Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Ultimate PC

Sep 22, 2009#1

Thread Necromancer

Ok. So it's time for the Necromancer to start thinking of a new PC. Now I'm no PC dummy but I admit that I don't know it all. So for the purpose of this thread I'm going to feign ignorance and allow the brains and wisdom of the forum to guide me.

I plan on building the ultimate PC. Or at least, my ultimate PC. Actually, I'll probably build two of them.

So just what in the world is the Necro going to do with two ulimate PCs?

PC 1 is going to be my general use PC. This will need to handle not only my gaming and killer frame rate but I will also have to work on it. Which means power to spare for photoshop, graphic modeling (such as CAD and Solidworks, Engineering graphics programs) and also my video editing and etc so power for HD video editing.

PC 2 is going to be my next recreation of my home media box. This will have two tv capture cards, one for cable and one for ATSC off air HD tv for dual recording AND livetv buffer. It will contain my entire music library and and a fair share of my favorite DVDs (whole images, considering I own the movies and I just hate looking for the damned DVDs), will connect to my surround sounds system, preferably through an optical connection capable of decoding 7.1 or better surrounds sound. I've got almost 2k invested in my surround sound and receiver set up, my media box needs to keep up and utilize it

Now this is the computer I know the most about, but I am not the most up on current tech. My main concern is this: It will run SOME for of Linux based livetv software. I've used Mythtv, Mythbuntu, some windows progs before etc etc. But I want high end gear (I really don't want to be upgrading this thing again in a year or two) and obviously it needs kernel support. So I'm asking for best gear that has kernel support?

Not sure if all this is clear and such, so just through me ideas and etc.

tl;dr

Give me your best idea for the best computers.

Sep 22, 2009#2

Cuyval Dar

For a media center, I would recommend waiting for the dual-core Atoms, and as far as a bad mother of a gamer/CAD rig, get your ass to Newegg and buy a Phenom II.

AMD is on track to beat Intel to market with a 6-core Phenom II that is fully compatible with AM2+/AM3. Providing you use a CAD program that is multithreaded, you will see an nice performance boost.

Otherwise, have fun navigating the Intel roadmap, and 3 new sockets. I honestly cannot see Intel supporting all three of its product segments for as long as AMD will support
AM2+/AM3/AM4.

Oh, and wait on the Radeon HD5870s. Those promise to blow Nvidia out of the water (again)/

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

Also, since Intel is doing a lot with netbooks (that use the same chipsets as the desktop Atom counterparts) you should have no problem.
Check on the 'Egg for either an Auzentech X-Fi or an Asus DX-series for a sound card that can handle 7.1 and the different decoding capabilities.

Sep 22, 2009#3

Shegokigo

A bit bias there Cuyval? Just saying....

Sep 22, 2009#4

figmentPez

Thread Necromancer said:
(I really don't want to be upgrading this thing again in a year or two)

Depending on your cable company, you might not have a choice. Many cable companies are planning on droping clear-QAM completely from their channel lineup, so the only way to get digial cable is with a cable box / card. If your cable company does that in the next year or two, you'll loose a lot of your tuning capability unless you upgrade to one of the new cable card tuners coming out (that will finally be available for purchase outside a pre-made box), but it remains to be seen what Linux support will be like for those.

Sep 22, 2009#5

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo said:
A bit bias there Cuyval? Just saying....

So? I recommended i7 for you. Besides, AMD's roadmap looks better, both performance and platform-longevity wise.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

figmentPez;261240][quote=Thread Necromancer said:
(I really don't want to be upgrading this thing again in a year or two)

Sep 22, 2009#6

figmentPez

Cuyval Dar said:
They are/will be DRM'd to hell. Currently, the only way to get CableCard is to pay through the nose at an OEM. I really doubt they will actually let DIYers have them.

Yes, currently you have to buy a pre-made system to get a cablecard tuner, that is going to change, though: Hauppauge to expand its offerings to include a CableCARD tuner made possible because Media Center CableCARDs freed from OEM requirement. They are going to let just anyone pop one in their PC, but it'll have to be Windows unless some creative Linux hackers can write drivers.

And doing some more reasearch, it seems the doom and gloom I read about clear-QAM rapidly dissapearing may just be FUD. So go ahead and build your Linux box with Hauppage's existing tuners and enjoy whatever unencrypted cable content you get, it's likely to stay at whatever level it's at now for the foreseeable future.

Sep 22, 2009#7

Cuyval Dar

I certainly hope that you're right, but I've seen many awesome products pulled at the last minute.

Sep 22, 2009#8

Ross

I'm glad to hear that AMD and Radeon are still kick-ass, as I have them in my current PC, and plan to use them again for my new rig that I'll be getting soon.

And there's a 95% chance my new computer will be through newegg.

Sep 22, 2009#9

figmentPez

Cuyval Dar said:
Check on the 'Egg for either an Auzentech X-Fi or an Asus DX-series for a sound card that can handle 7.1 and the different decoding capabilities.

How are their digital capabilities in Linux? I know they can't do Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect in Linux because of licensing issues, but can they do 7.1 channel PCM or other multi-channel audio over the digital connector?

Sep 22, 2009#10

I

Icarus

There's no such thing as an Ultimate PC of course, because it's impossible to predict where the market is going.

Personally, I think it's very very unwise to even attempt to build such a system unless you got money to burn and are the kind to update their PC every year with the best of the best.

The best strategy I recommend to everyone is this:

PC hardware has a certain price/performance ratio. With every piece of hardware, that ratio will have a peak in the middle.

A 160GB hard drive will barely cost less than a 500GB hard drive for example. The peak at the moment is at 1TB I believe. In other words, you get the best bang for your buck with a 1TB drive. 2TB drives are rather expensive and cost more than two 1TB drives so the smart thing to do, is buy a 1TB drive even if you don't really need that much space (larger drivers will perform better with the same amount of data stored compared to smaller drives of similar design)

Now, you can draw the line to all other aspects: why buy 12GB (3x4GB) of memory for $500 when you can buy 4GB (2x2GB) for $80? Memory comes down in price anyway and is easy to add so why not wait till you really need it and then upgrade?

CPUs are even worse. The I7 920 has by large the best price/performance ratio ($250) yet if you were to go for the 975, you'd easily pay $1000. And for what? A 20% increase in performance?

So the smart thing to do is always buy hardware at the best ratio and upgrade when needed. It will not only save you a hell of a lot of money, it will also mean your hardware is less likely to break down (you're going to be using expensive hardware for a lot longer, even outside of warranty) AND mean you'll always have all the latest advantages. Over the past 10 years, a lot of things have changed: USB, USB 1.1, USB 2.0, ATA 300, SATA, SATA II, etc. etc. When buying a very expensive PC to last longer, you risk running into unforeseeable limitations.

Sep 23, 2009#11

Cuyval Dar

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/ati_radeon_5870_fastest_videocard_ever_ps_its_380?page=0,0

Sep 23, 2009#12

I

Icarus

Cuyval Dar said:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/ati_radeon_5870_fastest_videocard_ever_ps_its_380?page=0,0

Sep 23, 2009#13

Shegokigo

Speaking of GTX295, is it still not possible to quad-sli GTX295s without much issue?

Sep 23, 2009#14

Thread Necromancer

This thread is useful to me especially with differing opinions. The article posted sounded too good to be true, but I have very little to compare reference with so now the GTX295 comes up with something else to look at.

Earlier reference to price/performance ratio is a given I presumed. I'm not spending 500 dollars on ram alone and etc.

But of course I understand that my posts are often less than clear.

Sep 23, 2009#15

Cuyval Dar

Thread Necromancer said:
This thread is useful to me especially with differing opinions. The article posted sounded too good to be true, but I have very little to compare reference with so now the GTX295 comes up with something else to look at.

Earlier reference to price/performance ratio is a given I presumed. I'm not spending 500 dollars on ram alone and etc.

But of course I understand that my posts are often less than clear.

Ah, then go AMD.

