So, I'm looking around at parts to build a budget (hopefully no more
than $600 for everything but Windows 10 and the graphics card - which promises to be the most costly part! :-\ ) gaming PC that will replace
my old and rather slow 2 core and only 2 thread setup that is mainly
limited by its absurdly low RAM limit of 4GB.
I don't need the very best performance, money is tight, and I usually
only play older games anyway. Thus I'd really like to spend as little
as possible, while still getting good performance with the older
bargain bin/discounted older games I pickup, and the older MMOs I
prefer. But I do want to future proof a bit. I don't want to find I
can't play last year's title at all, a couple years from now, ya
know? And I'd like the option to upgrade and add a few more parts
(e.g. a CPU upgrade, more storage, a sata card to build a RAID from
cheap drives, whatever the next generation of connector is down the
road), later on as money becomes available.
Plus I'm the kind of user who has four windows of dozens of tabs open
in his web browser. That kind of behaviour has become super slow on
my old computer.
I notice that the Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 has what seems to balance surprisingly good performance for the Pentium brand (with 2 cores for
4 threads in total) with a low price, e.g. [url]https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/pentium-g4560-3-5ghz-3mb-cpu/26608288[/url]
(assuming it comes back into stock in a timely manner). So assuming
that's a good bet, I thought I'd try to build around that. Which I
especially like, as I fear I might have to wait another month or two
for enough cash to purchase a decent graphics card like the GTX 1060,
so at least I'll have integrated graphics in the meantime to play
around with and try everything else out.
Thus I come to you fine folk, as it has been a very long time since I
last built a PC, and I wonder what are good choices for the rest of
the parts - case, motherboard, storage, RAM, PSU, fans - preferably
aiming for a reasonably quiet setup, etc.
Your advice would be much appreciated. I don't care about fancy
designs and lighting. I prefer an inoffensive look that won't be out
of place in a home office.
Cheers in advance! :-)
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
So, I'm looking around at parts to build a budget (hopefully no more
than $600 for everything but Windows 10 and the graphics card - which promises to be the most costly part! :-\ ) gaming PC that will replace
my old and rather slow 2 core and only 2 thread setup that is mainly limited by its absurdly low RAM limit of 4GB.
I don't need the very best performance, money is tight, and I usually
only play older games anyway. Thus I'd really like to spend as little
as possible, while still getting good performance with the older
bargain bin/discounted older games I pickup, and the older MMOs I
prefer. But I do want to future proof a bit. I don't want to find I
can't play last year's title at all, a couple years from now, ya
know? And I'd like the option to upgrade and add a few more parts
(e.g. a CPU upgrade, more storage, a sata card to build a RAID from
cheap drives, whatever the next generation of connector is down the
road), later on as money becomes available.
Plus I'm the kind of user who has four windows of dozens of tabs open
in his web browser. That kind of behaviour has become super slow on
my old computer.
I notice that the Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 has what seems to balance surprisingly good performance for the Pentium brand (with 2 cores for 4 threads in total) with a low price, e.g. [url]https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/pentium-g4560-3-5ghz-3mb-cpu/26 608288[/url] (assuming it comes back into stock in a timely manner). So assuming that's a good bet, I thought I'd try to build around that.
Which I especially like, as I fear I might have to wait another month or two for enough cash to purchase a decent graphics card like the GTX
1060, so at least I'll have integrated graphics in the meantime to play around with and try everything else out.
Thus I come to you fine folk, as it has been a very long time since I
last built a PC, and I wonder what are good choices for the rest of
the parts - case, motherboard, storage, RAM, PSU, fans - preferably
aiming for a reasonably quiet setup, etc.
Your advice would be much appreciated. I don't care about fancy
designs and lighting. I prefer an inoffensive look that won't be out
of place in a home office.
Cheers in advance! :-)
Unfortunately my last gaming build is the machine I've just went AFK on
now - built in 2007 and updated as I could afford it.
(ASUS P5K-E/WiFi-AP, QX950, 8GB RAM [max unfortunately], Samsung 120GB SSD. HD7770 graphics [due for an upgrade soon when I can find a second-hand card that's cheap, better and doesn't pull megawatts] with a couple mechanical HDDs, a 2TB and a 3TB.)
I replied to say that I wouldn't consider a new build with only two cores (multithreading be dammned!). I consider four physical cores a bare minimum for a midrange gaming machine that's intended to last a few years. That said I didn't get my QX9650 for the first couple of years, I waited until I could get a then-obsolete NOS CPU for ~$250 and made do with an E4700 until then - which I've just this morning thrown in the rubbish as it's got zero resale value now..
Others may say different but that my opinion fwiw. And yeah, I *really* know what it's like to be on a budget but I don't regret going without other things like food and a life for a few months 10 years ago to build a machine that's lasted me this long (and should go longer with a GPU upgrade).
You say "build around that" w/r/t the CPU but I would say spend your money
to get the latest mobo with the latest interfaces / busses that you can. *That* is what you build around. My machines Achilles heel is it's RAM limit and its SATA 2 (and only PCIe 1.1 so not worth putting in a SATA 3 card). Ancillary parts can be incrementally upgraded but only as far as the mobos
IO speeds allow.
Good luck!
