Challenge: Build a computer for under $1000 - Page 7

IceDingo · #61 05-03-2009, 11:14 PM

If I convert $US1000 to AUD I get $1364.93 to play with. If I bought the cheaper i7 (920) it would cost $446 (Compared to a Phenom II 810 for $272). That's quite a bit of the budget gone right there. Add on a couple of hundred for a motherboard and another couple of hundred for DDR3 and a 640GB drive. That's around $800 total. $200 for a PSU and $300 for a 1GB 4870. That's all you needed to include right? and it's all under $US1000.

I just realised it's quite easy to think of all the parts but then there's other stuff like monitor and keyboard/mouse. And the OS.

rabb1t · #62 05-04-2009, 04:03 AM

If you are just going for gaming performance a Phenom 2 (vs. Core i7) is fine. You could also go down to an Intel Q8300 or E8400/E8500 and also be just fine for gaming.

IceDingo you may want to clicky my sig and flip to the Systems page to be sure you don't miss anything. It's pretty easy to slip and miss a something. (Like most people don't even think about what they are plugging said system in to.)

IceDingo · #63 05-04-2009, 09:50 AM

Ah, very nice page. I completely forgot about case and DVD drive though. but they aren't really essential. But then if you don't have a DVD drive it's kinda hard to install the OS.
I see you've included the Centurion 5 in cases. I can say from personal experience that it's a great case. Good airflow and I use a 9800GT which is quite long and it fits fine, just gotta plug in the power cable before putting it in its slot.

LordXenophon · #64 05-04-2009, 06:10 PM

Actually, without the DVD drive, it's a bit harder to install a lot of games. For a gaming computer, the DVD drive is NOT optional. The OS, on the other hand, can be installed from any type of CD drive. I've never seen an OS on a DVD.

Doctorzongo · #65 05-04-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordXenophon

I've never seen an OS on a DVD.

IceDingo · #66 05-05-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordXenophon

Actually, without the DVD drive, it's a bit harder to install a lot of games. For a gaming computer, the DVD drive is NOT optional. The OS, on the other hand, can be installed from any type of CD drive. I've never seen an OS on a DVD.

I guess so but downloading games is becoming more popular and if you have a fast internet connection you can get most games off steam.

I think most OSs these days are on DVD. I think Vista and OSX are both a couple of GB each so wouldn't fit on a CD. Linux is the only OS that I know that can fit on a CD. Ubuntu can but different distros might be bigger. Older OSs like XP fit on CD but not the newer ones that are around now.

SpiffyChicken14 · #67 06-09-2009, 05:27 AM

Just finished going through rabb1t's page on computer builds. Very nice indeed. I have built plenty of computers but none actually for myself for gaming (yet). I have wanted to for a very long time and I'm hoping it happens this summer when I save up some money.

I noticed something interesting, rabb1t, that you always seem to pair AMD chips with ATI cards, and Intel chips with nVidia cards. Some machines I have built use AMD chips (better bang-for-buck IMO) with nVidia cards (I just have a preference for them). Is there any particular reason you prefer your method?

rabb1t · #68 06-09-2009, 11:14 PM

AMD bought out ATi not too long ago, so they are developing more 'in tandum'. Things like the planned CPU with on-CPU GPU may filter into production anytime now, so it may be worth mentally pairing them.

While it's true you can mix and match, a line has sort of been drawn in the sand since the AMD ATi buyout and things are starting to separate. While it may not matter as much for single graphic card use, there are some features coming along that might be benefitial to keep on one side or the other.

Just an FYI - the strict line only really happend with the current generation. Just last generation, and with previous ones, I had mixed.

Back a few years ago pretty much the opposite was true, you actually wanted an AMD board with an Nvidia GPU.

Things change with the times, but right now it's mostly for 'branding' reasons. (With AMD owning ATi you have that sort of invisible line.)

Hexblood · #69 06-14-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabb1t

AMD bought out ATi not too long ago, so they are developing more 'in tandum'. Things like the planned CPU with on-CPU GPU may filter into production anytime now, so it may be worth mentally pairing them.

While it's true you can mix and match, a line has sort of been drawn in the sand since the AMD ATi buyout and things are starting to separate. While it may not matter as much for single graphic card use, there are some features coming along that might be benefitial to keep on one side or the other.

Just an FYI - the strict line only really happend with the current generation. Just last generation, and with previous ones, I had mixed.

Back a few years ago pretty much the opposite was true, you actually wanted an AMD board with an Nvidia GPU.

Things change with the times, but right now it's mostly for 'branding' reasons. (With AMD owning ATi you have that sort of invisible line.)

This makes me one sad panda. . .

I have been a long time fan of AMD and NVidia. Guess I gotta start learning about ATI cards for my next PC

rabb1t · #70 06-15-2009, 06:01 PM

They still have chipsets on older AMD motherboards (AM2/AM2+, not AM2/AM3), I just don't know if they are 'the best' anymore like they were a few years ago. (The only AM3 capable one I see is single GPU slot.)

It's really only an issue if you want to run multi-GPU features. If you are just talking about single GPU then you are fine to mix/match. The future will bring what it brings.

Mostly they've gone with whatever CPU chipset is the strongest at the time. Right now that's the Intel Core 2 Duo and Core i7 line. The Phenom II can hold it's own ok in gaming, but AMD (and ATi to an extent) are really targeting more mainstream and entry level gamers than they are mainstream and higher end like Intel is.