Buying or building a new PC 1

[danno74]

Greetings!

I'm an old-school PC guy who up until this point had always put together my own PC. It was fun and at the time, slightly cheaper (and more reliable) than a prefab PC. Plus you could overclock.

Last time I made one was 2001, and that PC is getting alittle old and slow for my needs and upgrades. I want to do some serious DVD burning (I have Tivo, and with their software can record shows from TV).

My techie friends have differing views, but the one I trust the most says go prefab since they can get parts cheaper, that will usually win out price wise. I'm the network engineer at work, and we've had great luck the 3+ yrs here with the Dells we buy, so I was leaning towards that route. $799 for a Dimension 5100, P4 531, 3GHZ, 1MB cache, 800 mhz fsb, 512 RAM, 160 GB HD, 128 MB ATI Radeon X300SE. CD Burner (I have a DVD burner). No monitor.

I have a copy of WinXP Pro, and I'm not sure if I could buy a prefab PC w/o the OS.

I know I could go investigate and probably come to a conclusion, but thought I'd gather some opinions.

Thanks.

 

[cdogg]

Yes, prefab will be cheaper in most situations. However, I just built the following PC for less than $900:

- Athlon 64 3200+ Venice core
- Gigabyte K8N-Ultra SLI socket 939 motherboard
- Gigabyte GeForce 6600GT
- 2-80GB Seagate SATA drives that support NCQ in Raid 0 array
- 1GB OCZ PC3200 DDR-SDRAM Gold edition (copper heat spreaders) - latency at 2-2-2-5
- NEC 3540a DVD burner
- Lite-ON DVD/CD-RW combo drive

In addition to that list, add about $75 for the PC case and a few accessories. This price doesn't include the OS either.

Building this myself, I was able to tweak smaller components that Dell and others can't do for you (such as the RAM latency or brand of hard drive). If you were to match every part with what Dell was giving you, Dell would win. But as soon as you throw certain upgrades into the mix, like XP Pro or a DVD burner, all of sudden you see how much they are overcharging you. Plus, the motherboard has more features such as SLI, giving me more future upgrade options. Since Dell doesn't work with AMD, future upgrades on CPU's will be slim (Socket 939 will be around for quite some time, also giving me access to Athlon 64 X2 dual-CPU's).

To build the kind of system I want, I can do it cheaper than Dell and come out with a faster PC.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Bullnuts]

The Dells work great and the price is very competitive. For business I always buy the Optiplex series. For basic Home PC's I suggest the Dimensions.

Buying brand name PC's might not get you the fastest PC, but there are usually a very compatible. Plus the benefit that Dell does not use AMD processors, you don’t have to worry about your cpu cooking all the time. Another benefit is that there are great support forums, and usually you get OEM pricing on the OS, which saves a small fortune.

If you like fooling with bus speeds, Memory speeds, Mainboard chipsets, PCI irq's/dma's build your own and enjoy it!

 

[traycee]

I believe that if you are capable of building and taking care of your own system, that is the best way to go. You can configure your system to give you exactly what you want and you know exactly what you've got in it. Plus, you don't have to spend 3 hours on the phone with someone in another country in order to get a part that is supposed to be covered under warranty. The majority of manufacturers warranty the parts for one year. And it's definitely cheaper to replace parts on an open sytem than on a proprietary system. Have you ever tried to replace a motherboard on a Dell. Your looking at around $300. On an open system, around $80. Plus you can get the parts faster for an open system.

Of course, this is assuming the person doing the building is capable of maintaining their system. Otherwise, a propietary system may be the best. It just isn't the best choice for me.

Also, at home I have two custom builds, one is the Athlon 64 and the other is a Pentium IV and guess what? They both work great. Never have trouble with either chip locking up. That wouldn't be a chip issue anyway, that would be a software issue or misconfigured or bad hardware issue.

Also, at work we build all of our company's computers ourselves Why? Because we get a faster, better computer when the brand names are on the inside then on the outside, cost is relatively the same. But we find it is cheaper and easier to warranty ourselves.

Ya know, there is some truth to the saying that you only get what you pay for. In the end, though, I think the answers you get will be fairly biased and based by each persons individual expierences are.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[cdogg]

Plus the benefit that Dell does not use AMD processors, you don’t have to worry about your cpu cooking all the time. Another benefit is that there are great support forums, and usually you get OEM pricing on the OS, which saves a small fortune.

