building a pc

[Ewan]

He got an EVGA card anyway, so if something comes out in the next three months, he can step up to it and simply pay the difference (or for free if it's same price he paid, I believe).

I believe you have to register your card for this to be valid though Fit, so don't forget!

[Fit of Rage]

Just did it, thanks for the heads up.

[Izor]

I wont be jumping up to a 280...and yeah i know nvidia has that webiste now too bad i assumed shit when i bought this stuff

[Fit of Rage]

Also, the power supply is an Antec Truepower Trio 650W.

[Reaver]

I'm in a somewhat similar situation, I read a bunch of the posts on here so I have a good idea of what I want, but can anyone explain in lamen's terms the difference in some of these processors you're talking about. Like quad core or core duo, etc. A link to a website with a good explanation works too.

I don't want to spend more than $700, I'm going to use the monitor, speakers, mouse and keyboard that I have now. So I just need the tower. Also, I have an external hard drive that's like 120gigs and that's way more than I need, so I was thinking of getting a smaller internal hard drive on my new computer but a fast one. I think people compare hard drives based on RPM's? Since I'm guessing that's how fast it can read data off of it. So I'm looking for a hard drive that doesn't hold much but is very fast as well. Recommendations?

[Fit of Rage]

Your desired performance will pretty much determine how much you spend.

As far as your hard drive goes, as long as it's a SATA and 3.0 GB/s, you'll be fine. A 10000 RPM hard drive is overkill really and will more than likely put you over your budget. Also the cache makes a difference, which is why I got a 16MB cache instead of the an 8. This is what I got and so far it works great.

The processor obviously processes data and commands and sends them to various parts of the computer. The difference between a single "core" processor and a multi-core processor is that each "core" acts like its own processor, and then there are some parts of the chip architecture that don't need repeating, and thus the "core" part is duplicated (2 for duo core, 4 for quad core) and simply increase processing power. Not many processors are made above 3.0 GHz these days, since ramping up the speed of the processor increases heat generation and there's a physical limit to it. Instead Intel and AMD decided to just put in more cores and increase processing per time that way.

To put it SIMPLE and QUICK, the standard these days is a dual-core processor of some kind. It would be far easier to give you some recommendations if you lay out what you'll be doing with your computer: gaming, word processing, internet, video/photo editing, web development, etc.

[Reaver]

Your desired performance will pretty much determine how much you spend.

As far as your hard drive goes, as long as it's a SATA and 3.0 GB/s, you'll be fine. A 10000 RPM hard drive is overkill really and will more than likely put you over your budget. Also the cache makes a difference, which is why I got a 16MB cache instead of the an 8. This is what I got and so far it works great.

The processor obviously processes data and commands and sends them to various parts of the computer. The difference between a single "core" processor and a multi-core processor is that each "core" acts like its own processor, and then there are some parts of the chip architecture that don't need repeating, and thus the "core" part is duplicated (2 for duo core, 4 for quad core) and simply increase processing power. Not many processors are made above 3.0 GHz these days, since ramping up the speed of the processor increases heat generation and there's a physical limit to it. Instead Intel and AMD decided to just put in more cores and increase processing per time that way.

To put it SIMPLE and QUICK, the standard these days is a dual-core processor of some kind. It would be far easier to give you some recommendations if you lay out what you'll be doing with your computer: gaming, word processing, internet, video/photo editing, web development, etc.

Thanks for the info. As far as what I'm looking to do with my computer, I'd like to try that crysis game but I understand it's pretty crazy on the requirements, so let's say on medium settings for the game. I also use my computer for word processing, internet and auto cadd. no video editing right now but I would like to get into it, same with photoshop.

Oh and I think I'll go with that hard drive you listed. $60 isn't bad and it has some good reviews.

[Money]

if u wanna spend under 700 maybe going with an amd processor x2 dual corewould make more sense u can get a real good one for about 120-150ish give or take

[Fit of Rage]

Only problem with that is AMD chips generate more heat than the Intel ones of the same specs, so the money you'd save from going AMD you'd have to spend on an aftermarket CPU cooling fan anyway.

Oh and I found out something unfortunate: my PSU supports SLI and I think my gfx card does too, but my mobo does not haha. For the amount of money I'd spend on an extra graphics card though I could just as easily upgrade in the future.

[paradise!]

Ok, so i've heard the new Intel Quadcores aren't really as good as they seem. If i had the money i would safely go with a solid Dual-Core, lots of college kids i know rave about how good it is. But then again save your money and just get an XP Professional.

[Fit of Rage]

Again you don't know at all what you're talking about. The people that bash Vista are the same people that are too "comfortable" with their current version of Windows and/or are too lazy to upgrade. Vista has a different appearance but honestly, if you're building a system with even today's standard specs, Vista will run almost flawlessly. Maybe a year ago that wasn't true, but today it is.

Vista even has these options which allow for different CPU usage and power consumption based on the current tasks that you'll be performing: