Preassembled computer vendors

This is a discussion on Preassembled computer vendors within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by cyberfish As for CPU, go with AMD if you don't want to overclock. Intel if you do. ...

  1. #16
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,765
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    As for CPU, go with AMD if you don't want to overclock. Intel if you do. Current Intel CPUs (both Core 2 and i7/i5) overclock like there is no tomorrow, and can save you tons of money.
    And also burn a hole in your electricity bill and your PSU.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    That has always been the case until the Intel Core 2 series came about. It's based on mobile processors, so they were a lot cooler, and a lot faster, while eating a lot less power, with insane overclocking headroom.

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    And also burn a hole in your electricity bill and your PSU.
    I run my $50 CPU at the speed of $200 CPUs. The $200 CPU would have used the same amount of power, since it's proportional to frequency at full load. At idle (which is most of the time), they consume about the same power, because CMOS gates only consume significant power when they switch, so at less than 100% load, the power consumption will be similar.

    I can easily test this out actually. I have a clamp-on multimeter. Just need to strip a power cable (from the wall).

    My PSU doesn't mind. It's rated for 380W and I'm using a lot less than that.

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    I did it.

    CPU overclocked to 2.8ghz, memory at 800mhz
    idle 1.13A (135.6W)
    load CPU 1.59A (190.8W)
    load GPU 2.32A (278.4W) (just for fun)

    CPU at 1.8ghz stock, memory at 533mhz
    idle 1.07A (128.4W)
    load CPU 1.35A (162W)

    CPU is an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. Load is Orthos (2 instances of Prime 95 stress test to stress both cores). Idle is sitting at the Windows desktop.

    Current measured on the power cable (either hot or neutral wire... the color coding is weird. hopefully not the ground wire) using a clamp-on multimeter. Power supply efficiency is ~80% at 50% load, according to reviews.

    Power consumptions are calculated assuming the current and voltage (120V RMS, measured using a multimeter*) are in phase, which should be pretty close? I don't have an oscilloscope, so I can't verify that.

    Now, assuming I keep my computer on 24/7, with the CPU loaded to 100% 10% of the time (which is a huge over-estimation), the average power consumptions are 141.1W (135.6*0.9+190.8*0.1) and 131.8W. The difference is 9.4W. Over a year, that's 82kWh.

    Assuming an electricity price of 6cents/kWh, it will cost me an additional $5/year to run my computer overclocked. A steal IMHO.

    *probably assuming a perfect sinusoidal wave instead of actually doing the integration

    As for my PSU, it's rated for 380W (at 80% efficiency, that means 475W on the input side), so it won't mind.

    EDIT:
    Upon thinking about it a bit more, of course the load is not linear. It shouldn't even be sinusoidal - there is a rectifier in there!

    Therefore, all my calculated power are greater than the actual power consumed (and you have to pay for). By how much I don't know.
    Last edited by cyberfish; 12-20-2009 at 06:33 PM.

  5. #20
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    964
    Considering you want the system to last long, the new HD5xxx DX11 ATI cards are what you want, but if Cyberfish is correct regarding the Linux drivers, perhaps you should wait for the nVidia GTX3xx series? My guess is that they will be out before February, just a thought to consider.

    PSUs - go for Corsair or Seasonic, high quality.
    Motherboards - Gigabyte has some very reliable boards.
    Memory - Lots of options, stay away from Elixir, i'd go GeiL or Kingston, their Value series might not overclock well but they sure have reliability and price on their side.
    HDDs - WD Black series, don't worry about SSDs.
    CPU - Depends on budget really, P55/Core i5 is nice, so is Phenom II, get the 920 or the i5 860. i7 is not a sane choice atm imo.
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

  6. #21
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    Make sure you get a NVIDIA video card if you want to run Linux. NVIDIA driver always works out of the box. ATI Linux driver is one huge mess.
    I know about the state of graphics drivers on Linux. I still might go for AMD - I think it's cool that they opened up the programming guides, and the blob has improved a lot too.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    I have never used an ATI card myself, so I can't say from experience, but a fairly experienced Linux friend of mine just bought an ATI card, played with it for a week trying to get it to work (searching frantically online and everything), returned it (paying the restocking fee), and got an Nvidia card. I heard there are still instability issues (crashing X once in a while) and their driver doesn't even have full support for some of their later cards. Rumours also have it that 2D performance is poor and 3D is pretty much unusable.

    NVIDIA driver is pretty much perfect.

    I would really go for NVIDIA. It will at least save you a lot of frustration.

    I know someone who actually has an ATI AGP (it was back then) card for gaming, and a cheap NVIDIA PCI card just for Linux.

  8. #23
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    I will never understand ATI's decision to keep their drivers closed source, they sell graphics cards, not driver's. You would figure that they would be thrilled to have the open source community figure out (for free) how to write drivers that actually work. It's not like ATI has cutting edge technology that nVidia is looking to steal by reverse engineering their hardware merely by looking at the driver interface.

    ATI cards suck bad enough on their own, keeping the drivers closed source just makes it worse.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  9. #24
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    ATI has licensed third-party technology that would be exposed if they open-sourced their drivers. They can't do that.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  10. #25
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    Make sure you get a NVIDIA video card if you want to run Linux. NVIDIA driver always works out of the box. ATI Linux driver is one huge mess.
    Well, I've tried three video cards under linux. The first two were nvidia, neither of them worked, but (at least) one of them this was because of the 1.0 vs 2.0 slot and had nothing to do with the OS.