First of all, about the CPU temps... It's an old comparison between Intel and AMD, when you say that AMD runs hotter. This was true mostly back in the days of the PIII and Athlon Thunderbird. The Thunderbirds back then ran much hotter.

Nowadays, they're about equal, but the new Intel CPU's are actually much, much hotter than the newest AMD's. Check the temp specs on this chart:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/images/cpu_history_big.gif

And finally, you can buy OEM versions of Windows anywhere, like

http://www.newegg.com.

The one disadvantage of OEM, some people don't realize, is that it cannot be transferred from one PC to another unlike the retail version.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[paparazi]

Bullnuts
Opinions are what this forum is all about but as a professional forum member we do expect a degree of accuracy in an opinion and not just plain prejudice based on lack of knowledge for a certain product range.
If you haven't been keeping an eye on recent technology let me inform you the boot is on the other foot, it's Intel that have the heat issues at the moment not AMD.
Intel have redeemed themselves recently with the introduction of the new 600 series P4 that aren't quite as hot but even these newer CPU's run warmer and use more power than their AMD A64 equivelents.

Despite this I accept that P4's do have a slight edge when it comes to video encoding so in danno74's case I would still go the Intel P4 route (one of the newer 600 series)
You might want to consider dual core, again suited to this particular discipline, I believe Intel make a very reasonably priced 2.8 with dual core.

The choice of wether to build yourself comes down to, do you want the pleasure and knowledge you will gain and the chance to cherry pick exactly what you want?
I have to say though, it's likely going to cost you more.

Martin



We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

...And by the way, I'm not a mad AMD freak as it may seem! I have actually always bought and recommended Intel up until recently within the last 2 years.

Intel systems are just as reliable, if not more. The only beef I have when making recommendations to my customers is considering their upgrade path. AMD not only is cheaper to begin with, but it also saves you money down the road giving you access to a plethora of upgrade options. Intel seems to change it's FSB or socket architecture too often, leading to shorter lifespans of a motherboard.

Look at how long AMD's Socket A lasted in comparison!

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[rvnguy]

danno74,

I will be dating myself but anyway:

Older systems from Dell, Compaq, HP and the like were fraught with proprietary stuff that limited/demanded that updrading be acomplished with their components. I believe some of this has changed.

With the number of changes and rate of change having the capability and access to newer BIOS versions is a great advantage (I think most pre-fabs still use their own custom BIOS's) so that you are at their mercy as to when or if they will provide one newer.

As you are competent to build your own for personal use, you can and will probably come to a answer that is satisfactory to you. Try taking the $799 box and add the upgrades that you desire/need and compare this total cost to one that you might build. Also, most prefabs are in cramped cases that sometimes limit expandability.

Intel or AMD....your choice. But there are some excellent points already made as to life cycle.

rvnguy

"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[drunkrider]

I agree with most of the guys here. Although building your own PC may be slightly more expensive up front, it leaves a lot more room for expansion and in the long run may be cheaper on you if go with gradual upgrades.

Choosing your own parts can actually make for a much more reliable system, and for overclockers, it's really the only way to go.

I would also recommend using some of the performance and price guides when evaluating how much bang you're getting for your buck. The best ones I've found are at

http://www.anandtech.com.

This is really about the best place I've discovered for deciding what CPU to use especially. You will probably discover, as most of these posts mentioned, that Intel seems to be winning the war as far as video encoding goes, so if DVD burning is your primary use, that would be something to consider.

In my mind, AMD is much more cost effective considering performance, but it's much like choosing between Ford and Chevy. It's all a matter of preference.

I think building your own leaves you a lot more options, but I wish you luck nonetheless.

 

[DragonQ0105]

The only problem I have with Dell is that they only support Intel CPUs....but they are decent PCs for the price.

 

[edfair]

With the OS in hand you are probably going to save money building. If you didn't have the OS then Dell probably would be cheaper. That is how close pricing has become.
Given your conditions, I would go for building.

 

[danno74]

Pricing I have come to the same conclusions myself - the only difference really has been the OS, which Dell does not give the option to ship w/o, unless you are buying a server.

