HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrightStar
  • Start date Start date
B

BrightStar

Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
name brand PC?

For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
buck.

Thanks,
Brightstar65
 
BrightStar said:
Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
name brand PC?
Click to expand...

It'll be totally generic and if built with quality components then there
will continue to be good device driver support and knowledgable folks around
to help with it. Generic OS versions will always install.

Generic is good.
For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster?
Click to expand...

Probably with good selection effort especially regarding the HD.
I
know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
buck.
Click to expand...

Build one.
 
BrightStar said:
Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
name brand PC?
Click to expand...

Homebuilt - you pick every part, you get waranties direct from the
manufacturers (Dell tech support knows as much about their OEM sound and
video cards as my pet turtle), you can upgrade easily (name brand boxes
tend to have at least some proprietary designs), you can overclock more
easily.

Name brand - you often get a lot of included software (OS not least of
all), you get some period of telephone support, there's no chance you
have two parts that are incompatible, you don't have to do anything
except plug it in and turn it on.
For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
buck.
Click to expand...

It really depends. I think you can go a little faster because many name
brands do not offer AMD as a choice, and in the mid-level range AMD CPUs
and mobos tend to be a little cheaper (there was recently a thread about
this and I know some will disagree, but that is just my observation).
 
BrightStar said:
Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
name brand PC?

For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
buck.

Thanks,
Brightstar65
Click to expand...

The 'low end' name brand PCs are going to be 'all-in-one' motherboard units
with shared graphics and the rest. They are not 'performance' machines;
they're machines designed for 'economy'.

With a home built you pick the parts so you get the performance you want in
the places you want instead of the 'combination' the manufacturer decides
'goes together'. For example, if you're a gamer then maybe you want 'the
best' video card and get stuck having to buy other 'features' you don't
care about and, conversely, if you're not a gamer then why waste 200-400
bucks on one?
 
David Besack said:
Homebuilt - you pick every part, you get waranties direct from the
manufacturers (Dell tech support knows as much about their OEM sound and
video cards as my pet turtle), you can upgrade easily (name brand boxes
tend to have at least some proprietary designs), you can overclock more
easily.

Name brand - you often get a lot of included software (OS not least of
all), you get some period of telephone support, there's no chance you
have two parts that are incompatible, you don't have to do anything
except plug it in and turn it on.


It really depends. I think you can go a little faster because many name
brands do not offer AMD as a choice, and in the mid-level range AMD CPUs
and mobos tend to be a little cheaper (there was recently a thread about
this and I know some will disagree, but that is just my observation).
Click to expand...

Go Intel.
 
Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would be
the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a name
brand PC?
Click to expand...

Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
were technically faster otherwise no difference.

I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
and rebate.
 
BrightStar said:
Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
name brand PC?

For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
buck.

Thanks,
Brightstar65
Click to expand...

You usually get longer warranties when you build from retail components,
eg 3 years for AMD CPUs and Antec case/PSU combos. 5 years for a
Seagate hard drive.

Look for rebates at the office and electronics superstores. See
techbargains.com and pricegrabber.com.

It's harder to save by building if you want a legal MS Windows. Linux
makes building more attractive. Linux is plenty for surfing, email, a
few simple games, and basic Office functionality. OEM Windows XP plus
Works costs you something like $150 last I checked.
 
I recently bought a refurbished Sony RZ54G from uBid with full factory
warranty at about half the price of a new one. There is no way I could
have built a computer with the performance, software and features for
even close to what I paid.

I think the off-the-shelf computers will always beat the price of an
equivalent homebuilt.

But, I also have a homebuilt that I wouldn't trade for any
off-the-shelf computer. So you make your choice and go with it.

jimbo
 
It's harder to save by building if you want a legal MS Windows. Linux
makes building more attractive. Linux is plenty for surfing, email, a
few simple games, and basic Office functionality. OEM Windows XP plus
Works costs you something like $150 last I checked.
Click to expand...

OEM Windows XP was $90 for me about 4 months ago. And openoffice is free :)
 
David said:
OEM Windows XP was $90 for me about 4 months ago. And openoffice is free :)
Click to expand...

Thank you. I forgot OpenOffice runs on Windows too. That eases
everybody's eventual migration to Linux. :-)
 
jaster said:
Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
were technically faster otherwise no difference.
Click to expand...

Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.
I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
and rebate.
Click to expand...

There is some valid arguments for that for the mass consumer market.
However by the time someone arrives here asking the question then the
pendulum has swung to build it yourself.
 
Mac said:
BrightStar:


Price is the wrong reason to build your own.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
components for the the same or less money than what they offer.

Homebuilders maybe tend to spend more to get the PC they want, but
that's because they choose to spend more for personal reasons. Let's
face it, they are hobbyists, and therefore fanatics. Of course they
might tend to spend more for components... BUT they don't have to.

You have more control over appearance with a homebuilt, too. There is a
boggling array of colorful PC cases available that make it possible to
really express your individuality with your PC's appearance.
 
Ron said:
Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Name brand OEM computers just offer basically the same
components, including the motherboards, but branded with the OEM's name.
They just assemble them. Do people really think that Dell manufactures
their own motherboards??? MSI was providing Dell, but I'm not sure who
currently is.
There is some valid arguments for that for the mass consumer market.
However by the time someone arrives here asking the question then the
pendulum has swung to build it yourself.
Click to expand...

