Ultimate PC - your recommendations

ammac341 said:
Let me scream back at you... oh wait ill just hold the caps lock button....

Firstly, I am not the one raging which solidifies my point, well points I make on all fourms that there are filled with ignorant lifeless morons that will at any time jump down someones neck. Anyway that aside. Money may be no object, but I am being REALISTIC. Think about what he needs not what we WANT him to get. A simplistic question in my eyes.

Why don't you STOP and think about your next post. Try to THINK about being realistic. Just try to THINK. Hard yes I know for the narrow minded. *sigh*

What you need > What people think you need

Be smart, save money > Being ignorant and listen to people here

Being realistic is getting what you need to be successful!

I rest my point,

-a
Click to expand...

Well you are presuming he wants to save money, if you read the OP you would see clearly that was never his intention so why you bother posting about something when you have not read the OP is beyond me.

I want a pc for 10k

You give me specs for a low end 4k system, is that what i asked? No but you think you are somebody special and ignore what people ask. It is what they want, not you.
 
Worked up? This is the interwebz dude :D, it is rather refreshing seeing someone like you posting on this forum. Makes for amusing posts. No debates because you failed to read the OP :p or you just ignored what the guy asked and decided you know best. Might be the last one i dunno. Tough one :D
 
Killadoob seldom gets worked up, thats the problem with the interwebs - you cant tell the tone people are using by reading text.

We might all be off the point slightly, what he originally was looking at was a setup with SAS drives etc.
A mid range server board running 12gb of FBdimm and a xeon would probably be the way to go. At the current rates of workstations graphics and their technologies a 5xxx ati might be a good bet because of dx11.
There must be a reason that servers are running xeons and SAS drives rather than i7 and SSD...
 
SAS drives offer more space for less money at the moment that is the only reason they do not use ssd's. Larger ssds are mighty expensive compared to SAS.
 
Frag said:
Lol... Telling a kid to go back to school...?

You guys are the idiots, and I fully agree with ammac341.

So here's MY suggestion to get a pc that will last you 10 years:

Buy ammac341's pc. Maybe trade the 4870 for a 4890/5850.
Now, when you install your windows, make sure you change your default documents location to a different drive than the one the Operating system is on.

Then, upgrade to something 50x as fast as all these idiots are saying in 5 years' time, and point your new windows' installation to your old documents.
You will even be able to do that with programs as well with a few registry edits. (Moving without re-installing)
You will still have money left.


OK, now my question to the guys like "Nerfhurder"..
I need a car that will last me 50 years, what should I get? (Quick tip: Bugatti Veiron is NOT the answer because it's the most expensive.....)
I think the answer to his 10-year-pc should be that there isn't really anything that can keep up with all the tech changes over that period of time. Now I know you said your old pc did, but my word, I'm struggling to believe you.

Because that meant you had something like a 3.0GHz P4 instead of a 2.4GHz P4 (about the same diffs back then as i7 920 vs i7 975XE is today).
Click to expand...

Actually i told him to get back to class... he needs to do some more learning

You see this is the problem... he is not getting a car he is getting a computer. The max speeds of cars don't double every 3 years, they don't need too.

Rule number 1: If you want a PC to last (as in be usable in 10 years time) then you need to get the fastest processor and MB available at the time.

There is not much difference between the top processor and the one just below it... other than price. Except for the fact you will notice a considerable difference in performance over time. Most of us design our upgrades with the view to upgrade again in 2-3 years, the OP plans to upgrade in TEN YEARS TIME. Its a long journey he better stock up.

Oh and I stand by my comment about the GFX card, he should get a good one. Perhaps not a top of the range gaming card but having a good gaming card will go a long way to take off the load of the processor, even in windows.

Above all having the best MB is the highest priority, no question. This will give you as much future proof as you can get.
 
Rocket-Boy said:
Killadoob seldom gets worked up, thats the problem with the interwebs - you cant tell the tone people are using by reading text.

We might all be off the point slightly, what he originally was looking at was a setup with SAS drives etc.
A mid range server board running 12gb of FBdimm and a xeon would probably be the way to go. At the current rates of workstations graphics and their technologies a 5xxx ati might be a good bet because of dx11.
There must be a reason that servers are running xeons and SAS drives rather than i7 and SSD...
Click to expand...

As far as I know the reason is reliability. Servers are like nuclear power stations, you do not use the latest and greatest technology simply because you dont know how it can break. So everything in the power plant is at least ten years old cause by then everyone knows every imaginable way that it can break, hence you can better prepare for it. And another note on the SSD's, they have limited write capabilities, which is something that servers do alot of.

For this PC, I do not think a server class machine is required. An i7, with a good motherboard, and a SSD just to store your most used programs is perfect, and will provide very good reliabilit/stability at stock settings. Opening programs and starting windows will be nice and fast, and with a decent RAID even opening files from the storage HDD's will be fast.
 