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
So, I'm looking around at parts to build a budget (hopefully no more
than $600 for everything but Windows 10 and the graphics card -
which promises to be the most costly part! :-\ ) gaming PC that
will replace my old and rather slow 2 core and only 2 thread setup
that is mainly limited by its absurdly low RAM limit of 4GB.
I don't need the very best performance, money is tight, and I
usually only play older games anyway. Thus I'd really like to spend
as little as possible, while still getting good performance with
the older bargain bin/discounted older games I pickup, and the
older MMOs I prefer. But I do want to future proof a bit. I don't
want to find I can't play last year's title at all, a couple years
from now, ya
know? And I'd like the option to upgrade and add a few more parts
(e.g. a CPU upgrade, more storage, a sata card to build a RAID from
cheap drives, whatever the next generation of connector is down the
road), later on as money becomes available.
Plus I'm the kind of user who has four windows of dozens of tabs
open in his web browser. That kind of behaviour has become super
slow on
my old computer.
I notice that the Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 has what seems to balance
surprisingly good performance for the Pentium brand (with 2 cores
for 4 threads in total) with a low price, e.g.
[url]https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/pentium-g4560-3-5ghz-3mb-cpu/26 >>> 608288[/url] (assuming it comes back into stock in a timely
manner). So assuming that's a good bet, I thought I'd try to build
around that. Which I especially like, as I fear I might have to
wait another month or two for enough cash to purchase a decent
graphics card like the GTX 1060, so at least I'll have integrated
graphics in the meantime to play around with and try everything
else out.
Thus I come to you fine folk, as it has been a very long time since
I last built a PC, and I wonder what are good choices for the rest
of
the parts - case, motherboard, storage, RAM, PSU, fans - preferably
aiming for a reasonably quiet setup, etc.
Your advice would be much appreciated. I don't care about fancy
designs and lighting. I prefer an inoffensive look that won't be out
of place in a home office.
Cheers in advance! :-)
Unfortunately my last gaming build is the machine I've just went AFK
on
now - built in 2007 and updated as I could afford it.
(ASUS P5K-E/WiFi-AP, QX950, 8GB RAM [max unfortunately], Samsung
120GB SSD. HD7770 graphics [due for an upgrade soon when I can find
a second-hand card that's cheap, better and doesn't pull megawatts]
with a couple mechanical HDDs, a 2TB and a 3TB.)
I replied to say that I wouldn't consider a new build with only two
cores (multithreading be dammned!). I consider four physical cores a
bare minimum for a midrange gaming machine that's intended to last a
few years. That said I didn't get my QX9650 for the first couple of
years, I waited until I could get a then-obsolete NOS CPU for ~$250
and made do with an E4700 until then - which I've just this morning
thrown in the rubbish as it's got zero resale value now..
Others may say different but that my opinion fwiw. And yeah, I
*really* know what it's like to be on a budget but I don't regret
going without other things like food and a life for a few months 10
years ago to build a machine that's lasted me this long (and should
go longer with a GPU upgrade).
You say "build around that" w/r/t the CPU but I would say spend your
money to get the latest mobo with the latest interfaces / busses
that you can. *That* is what you build around. My machines Achilles
heel is it's RAM limit and its SATA 2 (and only PCIe 1.1 so not
worth putting in a SATA 3 card). Ancillary parts can be
incrementally upgraded but only as far as the mobos IO speeds allow.
Good luck!
Yeah, I'm definitely not getting one of the cheap motherboards with
only two RAM slots, even if I can save a fair bit. At least 6 SATA connections and a couple spare PCIe slots after the graphics card is installed, is a must. Plus I'll be getting the latest lowend chipset,
not one of the overclockable ones, nor the cheaper last gen models
with BIOS updates to support the latest line of CPUs. I plan to keep
this PC cheap and low end, so that basically means locked chips and
GPU anyway, even if I upgrade later. I'm really not very keen on
fussing with overclocking, regardless. <http://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/B250M%20Pro4/index.asp#Specification>
is what I'm looking at right now.
So long as I've modest options down the road to upgrade the processor, graphics, add storage, and a PCIe card or two, and the motherboard can
handle the upgrades, I feel I'll be happy enough.
My feeling is I start with the Pentium G4560 and no discrete graphics
card. For storage I'll begin with a cheap regular HD with plenty of
storage. A month or two down the road, if I'm happy with everything
else, I'll pay the now too hefty price for a GTX 1060 or if I can't
afford that and am done waiting - the GTX 1050 Ti. Then I'll upgrade
the CPU next year if I feel it's holding me back. Later - whenever
money allows - I'd like to buy an M.2 NVME SSD as a superfast boot
disk. Then add more SSDs via SATA for faster game storage, with the
original HD just used to hold my iTunes library and the like -
anything I don't need SSD access speed for.
Right now I'm struggling to meet my $600 budget for a decent beginning
set of parts. At least if I want a decent setup that'll go the
distance. I hate to go rock bottom and hit upgrade walls later on -
you're dead right about that :-) I might wait another couple weeks,
and try to gather another $50 or so, which should see me right.
Better to wait a wee while longer, than make compromises I'll regret
later, eh?
Still, at least I have _some_ budget for a new gaming machine. Every
time I thought I'd have some spare cash to do this in the past five
years I've been keen on a new gaming capable computer, I ended up
having to spend it elsewhere on a higher priority.