Shegokigo said:
Speaking of GTX295, is it still not possible to quad-sli GTX295s without much issue?

Cooling issues + diminishing returns with more than 2 GPUs.

Icarus;261580][quote=Cuyval Dar said:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/ati_radeon_5870_fastest_videocard_ever_ps_its_380?page=0,0

Jesus, what's up with the fanboy articles? The GTX295 is still quite a bit faster in nearly all games so how the hell is that the "fastest card ever". And the price is pretty much similar to the GTX295 too.[/quote]
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/nvidia_geforce_gtx_295
Looks like it gets whooped by the 5870,too. So STFU with the fanboy remarks, considering MaxPC gave the GTX295 a 9/10 Kickass rating.

The 5870 is going to kick Nvidia's ass, in performance, price, and power efficiency.

Sep 23, 2009#16

Shegokigo

Is there any high end dual GPU cards that can quad sli well? Coolin won't be too much an issue as I'll be on liquid by then

Sep 23, 2009#17

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo said:
Is there any high end dual GPU cards that can quad sli well? Coolin won't be too much an issue as I'll be on liquid by then

Again, the frame rate increase diminshes with more GPUs.
The human eye cannot see above 60 FPS, anyway.
You want the fastest single card or SLI/CF setup you can get.

Sep 23, 2009#18

Shegokigo

My point isn't trying to see more than 60fps, my point is my games never dropping under 60fps, my eyes have no trouble seeing the difference between 40fps and 60.

Sep 23, 2009#19

Cuyval Dar

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127438
GTX 295 for $529.99 when not on sale.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161301

HD 5870 for $379.99. Faster, power efficient, and cheaper.
Who happens to be the fanboy now?

(For the record, I am running Nvidia at the moment.)
:tongue:

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

Shegokigo said:
My point isn't trying to see more than 60fps, my point is my games never dropping under 60fps, my eyes have no trouble seeing the difference between 40fps and 60.

That was my point as well.
Quad (or even Tri) SLI or Crossfire is more expensive in the long run.
Buy the fastest single/dual card at the moment, and then upgrade in six months to 1 year to the fastest single/dual card then.
You save more money, and end up with better performance.

Also, a lot of performance issues have to do more with what latency your monitor runs at, the quality of the game's code, and your internet speed/latency.

Sep 23, 2009#20

Shegokigo

I had the fastest card in the market, it didn't do the job. My monitor is as "fast" as they come (for it's size) and I have a 8mb connection....

Sep 23, 2009#21

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo said:
I had the fastest card in the market, it didn't do the job. My monitor is as "fast" as they come (for it's size) and I have a 8mb connection....

Give me some stats on the monitor.
Can you run a latency test on your connection?

Sep 23, 2009#22

figmentPez

Cuyval Dar said:
Also, a lot of performance issues have to do more with what latency your monitor runs at, the quality of the game's code, and your internet speed/latency.

Sep 23, 2009#23

Cuyval Dar

figmentPez;261987][quote=Cuyval Dar said:
Also, a lot of performance issues have to do more with what latency your monitor runs at, the quality of the game's code, and your internet speed/latency.

Oh! That's a good point. A lot of gamers get caught up in low millisecond response times, which make video look smooth, but don't even bother to think about display lag, which can be exaggerated by a monitor taking time to do video processing in order to get those pointlessly fast pixel response times.[/quote]
That is what kills me when people have 1337sauced rigs, and whine about how they aren't getting over 9000 FPS. Meanwhile, they just grabbed the cheapest monitor at Newegg.

EDIT: Also, HDMI (and even better, DisplayPort, which only AMD has,btw) can you all start using it?

Sep 23, 2009#24

figmentPez

Cuyval Dar said:
That is what kills me when people have 1337sauced rigs, and whine about how they aren't getting over 9000 FPS. Meanwhile, they just grabbed the cheapest monitor at Newegg.

I can't understand people who spend more on a video card than they did on their monitor. I always cringe when I read some post on Tom's Hardware forums by some idiot running an old 17" screen with a $300 video card.

