Topic: buying pre made computers or build it yourselve

[toasty0]

Ok, that's it....each of you...jumper clips at 30 paces.

Back off buddy or I'll say something derogatory about Microsoft.

Oh, you cruel cruel man.  *runs off crying*

[Panzergranate]

To increase / solve the cooling problem you could just do what a friend did with his machine..... knock out the blanking slats at the back and fit a homebrew venturi fitted with extra PC fans.... noisy but more eficient.

I have always run all my machines with all the balnking slats removed and careful consideration of where I route cables and place cards in slots so that the air flow isn't hindered and compromised.

The motherboard in one of my PCs (LEX Cyrix P3 550Mhz.) has built in thermometer which reports CPU temperature, which comes in handy when it comes to sorting out the internal ventilation issues.

[candle_86]

to fix cooling first of all organize your cables, get them out of the way.

Second make sure the front fan pulls and the rear push's. This bring in the cooler air from the bottom and pushes that cold air up through your stuff.

Third make sure your thermal paste is applied properly, Id reseat everything, CPU, Vid and northbridge heatsinks, get some AS5 and reset everything, use barley enough to cover it, it should be almost transparently thin.

If your good with sanding you can also sand down your heatsink bottom to a mirror finish and then do the same to the top of your cpu, but only attempt if you know what your doing. We PC enthusiants call this lapping

[Panzergranate]

You kind of forgot the important health and safety tip with using heat sink paste.... Don't eat during handling of the paste and wah hand throughly afterwards.

Some or most heat sink pastes contain Berylium Oxide which is a particularily fatal and nasty poison WITH NO KNOWN ANTIDOTE.... so be warned!!

[candle_86]

lol I eat all the time, your not supposed to get your fingers in the paste, apply it with a plastic bag or use the pressure of the heatsinks to push it down. If you apply this stuff with your finger your doing it wrong, you just added oil to the mix which is an insulator

[Panzergranate]

As with motor vehicles, mass produced computers are a compromise between reasonable performance (just enough to compete with rival manufacturers) and costs.

And as with motorvehicles, computers can be "Hot Rodded" to milk every drop of performance out of them.

Drilling extra holes in the casing and bolting on additional strategic fans to improve heat management is one option to explore.

Don't forget that inserting a top flight graphics card, with its own processor and mini-fan, will whack up the volume of heat that your computer will have to deal with.

It does pay to hold one's hand over the exit airflow occasionally just to monitor how things are going.

[candle_86]

The factor you miss is that the mainboard is not FSB based on an i7 system, thus the multiplier is what you are actually overclocking.. as such when you adjust FSB on older systems, it is the multiplier and frequency that you are adjusting to gain speed.

I7's on the 920's you can adjust the frequency but the multiplier is locked, thus gimping OC builds..

On the i7 970 and above series, the multiplier is unlocked and the frequency is unlocked so you can actually OC to well over 5 Ghz. If using stock cooling (read fans / air cooling), then you can hit 4.6Ghz with a comfortable heat threshold limit given that the 975 CPU has a max heat limit of 130 W, where the 920 has a max heat limit of 90 W. I'm not even going into Standard CPU 920 vs Extreme 975 performance factors or processing capabilities, etc.. the 975 series blows the doors off anything on the market ATM next to the actual 980 series wich is OC capable of 1.3 times the 975 speed limits. for Cost Effectiveness, the 975 is the best buy on the market ATM.

Besides, I am thinking long term not short term.. the 920's are considered a mid grade shipset currently.. so that means next year they will be base model chipsets that you can buy at Wal-Mart / Best Buy..

With the OC capabilities of the i7 975 chipset.. the system will be viable for any software coming out for the next 5 to 8 years without upgrading, just use a simple OC to hit a comfortable stability for any new software.

I mean think about it seriously.. say a new game / program comes out requiring a 3.6 Ghz CPU.. well you will have to either upgrade or Overclock in order to use it.. on a system that is already OC'd to 3.8 GhZ, some instability may occur due to actually pushing the CPU to that speed 100% of the time playing the game..

Now with an i7 975 with the appropriate board, say 4 years from now, a program comes out that you really want for your computer and it requires a system with 4.2 / 4.4 GhZ requirements.. what are you going to do.. buy a new mainboard and a new CPU costing you about $800 on top of what you paid on your old board which was what $675.. so your overall cost for old board / cpu + new board / CPU = $1475 compared to spending $1250 now for a mainboard / CPU that can handle any program coming out with requirements up to 5.4 Ghz (i7 975 OC'd on water cool)... where the 920 would have already been obsolete 2 years prior.