I know it's a total first world problem, but the last time I was able
to actually play and enjoy the latest releases (if only on low to
medium graphical settings), was 10 freaking years ago. Even WoW
basically became unplayable a couple years after that :-\
Well, not counting my 3DS, though one could hardly call that bleeding
edge, heh. But at least it allows me to play some online games with
others in games whose age isn't in double figures.
I really have begun to miss being able to share in some of latest or
even semi-old the PC desktop gaming experiences others are having. I
mean I love Diablo 2, heh, but I'm told there have been a few new
action RPGs worth playing, released since then, eh? LOL.
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
So, I'm looking around at parts to build a budget (hopefully no more
than $600 for everything but Windows 10 and the graphics card -
which promises to be the most costly part! :-\ ) gaming PC that
will replace my old and rather slow 2 core and only 2 thread setup
that is mainly limited by its absurdly low RAM limit of 4GB.
I don't need the very best performance, money is tight, and I
usually only play older games anyway. Thus I'd really like to spend
as little as possible, while still getting good performance with
the older bargain bin/discounted older games I pickup, and the
older MMOs I prefer. But I do want to future proof a bit. I don't
want to find I can't play last year's title at all, a couple years
from now, ya
know? And I'd like the option to upgrade and add a few more parts
(e.g. a CPU upgrade, more storage, a sata card to build a RAID from
cheap drives, whatever the next generation of connector is down the
road), later on as money becomes available.
Plus I'm the kind of user who has four windows of dozens of tabs
open in his web browser. That kind of behaviour has become super
slow on
my old computer.
I notice that the Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 has what seems to balance
surprisingly good performance for the Pentium brand (with 2 cores
for 4 threads in total) with a low price, e.g.
[url]https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/pentium-g4560-3-5ghz-3mb-cpu/26 >>> 608288[/url] (assuming it comes back into stock in a timely
manner). So assuming that's a good bet, I thought I'd try to build
around that. Which I especially like, as I fear I might have to
wait another month or two for enough cash to purchase a decent
graphics card like the GTX 1060, so at least I'll have integrated
graphics in the meantime to play around with and try everything
else out.
Thus I come to you fine folk, as it has been a very long time since
I last built a PC, and I wonder what are good choices for the rest
of
the parts - case, motherboard, storage, RAM, PSU, fans - preferably
aiming for a reasonably quiet setup, etc.
Your advice would be much appreciated. I don't care about fancy
designs and lighting. I prefer an inoffensive look that won't be out
of place in a home office.
Cheers in advance! :-)
Unfortunately my last gaming build is the machine I've just went AFK
on
now - built in 2007 and updated as I could afford it.
(ASUS P5K-E/WiFi-AP, QX950, 8GB RAM [max unfortunately], Samsung
120GB SSD. HD7770 graphics [due for an upgrade soon when I can find
a second-hand card that's cheap, better and doesn't pull megawatts]
with a couple mechanical HDDs, a 2TB and a 3TB.)
I replied to say that I wouldn't consider a new build with only two
cores (multithreading be dammned!). I consider four physical cores a
bare minimum for a midrange gaming machine that's intended to last a
few years. That said I didn't get my QX9650 for the first couple of
years, I waited until I could get a then-obsolete NOS CPU for ~$250
and made do with an E4700 until then - which I've just this morning
thrown in the rubbish as it's got zero resale value now..
Others may say different but that my opinion fwiw. And yeah, I
*really* know what it's like to be on a budget but I don't regret
going without other things like food and a life for a few months 10
years ago to build a machine that's lasted me this long (and should
go longer with a GPU upgrade).
You say "build around that" w/r/t the CPU but I would say spend your
money to get the latest mobo with the latest interfaces / busses
that you can. *That* is what you build around. My machines Achilles
heel is it's RAM limit and its SATA 2 (and only PCIe 1.1 so not
worth putting in a SATA 3 card). Ancillary parts can be
incrementally upgraded but only as far as the mobos IO speeds allow.
Good luck!
Yeah, I'm definitely not getting one of the cheap motherboards with
only two RAM slots, even if I can save a fair bit. At least 6 SATA connections and a couple spare PCIe slots after the graphics card is installed, is a must. Plus I'll be getting the latest lowend chipset,
not one of the overclockable ones, nor the cheaper last gen models
with BIOS updates to support the latest line of CPUs. I plan to keep
this PC cheap and low end, so that basically means locked chips and
GPU anyway, even if I upgrade later. I'm really not very keen on
fussing with overclocking, regardless. <http://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/B250M%20Pro4/index.asp#Specification>
is what I'm looking at right now.
So long as I've modest options down the road to upgrade the processor, graphics, add storage, and a PCIe card or two, and the motherboard can handle the upgrades, I feel I'll be happy enough.
My feeling is I start with the Pentium G4560 and no discrete graphics
card. For storage I'll begin with a cheap regular HD with plenty of storage. A month or two down the road, if I'm happy with everything
else, I'll pay the now too hefty price for a GTX 1060 or if I can't
afford that and am done waiting - the GTX 1050 Ti. Then I'll upgrade
the CPU next year if I feel it's holding me back. Later - whenever
money allows - I'd like to buy an M.2 NVME SSD as a superfast boot
disk. Then add more SSDs via SATA for faster game storage, with the original HD just used to hold my iTunes library and the like -
anything I don't need SSD access speed for.
