor, plus the new AM3 socket is a much better investment as it's relatively recent rather than being at the end of it's shelf life. Wait out a few months for the i5 to come on the market though, that looks set to take the budget performance crown back for Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I'd go Phenom II over the Core II. I'm not sure I believe it outperforming the AMD processor, plus the new AM3 socket is a much better investment as it's relatively recent rather than being at the end of it's shelf life. Wait out a few months for the i5 to come on the market though, that looks set to take the budget performance crown back for Intel. Clock-for-clock Core 2 does indeed still outperform Phenom II. The area where Phenom II would win would be memory bandwidth due to the IMC on PhII versus the FSB/NB of Core 2. However, the whole "end-of-life" of CPU sockets and whatnot is irrelevant. We all know that even if the socket you're using is still around a few years from now, there's no doubt there will be a much better motherboard using the same socket that will be more suitable for the newer CPU's than your then-ancient current motherboard. In other words, either way you will sill be changing motherboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loman Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 Well, I hope I don't sound like I'm being critical, but what I see is a budget gaming computer, not something that would be ideal for a musician to do audio/video work on. Not overcritical, this was exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. I don't have much experience with building non-gaming pcs. I ordered the parts earlier today, I got the 8400 cpu (I'm an intel fanboy, never had any experience with AMD, although I will probably try them on my next personal build), and I got a slightly cheaper gpu (still 9800gt though), but I also added the sound card. I don't think he will need the video capture card, his camcorder is a USB one, I'll suggest it to him though. He is in a hurry, because his dell is "permanent fatal error" bsod-ing and he wants to back up his stuff before it goes completely. Many thanks to everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 For his requirements, a good CPU, video card and sound card are a must. I doubt he'd be able to manage with onboard audio, a dedicated sound card would be best. I recommend this build, for $775.90 ($745.90 after all rebates): Case: Sigma Venom PSU: OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W Motherboard: MSI 770-C45 CPU: Phenom II X3 720 RAM: PNY Optima 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1333 Dual Channel Video card: Sapphire HD4850 512MB Sound card: Turtle Beach Montego DDL HDD: Hitachi 1TB SATAII 7200RPM 16MB Cache ODD: 2x Sony Optiarc 24X SATA DVD Writers That's the best I could do. Includes a good sound card, video card and CPU. Has a bigger HDD too and you have more room for upgrades down the line. Edit: I'm too late . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democrab Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I'd go Phenom II over the Core II. I'm not sure I believe it outperforming the AMD processor, plus the new AM3 socket is a much better investment as it's relatively recent rather than being at the end of it's shelf life. Wait out a few months for the i5 to come on the market though, that looks set to take the budget performance crown back for Intel. Clock-for-clock Core 2 does indeed still outperform Phenom II. The area where Phenom II would win would be memory bandwidth due to the IMC on PhII versus the FSB/NB of Core 2. However, the whole "end-of-life" of CPU sockets and whatnot is irrelevant. We all know that even if the socket you're using is still around a few years from now, there's no doubt there will be a much better motherboard using the same socket that will be more suitable for the newer CPU's than your then-ancient current motherboard. In other words, either way you will sill be changing motherboards. Guess what encoding high quality audio/video needs? Lot's of memory bandwidth + good inter-core speed, the AMD absolutely pwns the Intel in that... I say get this instead of that ASUS board (1. ASUS suck 2. You don't need a P45 for this.), run the Integrated card (Almost as good as that 9500GT tbh), get this sound card instead, Auzentech are a Audiophile company and it will be better than a HT Omega. Or at least get this. Of course, you could go AMD and get him better speed clock for clock for encoding, but that would make too much sense... (Intel ONLY beats AMD in encoding if SSE4.1 is used, if it isn't then AMD usually beats Intel's Core 2 Quads, i7 pwns it though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Can't say I agree that a good video card is a "must." Also that PhII X3 740 is actually weaker than the Q8400. @Joe.: I beg to differ about the whole "pwning" thing. Just look at this review. The Q8400 and the PhII 940 are neck-and-neck in different applications. SO here we are (once again) comparing Intel's lower-end quads with AMD's higher-end quads. Reminds me of the Phenom I days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democrab Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) But the 940 uses the old K8 IMC, AMD updated the IMC for the AM3 Phenoms to use DDR3 and be faster when using DDR2. Audio/Video work is what matters and on the same site you linked to, the CPU he could also get is quite a bit faster than the Q8200 Edited September 1, 2009 by Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) But the 940 uses the old K8 IMC, AMD updated the IMC for the AM3 Phenoms to use DDR3 and be faster when using DDR2. Audio/Video work is what matters and on the same site you linked to, the CPU he could also get is quite a bit faster than the Q8200 That's cool and all, but I was talking about the Q8400, not the Q8200. Either way, pretty pointless to argue about it all, since he already got the Q8400. I think he made a good choice. Edited September 1, 2009 by SyphonPayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democrab Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Yeah, it's plenty fast and he did make a nice choice, but since the 955 was competing with the Q9650 and Q9550 mostly, I think the Q8400 lost in that... Still, I hope the PC is enjoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[CTD]LaBan Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 LaBan,Aug 31 2009, 19:51] but Vista is sloow. 7 RTM has more horses. Significally gained speed from switching to 7 Yeah, Vista is slow when you install it on a 386 with 16Mb RAM and a nVidia TNT2. haha, i'm not going to post my specs to showoff, but i really have a decent quad core PC. I think that has more to do with having a fresh install of Windows 7 versus a no-telling-how-old install of Windows Vista you had that had more programs installed. uhh, you funny guy... no. i made an upgrade as i wanted to keep all my programs and files. I just weren't going to waste few days to recover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democrab Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 You used upgrade? Oh god... That says enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) LaBan,Sep 1 2009, 08:17] LaBan,Aug 31 2009, 19:51] but Vista is sloow. 7 RTM has more horses. Significally gained speed from switching to 7 Yeah, Vista is slow when you install it on a 386 with 16Mb RAM and a nVidia TNT2. haha, i'm not going to post my specs to showoff, but i really have a decent quad core PC. I think that has more to do with having a fresh install of Windows 7 versus a no-telling-how-old install of Windows Vista you had that had more programs installed. uhh, you funny guy... no. i made an upgrade as i wanted to keep all my programs and files. I just weren't going to waste few days to recover. Uhhhh yeah funny guy I am. You're the funny guy that performed an upgrade installation on a pre-release operating system. You do realize you can't upgrade to Windows 7 RTM from a pre-release version, right? Yeah, it's plenty fast and he did make a nice choice, but since the 955 was competing with the Q9650 and Q9550 mostly, I think the Q8400 lost in that... Still, I hope the PC is enjoyed. Well the Q8400 is basically a Q9400 with a little less L2 cache... Not a huge difference. You act as if the 955 is some colossal difference. Newegg now shows the 955 as at least $20 more than the Q8400. Q9400 and Q9550 are a small difference in performance, just as Q8400 and Q9400 are a small difference. So you're paying at least $20 more for a mediocre difference. Yeah, I will admit the Q8400 lost, but not by much, and just as you said, it's not meant to compete against the 955. It's still funny though that AMD's previous 940 could still barely outshine the Q8400 (once again AMD high-end versus Intel low-end .) Oh lol and both the 940 and 955 still cost more . Edited September 1, 2009 by SyphonPayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now