PC build...

I think I am finally going to take the plunge and build a desktop pc besides its a good excuse to tinker! :)

How do you pro's do it? Pick a motherboard that will do what you want (32 or 64 bit, sata, raid, lan, OS, etc) and build from there?

My second question is how much percentage wise of your budget do you spend on the motherboard versus the other components? The boards I am currently looking at run form $95 to $250.

I think I would like to build off of a ASUS board with a Athlon 64 X2 / Athlon 64 FX / Athlon 64. I was given an Athlon XP and I am really impressed so far.

For the last three PCs I assembled, I used a German PC configuration assistant. He is able to resolve dependency issues and only assemble pieces that work together. I usually start with the processor, then pick a motherboard that goes well with it. Depending on what I need/want, I usually pick ethernet adapter and soundcard onboard, so while the motherboard is a little more expensive, I don't have to buy the other cards. The next important thing is the graphic card (I play a lot). From there, it's the RAM (Dual Channel freaking expensive, lowest latency, rocks your socks RAM), the tower, the hard disk and the rest.

I am a little confused Neweggs configurator says that the G.Skill 4GB 2 x 2GB ddr2 800 is compatible with the ASUS Crosshair but ASUS doesn't list it or any 2GB RAM modules for that matter. If you can't user 2 GB per stick how are you supposed to be able to use 8 GB of RAM?

What I do first is pick the necessities that meet my minimum greatest needs and budget, starting with the most expensive things - the CPU, video card, and RAM. I actually have the motherboard as last. The reason is that there are so many varieties and variations of motherboards that, as long as the parts you get are from the same era (give or take 2 years at most). I'm not familiar with 64-bit CPUs since I've never had one nor do I need one any time soon. A 32-bit CPU can only handle up to 4.294 billion bytes of memory (2^32). That doesn't mean you can have 4 GB in RAM though - it's actually less since some of the other memory is used for video memory, some buses, and a few other things. Much beyond 2.5 GB is not recommended on a 32-bit processor. A 64-bit processor, however, can handle nearly 18 4/9 quintillion bytes of memory (as from 2^64). Yet, even to today, there's not much sense in going beyond 2 GB of memory unless doing very memory-intensive programs or working with huge images, audio files amounting to hours (at CD quality even), or various other things like that. I have more knowledge with computer hardware than I currently do with C programming.

I do large digital image editing with files and I get real frustrated waiting around for my pc. So I just want to make sure this will keep me feeling fast for years to come! ;) I would like my new pc to handle 2 concurrent users. Like me using OpenVPN over my wireless connection to copy files etc. while my better half is doing book keeping or browsing on line without any noticeable lag.

So, my question is shouldn't I get 2GB sticks of RAM so next month when my pc is obsolete ;) just throw more RAM into it? Or are you saying 4-1GB sticks will be more than enough for the life of my machine?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KONI

For the last three PCs I assembled, I used a German PC configuration assistant. He is able to resolve dependency issues and only assemble pieces that work together.

---

alternate's config assistant isn't that great.
It also doesn't really assemble pieces that work together (ok it won't offer AMD cpus if you pick a motherboard for an Intel).
Example:
SilverStone NT01 V2 (CPU cooling)
SilverStone TJ06 (PC case)
You won't be able to choose the NT01 V2, ever.
Even if you pick the TJ06.
And according to the official TJ06 product page the NT01 is recommended for that case.

Think of it this way. How much space is needed to store an image? A 4096x3072 image, which is about 12.6 megapixels, only needs 36 MB of memory at 24-bit color (width*height*bitdepth/8). That's hardly anything to today's 1 GB recommended minimum. Given Moore's Law, it'd be another 3 years before 4 GB is a recommended minimum. 3 years seems like quite a bit. 8 GB will last quite for about 4 1/2 years. For 8 GB of memory, you'll definitely need a 64-bit CPU.

If you use Vista, add another 512 MB to the memory usage which makes 1.5 GB the recommended minimum and even then, 4 GB would still last about 2 1/3 years and 8 GB lasts 3 1/3 years and by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ulillillia

A 32-bit CPU can only handle up to 4.294 billion bytes of memory (2^32). That doesn't mean you can have 4 GB in RAM though - it's actually less since some of the other memory is used for video memory, some buses, and a few other things. Much beyond 2.5 GB is not recommended on a 32-bit processor. A 64-bit processor, however, can handle nearly 18 4/9 quintillion bytes of memory (as from 2^64).

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Who doesn't recommend more than 2.5GB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajanine

So, my question is shouldn't I get 2GB sticks of RAM so next month when my pc is obsolete ;) just throw more RAM into it? Or are you saying 4-1GB sticks will be more than enough for the life of my machine?

---

What is the life of your machine? My guesstimate would be that 4GB of RAM will suit you fine for another 5-6 years, even under Vista. At that point, well... you'll probably looking to move to a newer system and more than likely DDR3 (or DD4 or 5 or whatever it will be in 5 years) SDRAM.

Secondly, you said you were given an Athlon XP... do you mean that's what you will be using for your build? If not, I'd definitely go for the Core 2 Duo line of CPUs... there really is no point in going any other way unless you want to wait on the next AMD CPUs to see their benchmarks which won't be out for quite a while.

As for the price ratio of motherboard to other components, I'd say that completely depends... there really is no point in going very expensive on a motherboard unless you want something specific (an advanced IO panel (eSATA perhaps), some good for overclocking, SLI/Crossfire capable, etc)... otherwise for home usage, you can get by on something <$150, easily. Also, it depends on what you want in you Video Card, RAM, or CPU... you can easily pay 3-4 times as much as your motherboard for any of those components.

I'd say tell us what you want to use this for and I'll start throwing parts in your face. Also tell us what components you have already... it you have something good laying around maybe you might not consider upgrading that component.

The motherboard is the most important part of the system, and it is where failures would happen most of the time. Before you buy that motherboard, you should visit newegg and look at customer's review of the motherboard and look at the worst or average reviews, cause they will give you some problems that u might have to face. My suggestion is pick the type of cpu that you want, then pick the motherboard which have specifications that most suits for you.

Stuff that you might consider maybe the type of memory it supports, types of sockets, on board devices, overclocking abilities, bios safety mechanism (what i believe to be most important).

Been doing this stuff for 27 years.

Have you any interest in overclocking? Lots of enthusiasts squeeze the last drop out of their investment by running the CPU at higher speeds that rated. It's a tad on the iffy side sometimes, you can end up with some really significant learning experiences, but if you get it right, the results are just wonderful. Some overclocking enthusiasts will overclock anything, even that older XP, just to see how far they can go.

I'm to recommending it, but, I bring it up because for those that choose to do so, the motherboard is without doubt the most important component. Stability and features for overclocking all come from the motherboard and it's bios.

I've owned overclocked systems that I ran for 4 years without stability issues. If you do it right, it's fine. Many people paid $65 for the Brisbane X2 and overclocked it to 2.8 Ghz (it's sold as a 1.9Ghz chip), which puts it in the performance range over the stock speeds of some of the Core2 designs. On the other hand, $120 on the Intel E4300, a 1.86Ghz chip (or is that the 1.80?) - and it has been pushed to 3.0Ghz, nearly matching the stock level performance of Intel's $500+ top of the line.

If you'd rather spend a few more bucks to get absolute stability with little or no hassle at those levels of performance, the trick is to decide the 'sweet spot' of the two major chip vendors on a price/performance judgment. Intel is currently the 'sweet spot' winner, even though the little Brisbane X2 (Athlon 3600 X2 65nm) at $60 at newegg is the cheapest dual core solution I've ever seen.

For most photoshop operations you'd see only incremental differences in the AMD/Intel comparison of machines set side by side. They are there, but it would be on the order of Intel doing something in 2 seconds whereas the AMD took 2.5 or 3, depending on the actual comparisons. At this point, price to price is about the only way that makes sense, and for novices it's hard to judge, because the actual performance characteristics differ depending on what the chip is doing (that is, there are some things where AMD is actually faster, but not much, and not BY much).

Factually, the time it takes to load a large photo is mostly about disk speed. Decoding speed is such that most of these chips, save for the very slowest chips, are quicker than the drive can provide.