Right now I'm struggling to meet my $600 budget for a decent beginning
set of parts. At least if I want a decent setup that'll go the
distance. I hate to go rock bottom and hit upgrade walls later on -
you're dead right about that :-) I might wait another couple weeks,
and try to gather another $50 or so, which should see me right.
Better to wait a wee while longer, than make compromises I'll regret
later, eh?
Still, at least I have _some_ budget for a new gaming machine. Every
time I thought I'd have some spare cash to do this in the past five
years I've been keen on a new gaming capable computer, I ended up
having to spend it elsewhere on a higher priority.
I know it's a total first world problem, but the last time I was able
to actually play and enjoy the latest releases (if only on low to
medium graphical settings), was 10 freaking years ago. Even WoW
basically became unplayable a couple years after that :-\
Well, not counting my 3DS, though one could hardly call that bleeding
edge, heh. But at least it allows me to play some online games with
others in games whose age isn't in double figures.
I really have begun to miss being able to share in some of latest or
even semi-old the PC desktop gaming experiences others are having. I
mean I love Diablo 2, heh, but I'm told there have been a few new
action RPGs worth playing, released since then, eh? LOL.
Heh! Sorry for the late reply.
Sounds like a plan. My method was always to get the best motherboard I could and them go from there, often getting 'place-holder' parts along the way. Even if you can't build a machine all at once often it's best to make a
start at getting components before life throws up something else that
demands the money be spent elsewhere...
I would suggest a cheapish SSD as mandatory for OS / games from the start though (I've been using 120GB Samsung Evo SSDs). It's amazing how much more playable most games become when I/O lag is minimalised. The benefit can be more than having a faster GPU in some cases.
Good luck.
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
So, I'm looking around at parts to build a budget (hopefully no
more than $600 for everything but Windows 10 and the graphics
card - which promises to be the most costly part! :-\ ) gaming PC
that will replace my old and rather slow 2 core and only 2 thread
setup that is mainly limited by its absurdly low RAM limit of 4GB.
I don't need the very best performance, money is tight, and I
usually only play older games anyway. Thus I'd really like to
spend as little as possible, while still getting good performance
with the older bargain bin/discounted older games I pickup, and
the older MMOs I prefer. But I do want to future proof a bit. I
don't want to find I can't play last year's title at all, a
couple years from now, ya
know? And I'd like the option to upgrade and add a few more parts
(e.g. a CPU upgrade, more storage, a sata card to build a RAID
from cheap drives, whatever the next generation of connector is
down the road), later on as money becomes available.
Plus I'm the kind of user who has four windows of dozens of tabs
open in his web browser. That kind of behaviour has become super
slow on
my old computer.
I notice that the Kaby Lake Pentium G4560 has what seems to
balance surprisingly good performance for the Pentium brand (with
2 cores for 4 threads in total) with a low price, e.g.
[url]https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/pentium-g4560-3-5ghz-3mb-cpu/26 >>>>> 608288[/url] (assuming it comes back into stock in a timely
manner). So assuming that's a good bet, I thought I'd try to build
around that. Which I especially like, as I fear I might have to
wait another month or two for enough cash to purchase a decent
graphics card like the GTX 1060, so at least I'll have integrated
graphics in the meantime to play around with and try everything
else out.
Thus I come to you fine folk, as it has been a very long time
since I last built a PC, and I wonder what are good choices for
the rest of
the parts - case, motherboard, storage, RAM, PSU, fans -
preferably aiming for a reasonably quiet setup, etc.
Your advice would be much appreciated. I don't care about fancy
designs and lighting. I prefer an inoffensive look that won't be
out of place in a home office.
Cheers in advance! :-)
Unfortunately my last gaming build is the machine I've just went
AFK on
now - built in 2007 and updated as I could afford it.
(ASUS P5K-E/WiFi-AP, QX950, 8GB RAM [max unfortunately], Samsung
120GB SSD. HD7770 graphics [due for an upgrade soon when I can find
a second-hand card that's cheap, better and doesn't pull megawatts]
with a couple mechanical HDDs, a 2TB and a 3TB.)
I replied to say that I wouldn't consider a new build with only two
cores (multithreading be dammned!). I consider four physical cores
a bare minimum for a midrange gaming machine that's intended to
last a few years. That said I didn't get my QX9650 for the first
couple of years, I waited until I could get a then-obsolete NOS
CPU for ~$250 and made do with an E4700 until then - which I've
just this morning thrown in the rubbish as it's got zero resale
value now..
Others may say different but that my opinion fwiw. And yeah, I
*really* know what it's like to be on a budget but I don't regret
going without other things like food and a life for a few months 10
years ago to build a machine that's lasted me this long (and should
go longer with a GPU upgrade).
You say "build around that" w/r/t the CPU but I would say spend
your money to get the latest mobo with the latest interfaces /
busses that you can. *That* is what you build around. My machines
Achilles heel is it's RAM limit and its SATA 2 (and only PCIe 1.1
so not worth putting in a SATA 3 card). Ancillary parts can be
incrementally upgraded but only as far as the mobos IO speeds
allow.
