Viewing Thread:
"THE ultimate PC"

well, not the ULTIMATE PC, but I would like to know everything I would need to build one of the best PC's going, the CPU, Graphics Card, RAM, everything, so.... what would I need.


P.S. money is not a problem.

I have just upgraded from a system with an AMD Duron 1300+ (runs at 945MHz), 40GB 5400rpm IDE HDD, onboard everything kinda thing, to a fairly high-spec system. The difference in speed is amazing. How anyone can say that my two PCs are comparable, I have no idea. It's not just about how fast a program loads, it's about how it runs. Do you have to wait ages every time you save, if you load a new program or something does your music playing skip?

My old PC was a perfectly working PC (though I tended to make it crash quite a lot, but I think that's just me - computers don't like me) and for someone who is a fairly gentle user then it's perfectly adequate. However, I do my best to suck power from the PC whenever I'm using it - I frequently have 5+ large programs open and in use at once (excl background processes like web server, firewall, antivirus) and I really do notice the difference.

On a slight aside, how much do you reckon I could sell my old PC for:
ECS K7SEM Motherboard
AMD Duron 1300+
512MB 133MHz Memory
30GB Maxtor Hard Drive
300W ATX PSU
2x Rear USB Sockets
Onboard 10/100 LAN
Onboard Graphics (64MB)
Onboard Sound
56kps Modem Card
NetGear 10/100 LAN Card
1 Additionallly installed chassis fan
4 month old Samsung DVD-ROM Drive
Hard Drive Heatsink
3½" Sony Floppy Drive

To be honest, I agree with H20 here, a computer can be used for many things, everyone utilizes their computer in different ways.

I have a pretty high-spec machine because I play a lot of the latest games and do a lot of C compiling, image editing, video editing, college work.

If you are just going to do basic tasks like surfing the internet and word processing, then whats the point in wasting money on a top spec, when the minimum is apt enough?

An 800mhz is more then adequate to be honest.

Yeh, but surely your PC is differant to mine? Not all processors run to exact spec.
And to be honest, who ever said my amount of ram is OTT, its not.
512 is the average now a days. 768 is just above that. Its not 'loads' considering my 2.6 has 1536 or something.

And dont come back saying "you're just over the top blah blah" when you've been going on about "my program loads 8 times faster then yours".

Well then, how do you explane how my system now loads Dreamweaver in about a sec and on the 800Mhz it took 8?

Edit: Thinking about it, I think with my old HD it took about 2 secs to load on the 2.4GHz, which would make sence.

Allred wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
> And 800 MHz is 1/3rd of 2.4 GHz, so your old 800 MHz processor
> should
> have loaded Dreamweaver in 3 time as long as your 2.4 GHz processor,
> in other words it should have loaded in 3 seconds.
>
> You are forgetting smaller caches, differnet chipsets, less efficient
> arcertecture, slower RAM (DDR not supported), and the smaller FSB.

If you're going to be pedantic then they don't matter anyway. When loading a program the bottle neck is the hard drive, not the CPU or motherboard, at least not on anything from the past 5 to 10 years anyway.

coming back to whole R.A.M - Apple thing i think that he has packed around 3gig of R.A.M in his mobo and put a really silly cpu.

or he's running windows 3.1 on his system.

ÈL ® ö B ì Ñ wrote:
> Im not that bothered, if it's good for him then ok.
> It was just that he was trying to compare an 800 to a 2400 (i
> think).
>
> Was just showing him that he was incorrect.

I was trying to say, as NB said, that its just fine for what i use it for.
Here's an example to try and exaplain what i was saying:
If a program takes 1 second to load, why upgrade to make it load at half a second. half a second is a hardly noticable differance.

I wouldnt mind an AMD athlon 3400 or whatever. I just dont need to waste the money on it.

Teal'c wrote:
> ÈL ® ö B ì Ñ wrote:
> Im not that bothered,
>
> But you still spend a good amount of time typing up your responses?

Shall i do 2 word answes then?
Like this, what use was the post you just made?



> Was just showing him that he was incorrect.
>
> lol, of course

Whats funny about that?

Trying to boost your post count really arn't you.

Notorious Biggles wrote:

> And 800 MHz is 1/3rd of 2.4 GHz, so your old 800 MHz processor should
> have loaded Dreamweaver in 3 time as long as your 2.4 GHz processor,
> in other words it should have loaded in 3 seconds.

You are forgetting smaller caches, differnet chipsets, less efficient arcertecture, slower RAM (DDR not supported), and the smaller FSB.

ÈL ® ö B ì Ñ wrote:
> Im not that bothered,

But you still spend a good amount of time typing up your responses?

>
> Was just showing him that he was incorrect.

lol, of course