I highly recommend you NOT be induced into RAID 0! RAID 0 can theoretically double read speeds, but if one drive has even minor errors (which they do), the entire RAID volume is lost, and your whole system is gone.

The Raptor drives are about the fastest at reasonable price points. You pay more for a particular volume of storage, but the speed is just incomparable. Next down from that are any of the high density drives. Some like WD brands, others have a history with WD of drive failures. I have a 320G WD that's smooth as silk.

Don't be tempted toward the bargain 160G drives. For you purpose, you want read speed. As platter density increases, the read speed increases. Jumps occur at about 250G and 400G or more. That is, the density of the data on disk is about the same for the 250G and the 300G drives, but much higher than that of the 160G drives. You also want to get drives with the fastest access time you can afford. Raptors have twice the speed of access as other drives, hence the cost (in the region of less than 5ms). Many of the Seagate drives (long considered the most reliable) are rated at 11ms, but that's a bit pessimistic. In fact, most drives ranged at 8.9ms or 8.5 ms only reach that under ideal conditions - most speed ratings will estimate an 8.9ms drive closer to 12 or 14ms. The most recent 500Gbyte Seagate drive is rated at 8.5ms, which promises to be one of the best performing Seagates we've seen, but check the reviews (I've not had the pleasure of test driving one myself).

Two drives are better than one! However, not in a RAID 0. RAID 0 is fast, but like I said, you'll get bitten and won't like that. Still, two drives (non-RAID, just two drives) can still offer speed improvement. Install the OS on one drive, put your paging file and temp files on the other. If you can manage it, put your image files on a third. This means your drive heads don't ALWAYS jump from one end of the drive to the other to find data.

You don't need to spend $200 on a graphics card for 2D work like photoshop! A recent $50 card may do just fine, unless you insist on Vista Aero 'experience' points, which require the 3D services of the high end cards. If you're staying with XP, and you're not doing much in the 3D gaming or other high performance stuff, go with a medium to lower priced brand name card (you're looking for various resolution support, clean output signal, etc.)

Two monitors is better than one! Oh man, once you get used to it, you feel like you're on a unicycle without them! Many low end cards support dual monitor output, so plug in a second monitor, tell XP it's there, and.....put all those photoshop toolbars and navigation windows that usually obscure your image editing on the second monitor! Check on a webpage, leave the IM up, move the Virtual OS console to the second monitor - it gets to be such a great thing, you'll want 3 monitors!

For the 32bit versions of Windows, heck any 32bit OS, 4Gbytes of RAM is all there is. Even if you install more, it's just not there when windows runs. You have to have a 64bit OS to get to more RAM than that, and as of yet, 64bit OS is not really all that great (that is, drivers can be scarce, and the 32bit applications will run inside a WOW module that slows that down a little).

Just a few of the things I've picked up over the years I didn't see mentioned above.

Best of luck configuring!

27 years and you've never heard of PAE?
No 32bit OS can handle more than 4GB?
Heh, any *nix and even Win2k and Win2k3 can handle more than 4GB.
3 harddrives because of minuscule access time improvement that you'll lose anyway once you actually fill them?
I wouldn't buy from you.

Your attitude sucks. Keep away from me.

In fact, I'm off the board.

If this is the kind of welcome I get, you can count me out!

Barely 2&#37; of the world ever bothered with PAE (36 bit addressing).

It's like bankswitching from 1978 on a Z80.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JVene

pjeremy:

First, you're incorrect about the 4Gbyte limit.

32OS = 32bit memory pointer, that's 4Gbytes of RAM. Can't be exceeded.

Read the DOCs

Second, try it before you act like you know. I've done it, compared, timed it many times. 2 or 3 drives, much better than one. Not as good as RAID, but certainly helpful. Widely known and recognized practice, not my invention.


Third, your attitude sucks. Keep away from me.

In fact, I'm off the board.

If this is the kind of welcome I get, you can count me out!

