Budget PC build, looking for recommendations

[Joe Ferrall]

Going to be building a new PC soon on a tight budget. PC use will be
primarily programming, graphics design, typical office apps, as well as
some video editing. Gaming is not a major concern, might be nice to
play the occasional game but realistically, I doubt there will be any
gaming done on the machine. Will NOT be overclocking.

I've looked at the low end Dell's as that's the price range I'd like to
be at (around $400 without monitor), but have a Dell at work and am not
all that impressed with its flexibility. I am not partial to AMD or
Intel, as I've used both in builds before. Would like to avoid VIA
chipset on MB, so if AMD NFORCE appears to be the way to go.

I already have a firewire and video capture card I would be reusing from
another machine. Any suggestions for the following?

Case/PS - Beige box fine, quality PS.
CPU/Sink/Fan - Either P4 Northwood or comparable AMD?
MB - Onboard LAN/sound fine, might also consider onboard video.
Video (if not onboard) - Image quality more important than 3d speed.
RAM - Minimum 512mb, prefer 1gb (dual-channel? worth it?)
HD - 200gb + drive for video and image storage.
Optical drives - DVDRW, will reuse other current drives.

Suggestions and ideas?
Thanks

 

[JK]

A computer that will perform well for video editing will cost much more than
$400.
Figure at least $800 without a monitor. For good performance in business
software, you could build a very low priced high performance machine using
an Athlon XP2600+ and a very basic video card or nForce 2 integrated graphics.

 

[Joe Ferrall]

A computer that will perform well for video editing will cost much more than
$400.
Figure at least $800 without a monitor. For good performance in business
software, you could build a very low priced high performance machine using
an Athlon XP2600+ and a very basic video card or nForce 2 integrated graphics.

be...

Not looking for outstanding performance with the video editing, as it's
not something I do a lot of. I'm currently able to do editing with my
1ghz Athlon with no problems other than the rendering time. Just
looking for some reasonable improvements in overall speed.

Thanks

 

[David Besack]

CPU/Sink/Fan - Either P4 Northwood or comparable AMD?

P4 seems to be overall better for video editing, but you'll get better value
from a mid-range AMD (maybe a Barton 2800 or 3000).

MB - Onboard LAN/sound fine, might also consider onboard video.
Video (if not onboard) - Image quality more important than 3d speed.

I'd suggest even a low-end video card over a mobo with on-board video. Even
this one is okay if you're not into games:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-140-026&depa=0

RAM - Minimum 512mb, prefer 1gb (dual-channel? worth it?)

Dual-channel is worth it I guess, I mean it doesn't hurt, and won't be more
expensive (2x256 usually about the same price as 1x512). One consideration
is, if you have 2 slots, and only get 512, get 1x512 so you can add more RAM
later.

HD - 200gb + drive for video and image storage.
Optical drives - DVDRW, will reuse other current drives.

I've seen clearance 4x DVD+/-RW drives for $50 these days. I don't have a
brand recommendation, but make sure it includes a copy of Nero (even the OEM
is better than other software, IMO).

 

[David Maynard]

be...

Not looking for outstanding performance with the video editing, as it's
not something I do a lot of. I'm currently able to do editing with my
1ghz Athlon with no problems other than the rendering time. Just
looking for some reasonable improvements in overall speed.

Video rendering is heavy on memory bandwidth and therein lies the
difference between the Athlon XP and the P4, as well as the dual channel RAM.

The XP line is operating at lower effective FSB data rates (400 MHz), which
limits memory bandwidth to the processor, and dual channel has less of an
observable effect since it's already at FSB speed with single channel (if
you're operating 1/1). The dual channel does have a benefit if you're using
a shared memory display, however, because the extra bandwidth, which is not
available to the processor to any great degree, handles the display load.
Same thing for games and AGP memory access.

With the P4 at 800MHz effective data rate on a 200MHz FSB (quad pumped),
for 6.4 gig per second FSB bandwidth, even PC4400 can't saturate the FSB so
dual channel has more of an effect on overall processor performance.

Part of that FSB difference is offset by the XP being more efficient clock
per clock, but not twice (800 vs 400).

 

[JK]

Video rendering is heavy on memory bandwidth and therein lies the
difference between the Athlon XP and the P4, as well as the dual channel RAM.