    The third one is an ATI 4350 and it works fine, I had no problems with drivers, etc. I'm developing GL stuff now and the thing works great; rather than getting frame rates in the teens and maxing out one core, I'm getting rates in the hundreds (simple stuff: over 1000) and the CPU runs at like 25-30%, which is great.

    The reason I tried nvidia first is precisely because of stories like cyberfish's, altho when I dug deeper, it seemed to me that nvidia in fact puts up more hassles wrt linux (altho this hopefully does not apply to their own drivers).

    That is probably the trickiest part tho. You might want to order everything else on line cheap, then pick up the video card at a store where you can easily return or exchange it.

    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    I will never understand ATI's decision to keep their drivers closed source,
    Nb, according to the developers at xorg, the "open source" version nvidia driver was submitted "badly obfuscated" and has proved such a lemon that they've given up on it and do not recommend it for use, and someone is now developing a version without their help. So to be fair, both those companies are maintaining closed source drivers.

    Which perhaps doesn't matter much from an end user perspective: they just build a kernel module and install it, hooray.

    Tangent: apparently nvidia is putting up a fuss about the obsoleting of "immediate mode" and fixed pipeline rendering in GL 3.2 and saying it won't be obsoleted on their cards. That is kind of a developer friendly thing, since some software is intentionally developed to run on old pre GL 1.5 cards that support only a fixed pipeline, I imagine in institutions like schools, etc.
    Last edited by MK27; 12-21-2009 at 06:04 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  11. #26
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,765
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    I did it.

    CPU overclocked to 2.8ghz, memory at 800mhz
    idle 1.13A (135.6W)
    load CPU 1.59A (190.8W)
    load GPU 2.32A (278.4W) (just for fun)

    CPU at 1.8ghz stock, memory at 533mhz
    idle 1.07A (128.4W)
    load CPU 1.35A (162W)

    CPU is an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. Load is Orthos (2 instances of Prime 95 stress test to stress both cores). Idle is sitting at the Windows desktop.

    Current measured on the power cable (either hot or neutral wire... the color coding is weird. hopefully not the ground wire) using a clamp-on multimeter. Power supply efficiency is ~80% at 50% load, according to reviews.

    Power consumptions are calculated assuming the current and voltage (120V RMS, measured using a multimeter*) are in phase, which should be pretty close? I don't have an oscilloscope, so I can't verify that.

    Now, assuming I keep my computer on 24/7, with the CPU loaded to 100% 10% of the time (which is a huge over-estimation), the average power consumptions are 141.1W (135.6*0.9+190.8*0.1) and 131.8W. The difference is 9.4W. Over a year, that's 82kWh.

    Assuming an electricity price of 6cents/kWh, it will cost me an additional $5/year to run my computer overclocked. A steal IMHO.

    *probably assuming a perfect sinusoidal wave instead of actually doing the integration

    As for my PSU, it's rated for 380W (at 80% efficiency, that means 475W on the input side), so it won't mind.

    EDIT:
    Upon thinking about it a bit more, of course the load is not linear. It shouldn't even be sinusoidal - there is a rectifier in there!

    Therefore, all my calculated power are greater than the actual power consumed (and you have to pay for). By how much I don't know.
    This is interesting, How do you overclock? I imagine you disable power saving features in order to overclock using the bios?
    I wouldn't mind undervolting or overclocking my own cpu without raising the voltage.
    I would have thought it would be a higher wattage.

    Also, concerning the PSU: don't pay mind to the "rating." It's marketing crap. What really matters it the amount of amps it can put out on its critical rails. My PSU, for example, cannot handle my gpu at full load which might cause the system to use around, like, 250-300W, and it's rated at 400W.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    51
    Something you might find helpful:
    Best computer you can get for $X.

  13. #28
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by crowe View Post
    Something you might find helpful:
    Best computer you can get for $X.
    Worthless. Not everyone is building a machine for gaming, and those are all pretty lame builds for gaming anyway.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  14. #29
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,765
    Those things are usually worthless as they list components in US and US resellers. Not everyone lives in the US, as you know, and for them, it's worthless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  15. #30
    {Jaxom,Imriel,Liam}'s Dad Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    As for memory... <snip> Then there is DDR3 which is newer and faster, but pricier. <snip> 8 GB ($100 or so?).
    It is amazing what we consider pricier these days. The first computer I built (back in 1994) was on a tight budget of ~$30K. I purchased two SIMs 16MB for the low low coast of $500 each. The mainboard I got was a Tyan for about $850 with an i386 clone for about $1,000.

    But, we now say that 8GB of memory that is 100X faster than the old days is pricier.

    (BTW, including 45GB of storage in the form of 5 9GB Seagate Barracuda SCSI drives I came in under budget at $25K -- The client was thrilled.)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Can anyone help?
    By javalurnin in forum C Programming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-26-2006, 12:16 PM
  3. Major Computer Problem
    By Olidivera in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-15-2005, 11:15 AM
  4. Tabbed Windows with MDI?
    By willc0de4food in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-19-2005, 10:58 PM
  5. Computer will not boot.
    By RealityFusion in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 04:05 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21