Thanks for all the thoughts and comments. It's funny that the same AMD - Intel discussion is still going on these days. My current PC has either a Duron or Tbird, I don't recall, but it's overclocked with a HUGE heatsink on it, and I swear when it used to be in my bedroom, it would keep me toasty in the winter time. It's good to hear the same banter today.

So is the concensus that Intel is better than AMD for video rendering? I do admit I'm an AMD guy, but I have no problem going another route for performance/price realization.

Think I'll go the build it yourself route. My finances do not permit me to purchase the entire unit at once, so picking and choosing my components over time will work out. And I'd rather not finance.

Thanks again.

 

[cdogg]

Well, the consensus is that Intel CPU's are faster at video encoding. Audio encoding, however, usually favors AMD Athlon 64's. In addition, those same Athlons usually excel in applications like Adobe Photoshop and Premiere for image/video creation, which taxes the floating-point ability of the CPU.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[felixc]

My system is now considered a lowly one. Athlon XP2600, DDR-333, 8X DVD burner. I do record movies in MPEG-2 at top bit rate, and edit DVDs regularly, with very good results.

So don't worry with that little edge with an Intel CPU, everything in the 3000+ speed grades will work fine. We are still far from the "instant rendering" days, so you will take a break anyway when you'll start one. And when HDTV source material becomes available, the game will restart.

If you plan to upgrade anything yourself, don't go prefab, they won't support an upgraded machine. Prefabs are good in office environments, where it is planned in advance to thrash them at regular intervals instead of doing upgrades. That's the way that Dell likes it.

 

[JoshYates]

I bought a custom built computer from

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com

It's cheaper to let them build it for you. Free shipping and instant 5% off.

http://www.TheYatesFolks.com

 

[danno74]

Thanks Josh, nice site! Check out this system:

CASE : X-BLADE Mid-Tower 450W W/ WINDOW & LCD Temperature Display + FAN CONTROL (SILVER COLOR)
CPU : (Sckt775)Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 630 CPU w/HT Technology 3.0GHZ 800FSB 2MB Cache, 64 Bit
MOTHERBOARD : (DDR1 OR DDR2)MSI 915P COMBO F I915P CHIPSET SOCKET775 PCI EXPRESS MB W/ SATA, GIGABITE LAN & 7.1 SOUND
MEMORY : (Req.DDR2 MainBoard)1GB (2x512MB) PC4200 DDR2 Dual Channel Memory
HARD DRIVE : Hitachi 160GB 7200RPM Serial ATA 150 8MB Cache -- Recommended
Hard Drive 2 : NONE
VIDEO CARD : NVIDIA Geforce 6200 Graphics with TurboCache supporting 256MB 16X PCI Express VIDEO CARD
VIDEO CARD 2 : NONE
Optical Drive : PIONEER DVR-109 DUAL FORMAT 16X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (BLACK COLOR)
Optical Drive 2 : NONE
MONITOR & LCD : NONE
SOUND : HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
Price: $855.00

MAN that is tempting!!!

 

[kmcferrin]

A few points to consider:

As pointed out here earlier, the heating issue is a non-starter. Unless you're planning to overclock (which you typically can't do with OEM systems like Dell's) then the heat shouldn't be a concern so long as you are using the proper HSF assembly and heatsink compound. That being said, the Intel LGA775 CPUs tend to be a little warmer than the latest AMD offerrings, but both are fine when properly cooled.

There are definite trade-offs between buying a pre-built (Dell, etc) and building your own PC. If you go pre-built them you usually get a lower price. The downside is that you have fewer options when choosing components, and a higher number of integrated components (which tend to be targetted towards value rather than performance). With pre-built you can get pretty decent support from a single source, whereas if you build your own you will have to do your own troubleshooting and possibly deal with multiple manufacturers to get warranty service. There are other tradeoffs too.

That being said, if you want to buy an Intel-based system you will not be able to build a system equivalent to what Dell builds for less than Dell, period. Dell gets huge discounts from buying in very large quantities. They also get further discounts from Intel for being Intel-only. If you look at their low prices and pair them up with some of their discounts, coupons, and specials (frequently posted on web sites like Fatwallet.com or Slickdeals.net), you'll get an unbeatable price.