The XP line is operating at lower effective FSB data rates (400 MHz), which
limits memory bandwidth to the processor, and dual channel has less of an
observable effect since it's already at FSB speed with single channel (if
you're operating 1/1). The dual channel does have a benefit if you're using
a shared memory display, however, because the extra bandwidth, which is not
available to the processor to any great degree, handles the display load.
Same thing for games and AGP memory access.

With the P4 at 800MHz effective data rate on a 200MHz FSB (quad pumped),
for 6.4 gig per second FSB bandwidth, even PC4400 can't saturate the FSB so
dual channel has more of an effect on overall processor performance.

Part of that FSB difference is offset by the XP being more efficient clock
per clock, but not twice (800 vs 400).

The P4 chips are much too expensive, and don't perform so well compared
to comparably priced AMD chips running business applications.

Even a $105 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $250 P4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




The P4 chips are much too expensive, and don't perform so well compared
to comparably priced AMD chips running business applications.

Perhaps, but then we were talking about video rendering and not Business
Winstone.

Even a $105 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $250 P4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

You really think a .9% difference is a Business Winstone 'make or break'
proposition?

 

[JK]

Perhaps, but then we were talking about video rendering and not Business
Winstone.

The original poster said "PC use will be primarily programming, graphics design,
typical office apps, as well as some video editing."

Notice programming listed first, and video editing listed last.

You really think a .9% difference is a Business Winstone 'make or break'
proposition?

It wouldn't be a big deal if the Pentium 4 3.2 ghz was priced at $105,
and not around $250.

 

[Dave C.]

Perhaps, but then we were talking about video rendering and not Business
Winstone.


You really think a .9% difference is a Business Winstone 'make or break'
proposition?

Apparently, as he's posted the same crap about a thousand times. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

It wouldn't be a big deal if the Pentium 4 3.2 ghz was priced at $105,
and not around $250.

It's STILL not a big deal when a comparable AMD processor is priced around
$200. You seem to suggest that the only way an Intel processor with
virtually equal performance to an AMD processor would be a good idea is if
the Intel processor was HALF THE PRICE of a comparable (in terms of overall
performance) AMD processor. You've spouted this same crap bashing intel
about a bazillion times now. Either admit that you're an AMD shill, or
KNOCK IT OFF. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

I've looked at the low end Dell's as that's the price range I'd like to
be at (around $400 without monitor),
(snip)

Case/PS - Beige box fine, quality PS.
CPU/Sink/Fan - Either P4 Northwood or comparable AMD?
MB - Onboard LAN/sound fine, might also consider onboard video.
Video (if not onboard) - Image quality more important than 3d speed.
RAM - Minimum 512mb, prefer 1gb (dual-channel? worth it?)
HD - 200gb + drive for video and image storage.
Optical drives - DVDRW, will reuse other current drives.

Suggestions and ideas?
Thanks

OK, you've got a problem, as your hard drive, optical drive and 512MB RAM
will cost you about $300 minimum, maybe more. If you want a quality power
supply, then adding a case and power supply will more than max out your $400
maximum budget. Oh, and you still need CPU, HSF, Motherboard and video
card.

Set your sights lower or up your budget. This can be done for about $675,
and not much less, if at all. -Dave

 

[JK]

It's STILL not a big deal when a comparable AMD processor is priced around
$200.

For business applications, a $105 XP3000+ is comparable to a $250
P4 3.2 ghz.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

You seem to suggest that the only way an Intel processor with
virtually equal performance to an AMD processor would be a good idea is if
the Intel processor was HALF THE PRICE of a comparable (in terms of overall
performance) AMD processor.

If someone only runs business software(a very common occurance for
businesses) then only performance in business software matters. Game
performance and video editing performance is irrelevant to them. So
a $105 Athlon XP3000+ or a $250 P4 3.2 ghz chip would give them
the same level of performance.

 

[Stephen Austin]

Why is it that any post on here about builds/processors etc., turns into a
bitch fight between the two of you about which is better?

 

[Dave C.]

Why is it that any post on here about builds/processors etc., turns into a
bitch fight between the two of you about which is better?