I understand you are looking at Cost vs performance.. however so am I... You are looking at the here and now or the next year or so.. I am looking at 5 to 8 years down the line and removing the need to upgrade each year (Except maybe Video Cards).

Anyhow.. just letting you know where I am coming from.

I must disagree, anyone that knows how to OC knows how to lower operating frequencies of ram and chipset and only raise the CPU speed, mutli lock does impose a limit but not a large one. Lower your ram divider and if you have to chipset divider. Also ocing on stock cooling is the stupid idea you could do, you should never do this, ever. Go to any respected tech site and say your running an i7 @ 4.6 on stock and they will laugh at you and demand proof for the simple reason its not only impossible unless you live in the artic but also foolish. But also no computer will get you 8 years if you plan to do more than email and word prosessing its that simple. My old system ran an Athlon 64 3500, that was bought when it came out, It lasted from 2004 till 2009 thats 5 years and by then it started to feel rather old and slow. If all your doing is word processing and email you can use a Pentium3 and 512mb of ram with windows XP and do just fine. Just because a CPU is supposed to last a minimum of 10years in lifetime of the silicon doesnt mean they expect them to be fielded that long as a primary CPU.

[Dash Jones]

The factor you miss is that the mainboard is not FSB based on an i7 system, thus the multiplier is what you are actually overclocking.. as such when you adjust FSB on older systems, it is the multiplier and frequency that you are adjusting to gain speed.

I7's on the 920's you can adjust the frequency but the multiplier is locked, thus gimping OC builds..

On the i7 970 and above series, the multiplier is unlocked and the frequency is unlocked so you can actually OC to well over 5 Ghz. If using stock cooling (read fans / air cooling), then you can hit 4.6Ghz with a comfortable heat threshold limit given that the 975 CPU has a max heat limit of 130 W, where the 920 has a max heat limit of 90 W. I'm not even going into Standard CPU 920 vs Extreme 975 performance factors or processing capabilities, etc.. the 975 series blows the doors off anything on the market ATM next to the actual 980 series wich is OC capable of 1.3 times the 975 speed limits. for Cost Effectiveness, the 975 is the best buy on the market ATM.

Besides, I am thinking long term not short term.. the 920's are considered a mid grade shipset currently.. so that means next year they will be base model chipsets that you can buy at Wal-Mart / Best Buy..

With the OC capabilities of the i7 975 chipset.. the system will be viable for any software coming out for the next 5 to 8 years without upgrading, just use a simple OC to hit a comfortable stability for any new software.

I mean think about it seriously.. say a new game / program comes out requiring a 3.6 Ghz CPU.. well you will have to either upgrade or Overclock in order to use it.. on a system that is already OC'd to 3.8 GhZ, some instability may occur due to actually pushing the CPU to that speed 100% of the time playing the game..

Now with an i7 975 with the appropriate board, say 4 years from now, a program comes out that you really want for your computer and it requires a system with 4.2 / 4.4 GhZ requirements.. what are you going to do.. buy a new mainboard and a new CPU costing you about $800 on top of what you paid on your old board which was what $675.. so your overall cost for old board / cpu + new board / CPU = $1475 compared to spending $1250 now for a mainboard / CPU that can handle any program coming out with requirements up to 5.4 Ghz (i7 975 OC'd on water cool)... where the 920 would have already been obsolete 2 years prior.

I understand you are looking at Cost vs performance.. however so am I... You are looking at the here and now or the next year or so.. I am looking at 5 to 8 years down the line and removing the need to upgrade each year (Except maybe Video Cards).

Anyhow.. just letting you know where I am coming from.

I must disagree, anyone that knows how to OC knows how to lower operating frequencies of ram and chipset and only raise the CPU speed, mutli lock does impose a limit but not a large one. Lower your ram divider and if you have to chipset divider. Also ocing on stock cooling is the stupid idea you could do, you should never do this, ever. Go to any respected tech site and say your running an i7 @ 4.6 on stock and they will laugh at you and demand proof for the simple reason its not only impossible unless you live in the artic but also foolish. But also no computer will get you 8 years if you plan to do more than email and word prosessing its that simple. My old system ran an Athlon 64 3500, that was bought when it came out, It lasted from 2004 till 2009 thats 5 years and by then it started to feel rather old and slow. If all your doing is word processing and email you can use a Pentium3 and 512mb of ram with windows XP and do just fine. Just because a CPU is supposed to last a minimum of 10years in lifetime of the silicon doesnt mean they expect them to be fielded that long as a primary CPU.