EDIT: Also, HDMI (and even better, DisplayPort, which only AMD has,btw) can you all start using it?

Sep 23, 2009#25

Cuyval Dar

figmentPez;262005][quote=Cuyval Dar said:
That is what kills me when people have 1337sauced rigs, and whine about how they aren't getting over 9000 FPS. Meanwhile, they just grabbed the cheapest monitor at Newegg.

EDIT: Also, HDMI (and even better, DisplayPort, which only AMD has,btw) can you all start using it?

Aside from the smaller connector, why HDMI? Is it audio you want? Is that really worth being limited to 1920x1200? (Granted, I'm not itching to go over the 1920x1080 of my current monitor, but we can all dream of 30" screens, right?)[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't quite see 1920x1200 as "limiting" yet, but I would rather people use HDMI and DisplayPort, so the manufacturers will drop DVI, VGA,Component & S-Video for good.

1920x1080 here, as well.

Sep 23, 2009#26

Thread Necromancer

Interesting points. I had considered upgrading my monitor also but mainly for size. Had not considered it being a bottleneck to performace in the ways you are describing.

Currently I'm running an HP w2207 through dvi and have never had problems with it, and my current media box (before it's demise anyhow) was running through DVI to my 42" panasonic HDTV (model not available but its an older one, will only to 1080i not 1080p)

Sep 23, 2009#27

Shegokigo

Cuyval Dar;261985][quote=Shegokigo said:
I had the fastest card in the market, it didn't do the job. My monitor is as \"fast\" as they come (for it's size) and I have a 8mb connection....

Give me some stats on the monitor.
Can you run a latency test on your connection?[/QUOTE]

From Texas to California:

Monitor is LG-Flatron W2361VG, all I find are links for VG-PF which I don't think it is.

Sep 23, 2009#28

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo;262032][quote=Cuyval Dar;261985][quote=Shegokigo said:
I had the fastest card in the market, it didn't do the job. My monitor is as \"fast\" as they come (for it's size) and I have a 8mb connection....

Give me some stats on the monitor.
Can you run a latency test on your connection?[/quote]

From Texas to California:

Monitor is LG-Flatron W2361VG, all I find are links for VG-PF which I don't think it is.[/QUOTE]
That is a godawful upload speed for what you have been doing.

Sep 23, 2009#29

Shegokigo

Which is?

Sep 23, 2009#30

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo said:
Which is?

Online gaming.

Sep 23, 2009#31

Shegokigo

What's upload speed have to do with Online Gaming?

New test to LA.

Sep 23, 2009#32

Cuyval Dar

Oh, and generally speaking (there are way more factors) for gaming, monitors that have a <2ms response time or latency are better.

Sep 23, 2009#33

Shegokigo

Higher than 2ms are better? I'm lost.

Sep 23, 2009#34

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo said:
Higher than 2ms are better? I'm lost.

< is the 'less than sign' > is 'greater than'

Sep 23, 2009#35

Shegokigo

Sorry, I'm really exhausted. But yeah, it's 2ms.

Sep 23, 2009#36

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo said:
Sorry, I'm really exhausted. But yeah, it's 2ms.

Get some sleep. I will play you the song of my people to lull you to rest. /cantina band :bard:

Sep 23, 2009#37

Shegokigo

*sigh*

Now what?

Sep 23, 2009#38

figmentPez

Cuyval Dar said:
Oh, and generally speaking (there are way more factors) for gaming, monitors that have a <2ms response time or latency are better.

What? How many monitors even have response times less than 2ms? And, actually, from what I've read response times greater than 2ms may be preferrable for gaming.

Why? Because of the video processing that most monitors do to be able to get those short response times. An article from Bit-Tech.net The Dark Side of Overdrive. In their testing one of their test monitors (Samsung 244T 6ms) took 40-60ms longer to display frames than a faster monitor (Dell 3007WFP 14ms), despite it having a faster pixel reponse time. The response time in LCD specs is how long it takes a pixel to change from one color to another, not how long it takes for it to display a frame once it reaches the monitor from the computer.

Forums