Because it's not about which is better!!! But someone insists on painting
Intel in a bad light. I could just ignore him, but he's not doing anybody
any favors by bashing Intel for nor reason at all!!! I prefer AMD myself,
but AMD isn't always the right choice for everybody. And to have someone
insist that AMD is *****ALWAYS***** better, in spite of clear-cut evidence
to the contrary is maddening. I'd have to conclude at this point that JK is
either being PAID by AMD to bash Intel, or has a grudge against Intel for
some unknown reason. He's not saying which. -Dave

 

[JK]

Because it's not about which is better!!! But someone insists on painting
Intel in a bad light. I could just ignore him, but he's not doing anybody
any favors by bashing Intel for nor reason at all!!!

No reason at all? How about very high prices. I am pointing out the alternatives

in the same price range. With an AMD processor, one can usually get much
more performance at the same price, or similar performance at a lower price.
If some wants to choose an Intel processor after finding out about the
alternitives
in his price range, that is his right. I am merely trying to alert people of the

alternatives before they blindly choose an Intel processor.

I prefer AMD myself,
but AMD isn't always the right choice for everybody.

It is in most cases. For the 2% of the population who wants a pc only
for video editing using 32 bit software, an Intel processor might be
the best choice.

And to have someone
insist that AMD is *****ALWAYS***** better

"better" is a subjective term. More cost effective for specific usage,
as shown with benchmarks isn't subjective.

, in spite of clear-cut evidence
to the contrary is maddening.

In the majority of cases an AMD processor is more cost effective.
There might be 5% or so of the time when it isn't.

I'd have to conclude at this point that JK is
either being PAID by AMD to bash Intel, or has a grudge against Intel for
some unknown reason. He's not saying which.

My personal reasons for posting links to benchmarks of AMD processors
are irrelevant. All that is relevant is that accurate information is
disseminated.
If you dispute any of the benchmarks, we can discuss the issue. Most
of the people who blindly choose an Intel processor don't know how well
AMD processors perform.

 

[Dave C.]

If you dispute any of the benchmarks, we can discuss the issue. Most

of the people who blindly choose an Intel processor don't know how well
AMD processors perform.

Well, that explains it. You assume that anyone who chooses Intel must be
ignorant. More likely, they just reviewed the unbiased benchmarks like the
ones that follow. If you look at the directx9 and applications numbers, the
P4 Prescott looks pretty good, even compared to the Athlon64. Does that
mean the Intel processors are a better deal? NO. But to assume someone
would choose Intel only if they do NOT know how AMD performs is ludicrous.
In some cases, people might be choosing a P4 Prescott for the specific
reason that they DO know how the Athlon 64 processors perform. -Dave

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




The original poster said "PC use will be primarily programming, graphics design,
typical office apps, as well as some video editing."

Notice programming listed first, and video editing listed last.

Take a look at the conversation in this section of the thread. It is about
video editing and that is ALL I talked about.

It wouldn't be a big deal if the Pentium 4 3.2 ghz was priced at $105,
and not around $250.

And when the cost of an entire system is taken in total that difference in
CPU price only becomes a minor factor just like the 0.9% is.

 

[Mac Cool]

Because it's not about which is better!!!

Dave, he moves from group to group, hardware groups, gaming groups and
whatnot, and trolls for the Athlon64 in every one of them. I killfiled him
weeks ago and I still see a dozen or more replies to his trolling every
day because he keeps sucking people in. He never post anything other than
the same spiel about the Athlon64. He's a troll, he's working you, you
gotta let it go.

 

[JK]

Well, that explains it. You assume that anyone who chooses Intel must be
ignorant. More likely, they just reviewed the unbiased benchmarks like the
ones that follow. If you look at the directx9 and applications numbers, the
P4 Prescott looks pretty good, even compared to the Athlon64. Does that
mean the Intel processors are a better deal? NO. But to assume someone
would choose Intel only if they do NOT know how AMD performs is ludicrous.
In some cases, people might be choosing a P4 Prescott for the specific
reason that they DO know how the Athlon 64 processors perform. -Dave

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

Very funny. That is the website which three years ago tore the heatsink off a
processor while it was running, and wrote an article about what happened. Since
then, I don't take anything they write seriously.

 

[JK]

Take a look at the conversation in this section of the thread. It is about
video editing and that is ALL I talked about.


And when the cost of an entire system is taken in total that difference in
CPU price only becomes a minor factor just like the 0.9% is.

Not quite. A business system without a monitor with an Athlon XP
processor might be around $500. Adding $145 more to the price
is around a 30% increase. 30% is very significant.