Good luck!
Yeah, I'm definitely not getting one of the cheap motherboards with
only two RAM slots, even if I can save a fair bit. At least 6 SATA
connections and a couple spare PCIe slots after the graphics card is
installed, is a must. Plus I'll be getting the latest lowend
chipset, not one of the overclockable ones, nor the cheaper last
gen models with BIOS updates to support the latest line of CPUs. I
plan to keep this PC cheap and low end, so that basically means
locked chips and GPU anyway, even if I upgrade later. I'm really
not very keen on fussing with overclocking, regardless.
<http://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/B250M%20Pro4/index.asp#Specification>
is what I'm looking at right now.
So long as I've modest options down the road to upgrade the
processor, graphics, add storage, and a PCIe card or two, and the
motherboard can handle the upgrades, I feel I'll be happy enough.
My feeling is I start with the Pentium G4560 and no discrete
graphics card. For storage I'll begin with a cheap regular HD with
plenty of storage. A month or two down the road, if I'm happy with
everything else, I'll pay the now too hefty price for a GTX 1060 or
if I can't afford that and am done waiting - the GTX 1050 Ti. Then
I'll upgrade the CPU next year if I feel it's holding me back.
Later - whenever money allows - I'd like to buy an M.2 NVME SSD as
a superfast boot disk. Then add more SSDs via SATA for faster game
storage, with the original HD just used to hold my iTunes library
and the like - anything I don't need SSD access speed for.
Right now I'm struggling to meet my $600 budget for a decent
beginning set of parts. At least if I want a decent setup that'll
go the distance. I hate to go rock bottom and hit upgrade walls
later on - you're dead right about that :-) I might wait another
couple weeks, and try to gather another $50 or so, which should see
me right. Better to wait a wee while longer, than make compromises
I'll regret later, eh?
Still, at least I have _some_ budget for a new gaming machine. Every
time I thought I'd have some spare cash to do this in the past five
years I've been keen on a new gaming capable computer, I ended up
having to spend it elsewhere on a higher priority.
I know it's a total first world problem, but the last time I was
able to actually play and enjoy the latest releases (if only on low
to medium graphical settings), was 10 freaking years ago. Even WoW
basically became unplayable a couple years after that :-\
Well, not counting my 3DS, though one could hardly call that
bleeding edge, heh. But at least it allows me to play some online
games with others in games whose age isn't in double figures.
I really have begun to miss being able to share in some of latest or
even semi-old the PC desktop gaming experiences others are having. I
mean I love Diablo 2, heh, but I'm told there have been a few new
action RPGs worth playing, released since then, eh? LOL.
Heh! Sorry for the late reply.
Sounds like a plan. My method was always to get the best motherboard
I could and them go from there, often getting 'place-holder' parts
along the way. Even if you can't build a machine all at once often
it's best to make a start at getting components before life throws
up something else that demands the money be spent elsewhere...
I would suggest a cheapish SSD as mandatory for OS / games from the
start though (I've been using 120GB Samsung Evo SSDs). It's amazing
how much more playable most games become when I/O lag is
minimalised. The benefit can be more than having a faster GPU in
some cases.
Good luck.
No worries, mate :-) I'm taking ages to save a bit more, anyway. So
I've only bought the CPU (Pentium G4560), power supply (FSP
HYDRO-600W PSU), case (Silverstone Precision Series PS09B Mini Tower
Case), and a dirt cheap $24 Asus Internal Optical Drive. Then my
money ran out, heh. I had an extra bill to pay the other week, or I'd
have at least one other major component by now. But that's life, eh?
Heh.
No sense waiting since I had found good prices on all the above, and
didn't want to miss out. The Pentium has already climbed another $10.
I only need the motherboard, RAM, and an SSD (Yeah, I changed my mind
there and am going for an SSD first - you're right that it's a sweet performance boost and I'd be hobbling myself with a boot HD. Though I
could clone a boot HD to SSD later, the cost difference is only a
little bit to save) to begin the build. I want to wait till I can
afford a decent sized SSD, as right now only a bottom rung 120GB
model is within my price range, and for best price per GB and
reasonable storage space,
I'm better off getting at least a around a
500GB model.
Later I'll add a regular HD or two (depending on price - I figure can
always combine them using RAID) for my iTunes library, documents,
BitTorrent files, videos, images, etc. And then another larger HD for
backup. Since everything is already on my current computer and backed
up from there, I feel I can safely be a bit lapse with backup on the
new PC, till I fully transition to it being my main computer, anyway.
The Graphics card will have to wait till next year. Maybe it can be my
April birthday present to myself. I cannot find any that are decent performance/value at anything close to actual MSRP :-( Damn you
Bitcoin mining! And it seems pointless wasting money on a very low
end card that would only be a slight improvement over the Pentium's integrated graphics (which actually still blow my current computer's
graphics system out of the water, heh, so it's not like the Pentium's integrated graphics won't still feel like a big upgrade to me! :-) ).
Anyway - that's the new slightly modified plan that is taking shape.
I'm happy - I tell myself - if I can at least buy one part per week,
heh. Even if last week it was only a $24 optical drive. This week
it'll be the ASRock B250M Pro4 motherboard (yeah - not the greatest,
but I don't plan on ever overclocking, as I said, and it is only
lacking in SATA ports for my modest needs, and a SATA PCIe card will
sort that for the future), providing my week pans out financially.