Nerfherder said:
Above all having the best MB is the highest priority, no question. This will give you as much future proof as you can get.
Click to expand...

No with that I agree.

But now, ten years down the line, I still can't really see the worth in a situation where one, for instance, paid R6k for a P4 3.0GHz vs a 2.4GHz at about R1k in 2000.

If he had that "future proof" motherboard, he would been able to swap that 3.0GHz with a Dual Core about 4-5 years ago (maybe - not sure about chipset support).
Anyways, I'll join the ranks of people advising him to get what he wants.

Just as a an i7 975 may not be realistic, any Lamborghini etc is also unrealistic in SA due to our potholes, so let him have his cake, and eat it too :)
 
Last edited:
Archer said:
As far as I know the reason is reliability. Servers are like nuclear power stations, you do not use the latest and greatest technology simply because you dont know how it can break. So everything in the power plant is at least ten years old cause by then everyone knows every imaginable way that it can break, hence you can better prepare for it. And another note on the SSD's, they have limited write capabilities, which is something that servers do alot of.

For this PC, I do not think a server class machine is required. An i7, with a good motherboard, and a SSD just to store your most used programs is perfect, and will provide very good reliabilit/stability at stock settings. Opening programs and starting windows will be nice and fast, and with a decent RAID even opening files from the storage HDD's will be fast.
Click to expand...

Ummm a hdd in raid or out of raid will open at the exact same speed, access time does not decrease with raid, read/writes increase with raid but not access time. I mean if a hdd can has an access time 12ms, in raid they will still have an access time of 12ms. Now a ssd stock has an access time of 0.1ms-0.4ms so raid will never come close to the ssd performance in regards to access time.
 
killadoob said:
Ummm a hdd in raid or out of raid will open at the exact same speed, access time does not decrease with raid, read/writes increase with raid but not access time. I mean if a hdd can has an access time 12ms, in raid they will still have an access time of 12ms. Now a ssd stock has an access time of 0.1ms-0.4ms so raid will never come close to the ssd performance in regards to access time.
Click to expand...

Access time of the HDD will be the same yes, but overall loading time of files with two HDDs in RAID will be lower (in RAID 0 and 1) since both HDDs can load data into memory at the same time.
 
Frag said:
No with that I agree.

But now, ten years down the line, I still can't really see the worth in a situation where one, for instance, paid R6k for a P4 3.0GHz vs a 2.4GHz at about R1k in 2000.

If he had that "future proof" motherboard, he would been able to swap that 3.0GHz with a Dual Core about 4-5 years ago (maybe - not sure about chipset support).
Anyways, I'll join the ranks of people advising him to get what he wants.

Just as a an i7 975 may not be realistic, any Lamborghini etc is also unrealistic in SA due to our potholes, so let him have his cake, and eat it too :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but have look at why the chip is double the price... does it have double the cache ? It might, these are things that only really make a difference in a few years time.

Its like when some one gets a Celeron 4GHz vs a Pentium 4GHz, TBH you wouldn't really notice the difference right now.... however in a few years time using windows 9 you might.

Case in point, I have a PC that is about the same age as the OP, I cheeped out and paid 6 k, it was outdated in less than 5 years but look at how long the OP was using his for.
 
Raid1 wont be faster as that just mirrors the drives which adds an overhead. Raid0 will improve performance as it stores pieces of data on each drive effectively doubling the read/write heads.
 
You guys seriously are not getting my arguement wrt the RAID setup. I only said it would result in better load times. Nothing about write times. So RAID 0 and 1 both have better read times, and as a matter of fact so does RAID 5, the order of best performance being 0>1>5. If you want to talk about write times then I'm not very clued up, but RAID 0 is the way to go, although you lose redundancy.
 
Nerfherder said:
Case in point, I have a PC that is about the same age as the OP, I cheeped out and paid 6 k, it was outdated in less than 5 years but look at how long the OP was using his for.
Click to expand...

Actually, my only argument is that a PC's lifespan is NOT 10 years any more.
Neither was his old one, I can't think of any reason anybody would've been able to use a P4 the last four years.

I'd say max pc life is about 6 years.

If he does want another 10-year pc, he'd most likely have to hope Microsoft runs another OS for about 10 years, as in my opinion, that is the sole and ONLY reason he was able to do that.
Windows Vista was just bad enough to give XP another 3 years' life. I doubt the same will happen again.
 
Actually, my only argument is that a PC's lifespan is NOT 10 years any more.
Neither was his old one, I can't think of any reason anybody would've been able to use a P4 the last four years.
Click to expand...

Unless they happen to work for a company that quietly ignores the tortured shrieks of its marketing department :erm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X