Actually, I'll call you out on that one.  IF you stick with the games that came in the same period of the computer (so for my 2000 comp, which actually still has millenium...BUT doesn't go onto the internet as it's simply not secure enough with that anymore) you may have to replace a fan or power supply, but your computer CAN last that long and do the games of the period too.  The difference is the components.  If you have a Pentium or Intel from that many years ago...they actually are EXCELLENT quality.  Of course you can't overclock it too much...THAT'S WHY you run through the processors so quickly.  As for Athlons...they were ALWAYS junk...but cheap junk so that you can get more for your money in the short run.

That's important if you are going to keep up with the latest and greatest upgrades, and hence a cheap processor that you're going to replace in six months to a year doesn't really matter anyways...but for durability you NEVER go with an athlon.  I have a Pentium (I think it's an original even, I'll have to buzz it up) on a Gateway from 1997 that I got second hand in 1999 (first computer I ever played SFC on actually) that has a 3 CD changer and still runs fine to play any of the older games.  It still even has Win 98 on it!

My main browsing computer for internet actually HAS had more problems, had to replace the motherboard twice (in just the past few months actually, once from it just getting old, the other from something that actually peeves me off), the Vid card has been upgraded, and running XP (refuse to get WinVista, though the constraints with not being able to play any new PC games has me jumping at the bit to get Win 7 almost the day it comes out along with a top of the line new computer...and I'll be getting a Pentium with that one too).

I've also had Athlon processors, and I've only had ONE that's actually lasted more than 2 years of abuse from me.  I would suppose I'm hard on them, I kill them quick.  I think they average about a year and a half lifespan with me...they overclock, but I think Pentium's do it better.  However, perhaps the current crop is different, as I said, I haven't gotten a new computer for around 3 years now...which is ANCIENT in computer terms.  Just refused to get into the entire WinVista thing...which makes my computers currently ancient in terms of what they can do.

If you're experience is with Athlon's however, I'd say half the problems with getting a computer to last...or at least the processor, starts right there...

In my (I'll admit) over arrogant and presumptuously jerked and pompously foolish opinion.

[candle_86]

The factor you miss is that the mainboard is not FSB based on an i7 system, thus the multiplier is what you are actually overclocking.. as such when you adjust FSB on older systems, it is the multiplier and frequency that you are adjusting to gain speed.

I7's on the 920's you can adjust the frequency but the multiplier is locked, thus gimping OC builds..

On the i7 970 and above series, the multiplier is unlocked and the frequency is unlocked so you can actually OC to well over 5 Ghz. If using stock cooling (read fans / air cooling), then you can hit 4.6Ghz with a comfortable heat threshold limit given that the 975 CPU has a max heat limit of 130 W, where the 920 has a max heat limit of 90 W. I'm not even going into Standard CPU 920 vs Extreme 975 performance factors or processing capabilities, etc.. the 975 series blows the doors off anything on the market ATM next to the actual 980 series wich is OC capable of 1.3 times the 975 speed limits. for Cost Effectiveness, the 975 is the best buy on the market ATM.

Besides, I am thinking long term not short term.. the 920's are considered a mid grade shipset currently.. so that means next year they will be base model chipsets that you can buy at Wal-Mart / Best Buy..

With the OC capabilities of the i7 975 chipset.. the system will be viable for any software coming out for the next 5 to 8 years without upgrading, just use a simple OC to hit a comfortable stability for any new software.

I mean think about it seriously.. say a new game / program comes out requiring a 3.6 Ghz CPU.. well you will have to either upgrade or Overclock in order to use it.. on a system that is already OC'd to 3.8 GhZ, some instability may occur due to actually pushing the CPU to that speed 100% of the time playing the game..

Now with an i7 975 with the appropriate board, say 4 years from now, a program comes out that you really want for your computer and it requires a system with 4.2 / 4.4 GhZ requirements.. what are you going to do.. buy a new mainboard and a new CPU costing you about $800 on top of what you paid on your old board which was what $675.. so your overall cost for old board / cpu + new board / CPU = $1475 compared to spending $1250 now for a mainboard / CPU that can handle any program coming out with requirements up to 5.4 Ghz (i7 975 OC'd on water cool)... where the 920 would have already been obsolete 2 years prior.