It's price hasn't changed at all since I started looking, so I might
as well. Or RAM if there's a nice special.
I'm not sure whether I'll begin with 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB RAM. I know I
can get a wee performance boost from matched pairs, but then again I'd
be happier, I think, to fill out all four slots with 8GB sticks over
time, as I have never ever had enough RAM on any of my computers. And
8GB sticks are affordable. But 16GB sticks are out of my price range value-wise.
What d'ya reckon?
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:[snip]
I only need the motherboard, RAM, and an SSD (Yeah, I changed my mind
there and am going for an SSD first - you're right that it's a sweet performance boost and I'd be hobbling myself with a boot HD. Though I
could clone a boot HD to SSD later, the cost difference is only a
little bit to save) to begin the build. I want to wait till I can
afford a decent sized SSD, as right now only a bottom rung 120GB
model is within my price range, and for best price per GB and
reasonable storage space,
Storage space? I only keep OS and game files on my SSD, all other files (including office type programm files) go to a mechanical HDD - I have a second 'Program Files' folder on my mech HDD for non-critical programmes. I make changes to Windows so that its default save paths and user files
folders go to the main data drive. I find a 120GB SSD to be enough but then again I only really play PoE (though I still have D3 and a few others installed).
I'm not sure whether I'll begin with 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB RAM. I know I
can get a wee performance boost from matched pairs, but then again I'd
be happier, I think, to fill out all four slots with 8GB sticks over
time, as I have never ever had enough RAM on any of my computers. And
8GB sticks are affordable. But 16GB sticks are out of my price range value-wise.
What d'ya reckon?
I wouldn't get 2 x 4GB. That sort of purchase usually ends up costing money in the long run as you increase RAM and need to use larger DIMMs. The small short-term advantage gained from running dual channel isn't worth the long-term $$ loss IMO.
8 GB sticks would be the best bet, start with one of you need to. I'd say that ultimately 4 x 8 GB should be enough for the forseeable future - though if it isn't (years down the track) then 16 GB DIMMs are likely to be cheap
as chips. ;)
Cheers,
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:[snip]
I only need the motherboard, RAM, and an SSD (Yeah, I changed my
mind there and am going for an SSD first - you're right that it's a
sweet performance boost and I'd be hobbling myself with a boot HD.
Though I could clone a boot HD to SSD later, the cost difference is
only a little bit to save) to begin the build. I want to wait till
I can afford a decent sized SSD, as right now only a bottom rung
120GB model is within my price range, and for best price per GB and
reasonable storage space,
Storage space? I only keep OS and game files on my SSD, all other
files (including office type programm files) go to a mechanical HDD
- I have a second 'Program Files' folder on my mech HDD for
non-critical programmes. I make changes to Windows so that its
default save paths and user files folders go to the main data drive.
I find a 120GB SSD to be enough but then again I only really play
PoE (though I still have D3 and a few others installed).
Room to grow without the hassle of managing where I install apps, was
my thinking. Though I had another thought last night - maybe go a
smaller cheaper boot SSD, and add SSHDs (those HDs with a small SSD
cache in one unit, that I see are a bit pricier than HDs, but can
have performance closer to SSDs once the cache learns what the user
access most frequently) for additional game and file storage. Hmmm...
You could be right, regardless. I took a look at my other older
Windows installs, and none of them exceed 80GB for just the OS and
installed non-game apps. I might compromise on a 240-256GB boot SSD.
That way I won't feel unduly constrained. I might not have exceeded
80GB in the past, but I still like to leave adequate free space for
VM and large file copying, etc. And I admit I get nervy going up
against storage limits, as it used to cause a lot more issues back in
the day.
[snip]
I'm not sure whether I'll begin with 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB RAM. I know
I can get a wee performance boost from matched pairs, but then
again I'd be happier, I think, to fill out all four slots with 8GB
sticks over time, as I have never ever had enough RAM on any of my
computers. And 8GB sticks are affordable. But 16GB sticks are out
of my price range value-wise.
What d'ya reckon?
I wouldn't get 2 x 4GB. That sort of purchase usually ends up
costing money in the long run as you increase RAM and need to use
larger DIMMs. The small short-term advantage gained from running
dual channel isn't worth the long-term $$ loss IMO.
8 GB sticks would be the best bet, start with one of you need to.
I'd say that ultimately 4 x 8 GB should be enough for the forseeable
future - though if it isn't (years down the track) then 16 GB DIMMs
are likely to be cheap as chips. ;)
Cheers,
If I go 8GB for each stick, I'll have to start with one stick to begin
with, I reckon. Cause I even forgot I'd paid for Win 10 on USB the
other week. It was on special for only $138 at Mighty Ape, and I
figured I might as well, cause I'd not be happy with the demo version.
I honestly don't know how these other Kiwis who claim they've built a
new gaming PC for $500 ever managed. $500 USD maybe! Not NZD! Heh.
I'm thinking I'll be spending about $1000 once I'm finished with all
the RAM, drives, and eventual graphics card. Budget severely blown,
but at least I've time to save for everything I'll want, and can get
going before I've completed the build.
