New PC's(22 posts)
I don't think it is neccessarily cheaper to build your own. With all the sales going on, especially on black Friday, those offerings are hard to beat. The advantage, if you build it yourself, is that you can get the mix of components that you like. And in the process of building it you aquire knowledge that may help you later to troubleshoot problems. But if you consider the components you need to buy, the monitor and the software, you will probably be spending more money building it yourself.
PS: I would appreciate if you put a proper location into your profile. With the BS you put in, I don't even know whether you are in the US and know what "black Friday" is.
It really depends on what you want to do with it... if you are the type that always has to tinker with things (like me), then building a computer is great, since I can upgrade it and tweak it as much as I feel like.
If you just want something that works, buy a Dell, much simpler.
I helped my neighbor shop for and assemble his pc after he ordered all the parts off newegg.com. I think its better that way cause you get to choose your exact specs and you can make your comp as good as you want it to be. Granted, it costs more money and time, and you have to know what your doing, in the end, you get a better computer (if all of your stuff is compatible).
If you are looking at the low end, ie basic web-surfing, dvd/video playback, keeping track of the checkbook etc, you will spend more building it your self. A middle of the road pc will be about break-even in terms of cost, but you will most likely have better components and will be able to push your system harder than an 'out-of-the-box pc. For the high end, that is where you can save some money as you will be able to track component prices longer and set up a much more customized rig that you can push to your hearts content. I do admit, there is something to be said for a system you have built yourself (I'm on my fifth home built pc).
whs, I do live in America, and I do know about Black Friday. Sadly, i can't compete with those people that stand outside in 30 degree weather. So i end up losing the chance to get some good parts.
So are you guys suggesting newegg.com? Do they have every part imaginable? (besides those parts that the government doesn't release to the masses). I was hoping I could get a tower. Plus a Quad-core motherboard, including some DDR3 ram sticks. Not to mention some awesome graphics/sound cards. etc.
I need a computer that can handle a lot of applications at once (in other words multi-tasking). A computer that can show me very pretty pictures and videos. Crystal clear audio. Handles a ton of graphic creation. etc.
Gmanlink, I never stay in line. I buy the stuff a week earlier and when it goes on sale on black Friday I get the difference refunded - the store managers usually know what goes on sale. You have to make friends with them. That's how I e.g. got a HP with AMD 4800+, 3GB of RAM, a 350GB Sata, Vista Premium and a 22inch HP monitor - the whole package for $480. Try to build that - the monitor alone is $300 to $350. And Btw (since you mention quads), my Dell Q6600 with 4GB's is no bit faster than the HP - at least not for what I am doing. I attribute that to the slower FSB on the Intel.
You mean for a quad? I have seen them between $500 and $600 depending on the CPU and the Graphics. But they can go up to over $1000 - and this is without the monitor (figure another $250 to $350 for a 22 inch). Next time I would get a Phenom (AMD) because of the faster FSB. For normal operation I think that would be an advantage. Here is an example http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd.....keycode=85
that PC is sort of nice, but who needs 640 GB? 350-500 GB is fine with me.
and i need a PC that can handle a lot of multi-tasking as well as heavy graphics and audio
which is why i need a quad. i heard that dual-core was pretty good.
But would a dual-core be better than a quad-core in the long run?
In the long run, when you think about the upcoming Windows7, a quad is probably better. That's why I bought mine in that configuration. But with vanilla Vista a duo is quite alright. E.g. an AMD 5600+ should do a nice job (not the 6000+ - runs too hot). Advantage is that they are a lot cheaper than the new quads. As far as disks go, I got 2x250GB. I use the second disk for my restore points (with Ghost14). But even the 250GB's on the OS disk I will probably never all use. Now graphics is a completely different story. If you do gaming with modern games, then you better get an expensive graphics. But for normal picture, movie, etc., a low end card is quite alright. I have an ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro with 250 MB's. That does a nice job although the shader could be a little better. I may have to try a different setting. On my HP I have an on board Nvidea. That works fine too.
jack is right. We really do not know a lot about Windows7 yet. But from a couple of architecture presentations I have seen, it looks very exciting. They seem to have solved the legacy problem from which Vista suffers so much and hopefully it will be a much cleaner system than what we have seen recently.
Jack7h3r1pp3r is right, we cant know how it will be because they havent released a beta version to the public, so no one have tried it. Also, i dont get why people think vista is so much worse than xp since vista is a more secure, cooler looking version of xp. other than that, they are the same
This topic has been closed to new replies. Please create a new topic instead.