I understand you are looking at Cost vs performance.. however so am I... You are looking at the here and now or the next year or so.. I am looking at 5 to 8 years down the line and removing the need to upgrade each year (Except maybe Video Cards).

Anyhow.. just letting you know where I am coming from.

I must disagree, anyone that knows how to OC knows how to lower operating frequencies of ram and chipset and only raise the CPU speed, mutli lock does impose a limit but not a large one. Lower your ram divider and if you have to chipset divider. Also ocing on stock cooling is the stupid idea you could do, you should never do this, ever. Go to any respected tech site and say your running an i7 @ 4.6 on stock and they will laugh at you and demand proof for the simple reason its not only impossible unless you live in the artic but also foolish. But also no computer will get you 8 years if you plan to do more than email and word prosessing its that simple. My old system ran an Athlon 64 3500, that was bought when it came out, It lasted from 2004 till 2009 thats 5 years and by then it started to feel rather old and slow. If all your doing is word processing and email you can use a Pentium3 and 512mb of ram with windows XP and do just fine. Just because a CPU is supposed to last a minimum of 10years in lifetime of the silicon doesnt mean they expect them to be fielded that long as a primary CPU.

Actually, I'll call you out on that one.  IF you stick with the games that came in the same period of the computer (so for my 2000 comp, which actually still has millenium...BUT doesn't go onto the internet as it's simply not secure enough with that anymore) you may have to replace a fan or power supply, but your computer CAN last that long and do the games of the period too.  The difference is the components.  If you have a Pentium or Intel from that many years ago...they actually are EXCELLENT quality.  Of course you can't overclock it too much...THAT'S WHY you run through the processors so quickly.  As for Athlons...they were ALWAYS junk...but cheap junk so that you can get more for your money in the short run.

That's important if you are going to keep up with the latest and greatest upgrades, and hence a cheap processor that you're going to replace in six months to a year doesn't really matter anyways...but for durability you NEVER go with an athlon.  I have a Pentium (I think it's an original even, I'll have to buzz it up) on a Gateway from 1997 that I got second hand in 1999 (first computer I ever played SFC on actually) that has a 3 CD changer and still runs fine to play any of the older games.  It still even has Win 98 on it!

My main browsing computer for internet actually HAS had more problems, had to replace the motherboard twice (in just the past few months actually, once from it just getting old, the other from something that actually peeves me off), the Vid card has been upgraded, and running XP (refuse to get WinVista, though the constraints with not being able to play any new PC games has me jumping at the bit to get Win 7 almost the day it comes out along with a top of the line new computer...and I'll be getting a Pentium with that one too).

I've also had Athlon processors, and I've only had ONE that's actually lasted more than 2 years of abuse from me.  I would suppose I'm hard on them, I kill them quick.  I think they average about a year and a half lifespan with me...they overclock, but I think Pentium's do it better.  However, perhaps the current crop is different, as I said, I haven't gotten a new computer for around 3 years now...which is ANCIENT in computer terms.  Just refused to get into the entire WinVista thing...which makes my computers currently ancient in terms of what they can do.

If you're experience is with Athlon's however, I'd say half the problems with getting a computer to last...or at least the processor, starts right there...

In my (I'll admit) over arrogant and presumptuously jerked and pompously foolish opinion.

Well then you have very bad luck, my Athlon XP 1500 ran at 1.8ghz from 2001 till 2004, my Athlon 64 runs to this day at 2.8 from a stock 2.2 stable for 5 years. Also I ran a K6-2 400 at 550 for about 4 years also. Also to state a Pentium was a good chip from 2000-2006 is a very bad idea. Pentium4's where known for there heat and very poor ability to do there work. You may have had bad luck with Athlon's but most of the community does not, proper cooling is a must with any overclock, and you must maintain proper thermal effenciy dust and old thermal paste will kill any overclock. Also Athlons are voltage sensitive, you have to know the safe ranges if you want a practical overclock. I dont replace my computers because they break, I replace them because im a gamer. But do remember from 1999-2006 AMD had the fastest processors for gaming, and even today the new Phenom X4 can keep up with there Intel price partner or beat it, also they can be oc'd to 4ghz rather easy at which point they are very much capable of tackling an i7. AMD isnt cheap because of build quality, its cheap because they sell to the mass market and right now price matters, there was a time when an Athlon was more expensive than an Intel.

[Dash Jones]

I can see we have fanboys from two different sides of the coin.  I do have experience though with Athlons, though maybe you're right, mine is abominable.  I would say more I'm REALLY hard on processors and Athlons just can't keep up. 