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:[snip]
I only need the motherboard, RAM, and an SSD (Yeah, I changed my
mind there and am going for an SSD first - you're right that it's a
sweet performance boost and I'd be hobbling myself with a boot HD.
Though I could clone a boot HD to SSD later, the cost difference is
only a little bit to save) to begin the build. I want to wait till
I can afford a decent sized SSD, as right now only a bottom rung
120GB model is within my price range, and for best price per GB and
reasonable storage space,
Storage space? I only keep OS and game files on my SSD, all other
files (including office type programm files) go to a mechanical HDD
- I have a second 'Program Files' folder on my mech HDD for
non-critical programmes. I make changes to Windows so that its
default save paths and user files folders go to the main data drive.
I find a 120GB SSD to be enough but then again I only really play
PoE (though I still have D3 and a few others installed).
Room to grow without the hassle of managing where I install apps, was
my thinking. Though I had another thought last night - maybe go a
smaller cheaper boot SSD, and add SSHDs (those HDs with a small SSD
cache in one unit, that I see are a bit pricier than HDs, but can
have performance closer to SSDs once the cache learns what the user
access most frequently) for additional game and file storage. Hmmm...
I've been using Seagates Momentus XT 'SSHD' drives in laptops for a while
now and they're certainly not even close to an SSD. Then again they only use 4 or 8 GB SSD cache - I see desktop versions use up to 32GB.
You could be right, regardless. I took a look at my other older
Windows installs, and none of them exceed 80GB for just the OS and installed non-game apps. I might compromise on a 240-256GB boot SSD.
That way I won't feel unduly constrained. I might not have exceeded
80GB in the past, but I still like to leave adequate free space for
VM and large file copying, etc. And I admit I get nervy going up
against storage limits, as it used to cause a lot more issues back in
the day.
Yep, understand that.
[snip]
I'm not sure whether I'll begin with 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB RAM. I know
I can get a wee performance boost from matched pairs, but then
again I'd be happier, I think, to fill out all four slots with 8GB
sticks over time, as I have never ever had enough RAM on any of my
computers. And 8GB sticks are affordable. But 16GB sticks are out
of my price range value-wise.
What d'ya reckon?
I wouldn't get 2 x 4GB. That sort of purchase usually ends up
costing money in the long run as you increase RAM and need to use
larger DIMMs. The small short-term advantage gained from running
dual channel isn't worth the long-term $$ loss IMO.
8 GB sticks would be the best bet, start with one of you need to.
I'd say that ultimately 4 x 8 GB should be enough for the forseeable
future - though if it isn't (years down the track) then 16 GB DIMMs
are likely to be cheap as chips. ;)
Cheers,
If I go 8GB for each stick, I'll have to start with one stick to begin with, I reckon. Cause I even forgot I'd paid for Win 10 on USB the
other week. It was on special for only $138 at Mighty Ape, and I
figured I might as well, cause I'd not be happy with the demo version.
One stick's a good start IMO.
I honestly don't know how these other Kiwis who claim they've built a
new gaming PC for $500 ever managed. $500 USD maybe! Not NZD! Heh.
Yeah - unless by 'gaming' they mean Solitaire. ;)
I'm thinking I'll be spending about $1000 once I'm finished with all
the RAM, drives, and eventual graphics card. Budget severely blown,
but at least I've time to save for everything I'll want, and can get
going before I've completed the build.
My 2007 build ended up costing me over $1,500 by the time I got the QX9650 and the maximum 8 GB RAM in 2009. Oh more than that - it's on it's second
PSU as the first struggled when I got the quad and a halfway-decent GPU.
There's another tip - don't skimp on the PSU. Get a good brand and ~30% bigger than you think you'll need. Even if you never need the capacity headroom's always good and under-stressing makes for better longevity.
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:[snip]
I only need the motherboard, RAM, and an SSD (Yeah, I changed my
mind there and am going for an SSD first - you're right that it's a
sweet performance boost and I'd be hobbling myself with a boot HD.
Though I could clone a boot HD to SSD later, the cost difference is
only a little bit to save) to begin the build. I want to wait till
I can afford a decent sized SSD, as right now only a bottom rung
120GB model is within my price range, and for best price per GB and
reasonable storage space,
Storage space? I only keep OS and game files on my SSD, all other
files (including office type programm files) go to a mechanical HDD
- I have a second 'Program Files' folder on my mech HDD for
non-critical programmes. I make changes to Windows so that its
default save paths and user files folders go to the main data drive.
I find a 120GB SSD to be enough but then again I only really play
PoE (though I still have D3 and a few others installed).
Room to grow without the hassle of managing where I install apps, was
my thinking. Though I had another thought last night - maybe go a
smaller cheaper boot SSD, and add SSHDs (those HDs with a small SSD
cache in one unit, that I see are a bit pricier than HDs, but can
have performance closer to SSDs once the cache learns what the user
access most frequently) for additional game and file storage. Hmmm...
I've been using Seagates Momentus XT 'SSHD' drives in laptops for a while
now and they're certainly not even close to an SSD. Then again they only use 4 or 8 GB SSD cache - I see desktop versions use up to 32GB.
You could be right, regardless. I took a look at my other older
Windows installs, and none of them exceed 80GB for just the OS and
installed non-game apps. I might compromise on a 240-256GB boot SSD.