---

Good riddance, I guess.
I already posted a wikipedia link to PAE

FreeBSD handbook:
Large memory configuration machines require access to more than the 4 gigabyte limit on User+Kernel Virtual Address (KVA) space. Due to this limitation, Intel added support for 36-bit physical address space access in the Pentium® Pro and later line of CPUs.

The Physical Address Extension (PAE) capability of the Intel® Pentium Pro and later CPUs allows memory configurations of up to 64 gigabytes. FreeBSD provides support for this capability via the PAE kernel configuration option, available in all current release versions of FreeBSD. Due to the limitations of the Intel memory architecture, no distinction is made for memory above or below 4 gigabytes. Memory allocated above 4 gigabytes is simply added to the pool of available memory.

Note: The PAE support in FreeBSD is only available for Intel IA-32 processors. It should also be noted, that the PAE support in FreeBSD has not received wide testing, and should be considered beta quality compared to other stable features of FreeBSD.


http://www.spack.org/wiki/LinuxRamLimits a link from 2001 regarding the 2.4.x linux kernel and PAE


Nice try editing your post and claiming now you knew about PAE all along.

Look at the Windows documentation!

XP, all versions, 4Gbyte of physical RAM limitation

Same for Windows server 2003 Standard edition

Besides, how's that going to do THIS OP any good?

It slows things down, complicates the drivers most of the time - WOW 32 bit applications on 64 bit OS are actually faster.

How can any 32bit application access more than 4Gbyte of RAM?

It can't.

The OS can, but to no decent effect. Only a few servers have ever bothered.

Netfinity series did that with the P4's.

This guy's not running applications that would work this way, and unless it's turned on, it doesn't just work automatically.

People ask me all the time "I've got 3Gbytes in my machine, why can't I create an array more than 2Gbytes?"


Have an answer for that smart........!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PM from JVene

Put down the bong! It's doing you no good.
Put down the bong.

Read before you flame.

You have no idea what you were saying.

32bit memory pointer = 4Gbytes

The 32bit CPU's can't even address more than 4Gbytes of RAM.

What's that....you thought I was taking about disk space?

C'mon - why would I go on about 300 & 500 Gbyte drives if that were in my mind?

Think! Think! Or can you?

---

What a cute little troll you are.
I don't care about MS.
What they offer and what not means nothing.
You forgot to mention Win95.

Nice that you edited your last post again.
And yes, I have an answer.
They shouldn't ask you.

pjeremy, I had attempted to take this off the thread via PM, but you decided to post that to the public.

Why are you concerned about my correcting a typo, or removing irrelevant material?

Point 1:

the world doesn't revolve around you or your disinterest in Microsoft. The OP is running Photoshop, which doesn't run in linux, he runs XP.

Point 2:

You are the one who took a point thats irrelevant to the OP's inquiry and turned into a flame against me. Fact 1 - XP nor Windows 2000 supports more than 4G of RAM even if PAE is enabled, and aside from your disinterest in Windows, the OP is running XP for the primary interest of Photoshop.

Point 3:

You made a big deal out of my editing a post to remove irrelevant material. Everything I posted before you came along in this thread is accurate relative to the OP, so far nothing you've posted is.

Point 4:

You took a PM and posted it here, and augmented that with commentary that insinuates that was posted in this thread. I never posted the quoted material to this thread.

Point 5:

It is widely practiced that multiple drives are used to drop seeks. It's effect is just as good on full drives as largely empty ones. The AIX installation guide from IBM for their RS6000 line of Unix boxes clearly points this out (at least it did in the early 90's when AIX mattered), and highly recommends placement of the various volumes using this caveat. It works for Windows systems as well. Its not profound, but the benefit doesn't evaporate with the drives fill. The probability that delay from long seeks is reduced relative to the type of material being sought.

Point 6:

You and I are both new to this board. We're likely to get banned from hijacking someone else's thread for irrelevant and unwelcome exchanges, but look back at the record and try to admit the truth - you started with a nasty attitude that would tick anyone off, especially in light of the fact that although you accused me of knowing very little, it is in fact you that professed errors as though they were fact. Despite your claim to denounce MS, the fact is you claimed Windows 2000 and XP support more than 4Gbytes of RAM, as if only an idiot didn't realize such a claim, when in fact MS documentation clearly states no version of XP supports more than 4Gbytes physical RAM even when PAE is enabled. Only versions of server, and not all of them, and to varying limits.