There are valid arguments for buying one if you get a deal on one with
those incredible rebates. Usually, those machines are bottom of the line
machines. My brother bought an eMachines computer with monitor and all
for $400. Sure, it's not top of the line stuff, but I'd be hard pressed
to build the same thing for the same price. However, I built an Athlon
XP Linux box for $400, using the external drives and graphics card from
my previous machine. If I had to buy those components new, it would have
cost me in the neighborhood of about $700. I still cannot buy a machine
with the same specs for that price. I estimate it would cost me about
$900 to buy a machine with the same specs.

Usually, the more extravagant you build your machine, the better off you
are building. My XP machine was built just over 2 years ago and I spent
$2200 to build it. I got the best of everything, including SoundBlaster
Audigy Pro, GeForce 4600Ti, 400 watt Logitech speaker system, Pentium 4
2.0 Northwood, ATA133 80GB RAID system, 24X CR-R/RW, 16X DVD, Zip250,
and an Orb 2.2GB. At that time, I couldn't even dream of getting a Dell
with those specs, but manufacturers like Falcon Northwest and Alienware
were charging $3800+ for a similar setup.
 
ToolPackinMama said:
No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
components for the the same or less money than what they offer.

Homebuilders maybe tend to spend more to get the PC they want, but
that's because they choose to spend more for personal reasons. Let's
face it, they are hobbyists, and therefore fanatics. Of course they
might tend to spend more for components... BUT they don't have to.

You have more control over appearance with a homebuilt, too. There is a
boggling array of colorful PC cases available that make it possible to
really express your individuality with your PC's appearance.
Click to expand...


There are many positive things to say about homebuilt computers, but
price is not one of them. I have priced equivalent systems several
times and the homebuilt always comes out more expensive, not by a lot
but more. And when you consider the software that is almost always
packaged with an off-the-rack, the price gap gets even wider. Maybe if
you shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant
buying from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a
little less for the hardware. But you would still not be able to match
the cost of the bundled software. And yes, much of what comes bundled
with an off-the-rack is worthless, but the OS alone is usually enough
to push the cost of a homebuilt over an off-the-rack.

That said, I still am willing to pay a little more for a homebuilt to
get EXACTLY what I want.

jimbo
 
There are many positive things to say about homebuilt computers, but
price is not one of them. I have priced equivalent systems several
times and the homebuilt always comes out more expensive, not by a lot
but more. And when you consider the software that is almost always
packaged with an off-the-rack, the price gap gets even wider. Maybe if
you shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant
buying from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a
little less for the hardware. But you would still not be able to match
the cost of the bundled software. And yes, much of what comes bundled
with an off-the-rack is worthless, but the OS alone is usually enough
to push the cost of a homebuilt over an off-the-rack.

That said, I still am willing to pay a little more for a homebuilt
to get EXACTLY what I want.
Click to expand...

Very, very true! I always do the same.
 
jimbo said:
Maybe if you
shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant buying
from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a little less
for the hardware.
Click to expand...

If you take six months and buy your parts opportunistically, you may be
able to build very cheaply. I have bought or could have bought the
following:

Antec SLK1650 case + 350W supply: $60
Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $80
Soyo KT600 Dragon Ultra PE mobo $15 AR
3 x Kingston 256MB PC2100 0 AR
WD800BB (80G hard drive): $20 AR
nVIDIA AGP card $40
5.1 Mad Dog sound card $ 3 AR
Sony floppy $14
keyboard $ 5 AR
HP mouse $ 0 AR
Samsung or Liteon CDRW $35
Fedora Core 2 Linux OS+apps $ 0

That is a _very_ respectable system for under $275. Note that the
motherboard has SATA RAID, firewire, and gigabit LAN. All parts new,
name brand, guaranteed, delivered. AR=after rebate. You could add
Windows XP OEM for $90 and use OpenOffice for free and still be under $365.
 
BrightStar said:
Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
name brand PC?

For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
buck.

Thanks,
Brightstar65
Click to expand...

Dude, don't get a Dell.
 
6 months?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you bought the same crappy components (if a retailer would even
consider selling the junk) you can build the same POS that dell will
hand you. Its when you do your research in the QUALITY of parts, is
when you begin to understand the difference between bought and built.
Its getting harder to compare, as most components are OB (integrated)
on commercial machines. That type of video/audio/modem weren't
something to be desired at one time, but they have come along way.
Eventually the home built machine will be a museum piece, if the
powers that be have anything to do with it. I've been preaching TCPA
for over a year. Its closer to reality now with the saturation of
64bit computing around the corner. Flip of the code an MP3 , Divix, or
whatever else we have grown used to, will be gone.


Matt said:
If you take six months and buy your parts opportunistically, you may be
able to build very cheaply. I have bought or could have bought the
following:

Antec SLK1650 case + 350W supply: $60
Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $80
Soyo KT600 Dragon Ultra PE mobo $15 AR
3 x Kingston 256MB PC2100 0 AR
WD800BB (80G hard drive): $20 AR
nVIDIA AGP card $40
5.1 Mad Dog sound card $ 3 AR
Sony floppy $14
keyboard $ 5 AR
HP mouse $ 0 AR
Samsung or Liteon CDRW $35
Fedora Core 2 Linux OS+apps $ 0

That is a _very_ respectable system for under $275. Note that the
motherboard has SATA RAID, firewire, and gigabit LAN. All parts new,
name brand, guaranteed, delivered. AR=after rebate. You could add
Windows XP OEM for $90 and use OpenOffice for free and still be
Click to expand...
under $365.
 
Back
Top