Still, I personally build my own. That allows me to pick and choose exactly what I want, when I want it. For example, in January of 2001 I built the following system for myself:

Epox 8KHA+
Athlon XP 1600+
512 MB PC2100 RAM
80 GB ATA133 hard disk
40x24 CD reader/writer
GeForce 2 GTS 32 MB video
SB Live! Value
Enlight ATX case w/300 watt PSU
3com 10/100 NIC

A couple years later, the system is kind of slow playing games, so I upgraded the video to a Radeon 9700 Pro. The card was top of the line at the time, so it cost me about $280. Everything was good.

A couple of years later (this past January, as a matter of fact) I decided it was time to upgrade (helped by a system board failure). I replaced the CPU, mainboard, and memory. Now I have:

Asus K8N
Athlon 64 3000+
1024 MB PC3200 RAM
80 GB ATA133 hard disk
40x24 CD reader/writer
Radeon 9700 Pro
Integrated hardware 5.1 audio
Enlight ATX case w/300 watt PSU
Integrated 10/100 NIC

Total cost, around $400. Later this Autumn or early Winter I'll probably upgrade the video card and hard disk again and spend about $300.

Each time I've upgraded I've gotten a substantial speed improvement, and each upgrade has been less than half the cost of buying an entire new PC (though I'd say I typically have better performing components too). The big attraction for me is that I can upgrade my system in pieces as I go, and I find coming up with $300-$400 every couple of years a lot easier to justify than $800-$1000 in one big chunk. And when I cycle out older but still quite usable parts, they can be used to upgrade my in-laws' PC (so it's like getting two PC upgrades for the price of one).

 

[cdogg]

danno74,

Yep, that's about identical with the one I posted way, way up above...but as you can see, the one I built had a faster video card, hard drive setup, processor, and likely has lower latency memory, all for about the same price. That's why you have to be weary about "pre-built" systems.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[cdogg]

weary = wary
[LOL]


Also, I think kmcferrin has an excellent point! Star for him...

 

[RICHINMINN]

To jump into the AMD vs. Intel portion of this thread, I'd just like to point people to a comparison between several current AMD and Intel processors over at

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1813750,00.asp.

The comparison included:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ at 2.4 GHz
AMD Opteron 875 at 2.2 GHz
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition Model 840 at 3.2 GHZ
Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition at 3.73 GHz
with all other components identical, or as close to identical as possible.

The heading on the last page sums up the results: "AMD Smokes the Competition". And that's on ALL tests, including 3D Rendering and Media Encoding, even when multi-tasking. Yes, Intel has traditionally outperformed AMD in these tasks, due to Hyperthreading, but AMD has learned a lot in the meantime. Even though the Athlon 64 X2 is running at 2.4 GHz, it beats the 3.73 GHz Pentium 4EE 840 by 17% in the media encoding test.

Yes, I'm biased toward AMD, but that's only because I've always been able to build a higher-performing, lower-cost system with AMD CPUs than I could using Intel CPUs. (And now I can upgrade to an AMD dual-core CPU without having to buy a whole new motherboard, and probably memory, as I would have to do if I were using an Intel CPU.)

One note on buying a "canned" system: Most production PC manufacturers get their cost advantage by cutting corners wherever they can. Yes, they may use the same CPUs, but they'll nearly always use a power supply that has "just enough" capacity to run the system in its standard configuration. But if you want to add another hard drive, or more memory, or a DVD-ROM or DVD-R/W drive to go with your CD-R/RW, or a super video card, you're going to have problems. Other components may not be a manufacturer's "prime" product, but a second-tier item (including such items as memory, hard drives, and more). Beware of systems that have unbelievably low prices. There's usually a reason that they're so "cheap".

And the system will undoubtedly come with Windows pre-installed, along with 20 or 40 other applications, most of which you'll never use. And you don't get a full Windows CD that you can use to reinstall the OS if you ever need to; you get a proprietary restore CD that will put the system back the way it was when new (whether you want it that way or not).

Enough ranting...

To put it into perspective: I would rather have a production PC than no PC. But I would rather build my own any day. It's the only way to really know what's in your system.

Rich (in Minn.)