Point 7:

You still couldn't properly answer the question I posed could you? The system, by default, reserves 2Gbytes of the processes' addressable memory for itself unless the /3GB switch is applied in the boot.ini, and the application itself is built with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch turned on. Only certain versions of Windows support this feature, too. XP Pro happens to be one of them.

Point 8:

You seem to find an appetite for swinging the verbal bat at someone. You poked commentary at me with the presumption that I had no idea what PAE is. Well, frankly, it's so little used and worked only in certain circumstances, and in the last 15 years of my association with companies that depend on workstations for architecture, no one I've known has ever used the feature. I was first introduced to the idea on NetFinity machines from IBM that were based on multiple P2 and P3 CPU's, if memory serves 8, 16 and 32 CPU's with up to 16 Gbytes of RAM running AIX. In fact, it didn't work well, and didn't compete well against their own RS6000 line. The whole concept works about as badly as the 24 bit addressing the 286 used in the 16bit days. It works, but with various degrees of complications depending on drivers and performance oriented bottlenecks, but has no benefit to the applications - only to the OS and specialized services like VM. Now with 64 bit computing, it's entirely irrelevant. Anyone interested in using more than the limits of 32bit addressing shouldn't force fit such a bad technical concept into use, especially when it is of no per-process benefit on workstations like the OP is interested in building.

Point 9:

Even in 64bit based workstations, the number of motherboards that can even take over 4GBytes of RAM are far less than those that can by a large margin. One reason is that the market for workstation class machines outnumbers those of the server domain, and most workstation applications are still 32bit builds, whereas 64bit OS that runs those applications are still a little flaky (and with XP on the chopping block, the outlook isn't very good considering Vista 32bit is about as flaky with drivers).

64 bit computing is still a niche, about like 32bit computing was for years after the 386. It's not yet ready for novices and the general public, there are too many frustrations for them. Geeks find it easy, but even architects that depend on workstations for daily use can't be bothered.

Point 10:

I built my first computer when I was 12, back in the days when you actually had to solder the chips and sockets to the motherboard - when it was actual work, and a running result was an accomplishment. I've forgotten more than you'll know about this stuff.

Point 11:

I don't sell computers. I only make them when I need one myself, or a friend has already started one and gets stuck. I'm a developer, my primary work is in C++. I own my own firm, and my reputation among my clients is very strong, with many active business relationships dating back to 1990, and a few dating back to 1983, when I was probably as young, childish and green as you, pjeremy.

Wow, settle Girls, This is a c programming board. Go and program something instead of flaming.

Leaving the boards is upto you, but it is a bit childish.

You attempted to flame like a little twat in PM so noone notices. I don't play like that. I want an audience.
You didn't correct a typo, you removed "irrelevant parts" showing your lack of knowledge.
Kudos though, almost a 12-step program.
Point 1+2: blabla, you're the only one mentioning Photoshop. 2k supports PAE.
Point 3+4: Of course, everything you've posted is absolutely, undoubtedly accurate....
Except the first line beneath your quoted PM, the rest was an answer to your previous post, which, of course, you've edited since then.
Point 5: Yes, and it's waste of money with questionable performance boost for a normal user.
Point 6: The victim card. Now you got me. Now I will get banned, oh no. Neither did I denounce MS nor did I claim XP can use PAE. Quick, edit your post.
Point 7: I don't intend to.
Point 8: Well googled, Vene. 64bit (Mips Risc, DEC Alpha, Sun UltraSparc, etc) has been around for a long time. But yes, PAE is rather irrelevant nowadays.
Point 9: No, just no.
Point 10+11: Yes Masser, me no know nothing.
Neither insulting nor your 'strong reputation' will help you.

To the OP:
Figure out what you want out of your PC, check the hardware in your price range, compare, evaluate cost-benefit and pick what you consider best for your purposes.

Thread closed!

If members of the board want to fight, argue, or even slap each other with handbags, then I suggest thew do it in private