I'm also an Nvidia fan...would you happen to be an Ati Fan?

[candle_86]

im a fan of neither i go for best bang for buck actully. But I also push my CPU's that A64 3500 was rated for 2.2ghz and its a Venic E6 2.8ghz on Air was excellent for them, and running that stable for 5 years is great. Ive had a PentiumD 820 also overclocked to 3.6ghz stable but sold it as gaming preformance was by far worse and went back to my Athlon64.

What I own and operate today still in one form or fashion

Intel i7 920
DFI LP x58
4890 Crossfire

AMD AThlon 64 3500
DFI LP 939 Ultra-D
Geforce 6800GT

AMD Athlon XP 1500
ECS KT233 mobo
Geforce 4 ti 4200

Intel Pentium 3 800mhz Dual CPU Hack
Tyan Thunder 440BX Dual Socket370
Radeon 7500

AMD K6-2 400 @ 550
ASUS Super7 Board
Rive TNT2 Ultra

There are more specs of course for each one but tahts the basic break down.

The i7 is maing gaming
The A64 is for my wife/company
The AthlonXP is for Windows 98 for newer games that wont run right on my dos box but are unstable on XP
The P3 is a file server
and the K6-2 is a DOS/Windows 3.1/Windows 95 Box

[Dash Jones]

That's cool.

[Sirgod]

That I7 is just way to much Computer for ya there Candle, I'll try and help you out by taking it off your hands.

stephen

[Nemesis]

but for durability you NEVER go with an athlon. 

I can't agree.  I built 2 dual processor Athlon XP (had to do a "hardware hack" to make the XPs run as MP's) and ran them for literally years 24/7 on SETI @ Home which runs the processors hard.  Last I heard a friend was still running an Athlon 2100+ machine I built and used for SETI as well.

I'd say it depends on the quality of the total hardware not just the CPU.

Some people just have bad luck with certain hardware it seems.   I know people who swear by Western Digital HDs for example but I have had NOTHING but trouble with them.  On the other hand my Maxtor drives are like the Energizer bunny they just go and go and others had nothing but trouble with Maxtor.

[Sirgod]

I'm one of those guys who has always had trouble with Maxtor drives.

I used to love Seagate drives, as they had a company here in Oklahoma City that built them. They went out of business a while back, so I started looking elsewhere.
 
Anyways, I have always had good performance with AMD CPU's. I just think for my next build, which Pesty has given me great advice on, It will be the I7.

Stephen

[marstone]

but for durability you NEVER go with an athlon. 

I can't agree.  I built 2 dual processor Athlon XP (had to do a "hardware hack" to make the XPs run as MP's) and ran them for literally years 24/7 on SETI @ Home which runs the processors hard.  Last I heard a friend was still running an Athlon 2100+ machine I built and used for SETI as well.

I'd say it depends on the quality of the total hardware not just the CPU.

Some people just have bad luck with certain hardware it seems.   I know people who swear by Western Digital HDs for example but I have had NOTHING but trouble with them.  On the other hand my Maxtor drives are like the Energizer bunny they just go and go and others had nothing but trouble with Maxtor.

I have to agree, I have an Athlon in my machine, built 5 years ago.  Runs SETI in the background, and is the main machine run in my house.  Has almost never been shut down in those 5 years.  Still running strong.

[Dracho]

AMD's run red-hot and poor cooling configurations or use of poor thermal paste probably accounts for the bulk of longevity issues.

Most PC's I've had die went belly-up due to a chip on the motherboard, not the processor.  The worst I've had was an Intel motherboard that literally blew a capacitor and  gouged a chunk from board form.  I have a photo somewhere I'll look for.

[Nemesis]

AMD has just released (may take a month or 2 to get to store shelves) the Athlon II X4 620 suggested retail price apparently $99.  Should make for a powerful low end system.

[Nemesis]

The worst I've had was an Intel motherboard that literally blew a capacitor and  gouged a chunk from board form.

There was a problem with a capacitor manufacturer a number of years ago where they used a stolen and incomplete electrolyte formula.  The capacitors exploded due to released hydrogen.  The result was a lot of electronic products failing due to the faulty capacitors. 

[candle_86]

well heat with AMD isnt really a big issue if you know what your doing, otherwise if you dont understand how to apply thermal paste, thats kinda your fault. My AMD rig runs at 34c under an ASUS X-Mars, and under stock cooler with stock speeds it did 31c and im in texas. Heat death is the fault of the user.