That way I won't feel unduly constrained. I might not have exceeded
80GB in the past, but I still like to leave adequate free space for
VM and large file copying, etc. And I admit I get nervy going up
against storage limits, as it used to cause a lot more issues back in
the day.
Yep, understand that.
[snip]
I'm not sure whether I'll begin with 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB RAM. I know
I can get a wee performance boost from matched pairs, but then
again I'd be happier, I think, to fill out all four slots with 8GB
sticks over time, as I have never ever had enough RAM on any of my
computers. And 8GB sticks are affordable. But 16GB sticks are out
of my price range value-wise.
What d'ya reckon?
I wouldn't get 2 x 4GB. That sort of purchase usually ends up
costing money in the long run as you increase RAM and need to use
larger DIMMs. The small short-term advantage gained from running
dual channel isn't worth the long-term $$ loss IMO.
8 GB sticks would be the best bet, start with one of you need to.
I'd say that ultimately 4 x 8 GB should be enough for the forseeable
future - though if it isn't (years down the track) then 16 GB DIMMs
are likely to be cheap as chips. ;)
Cheers,
If I go 8GB for each stick, I'll have to start with one stick to begin
with, I reckon. Cause I even forgot I'd paid for Win 10 on USB the
other week. It was on special for only $138 at Mighty Ape, and I
figured I might as well, cause I'd not be happy with the demo version.
One stick's a good start IMO.
I honestly don't know how these other Kiwis who claim they've built a
new gaming PC for $500 ever managed. $500 USD maybe! Not NZD! Heh.
Yeah - unless by 'gaming' they mean Solitaire. ;)
I'm thinking I'll be spending about $1000 once I'm finished with all
the RAM, drives, and eventual graphics card. Budget severely blown,
but at least I've time to save for everything I'll want, and can get
going before I've completed the build.
My 2007 build ended up costing me over $1,500 by the time I got the QX9650 and the maximum 8 GB RAM in 2009. Oh more than that - it's on it's second
PSU as the first struggled when I got the quad and a halfway-decent GPU.
There's another tip - don't skimp on the PSU. Get a good brand and ~30% bigger than you think you'll need. Even if you never need the capacity headroom's always good and under-stressing makes for better longevity.
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:[snipped heaps]
My 2007 build ended up costing me over $1,500 by the time I got the
QX9650 and the maximum 8 GB RAM in 2009. Oh more than that - it's on
it's second PSU as the first struggled when I got the quad and a
halfway-decent GPU.
Heh, I spend $5000 in 2007 (back when I had more work, and medical
bills were fewer and smaller). Bit silly, really. But it still works,
and it's mainly the slowness due to limited RAM and ancient graphics
that hold it back. I don't think I'll try to make another desktop
last ten years!
There's another tip - don't skimp on the PSU. Get a good brand and
~30% bigger than you think you'll need. Even if you never need the
capacity headroom's always good and under-stressing makes for better
longevity.
Yup, I calculated I'd get by with maybe 450W. I bought the FSP
HYDRO-600W PSU, to give me plenty of room to grow. Cause (based on
how I expanded storage last time around) I know I'll most likely add
a SATA card, and maybe another card for whatever new IO standard
comes out in the next few years. And I always add USB gadgets to my
workspace - I've actually got six USB hubs attached to my old desktop
:-D
Once upon a time on usenet Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:[snipped heaps]
My 2007 build ended up costing me over $1,500 by the time I got the
QX9650 and the maximum 8 GB RAM in 2009. Oh more than that - it's on
it's second PSU as the first struggled when I got the quad and a
halfway-decent GPU.
Heh, I spend $5000 in 2007 (back when I had more work, and medical
bills were fewer and smaller). Bit silly, really. But it still works,
and it's mainly the slowness due to limited RAM and ancient graphics
that hold it back. I don't think I'll try to make another desktop
last ten years!
Sorry, meant to reply weeks ago but haven't checked the relevant groups lately due to low posts.
I dare say that if you'd spent that $5K on a PC rather than a Mac you'd have done a lot better w/r/t upgrade options. My 2007 PC desktop is still going strong with power to spare and I can upgrade the GPU (currently HD7770)
quite a way yet if I feel the need. I'm hoping to get at least another 5 years out of it <fingers crossed due to generally bad luck> as nothing I do with it now comes close to being hardware-limited.
I think that if I was to buy again now careful buying could see me through another decade easilly.
There's another tip - don't skimp on the PSU. Get a good brand and
~30% bigger than you think you'll need. Even if you never need the
capacity headroom's always good and under-stressing makes for better
longevity.
Yup, I calculated I'd get by with maybe 450W. I bought the FSP
HYDRO-600W PSU, to give me plenty of room to grow. Cause (based on
how I expanded storage last time around) I know I'll most likely add
a SATA card, and maybe another card for whatever new IO standard
comes out in the next few years. And I always add USB gadgets to my
workspace - I've actually got six USB hubs attached to my old desktop
:-D
I'm running a 750w PSU that cost me around $220 or so. I bought it after a few hours research about two years ago and figured it'd likely see this computer through to obsolescence.
Cheers,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 80:11:26 |
| Calls: | 8,359 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,162 |
| Messages: | 5,895,840 |