Computer that I might build

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 10 Dec 2006, 15:24

I think you did the right thing on the monitor, but I'm a performance-over-glitz person. 1440x900 is plenty big, looks nice, and saves you some scratch. That said, I concur with the above- take 100 bucks of the 300 you shaved of before and invest it in a better power supply. I've seen some bargain supplies completely fry motherboards, ect. My friend even built a computer where if anyone touched the case near the power supply fan (Such as to plug or unplug USB) it would cause a hard-restart. Gross.

imbaczek · Post by **imbaczek** » 10 Dec 2006, 16:17

AF:
1) never underestimate id software.
2)

Code: Select all

top - 16:17:26 up  3:36,  1 user,  load average: 0.60, 0.55, 0.46
Tasks: 123 total,   2 running, 120 sleeping,   0 stopped,   1 zombie

and yes, that's my desktop, and it runs perfectly fine

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 10 Dec 2006, 17:15

0.60, 0.55, 0.46

Percent!?

HAHAHAHAH! My percent never rises above 4!

imbaczek · Post by **imbaczek** » 10 Dec 2006, 20:05

That's what happens when you're doing programming assigments

AF · Post by AF » 10 Dec 2006, 22:29

id software?

what command gave you those stats? Why does load average have 3 values and not one?

Please ellaborate!

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 10 Dec 2006, 23:45

First is load average over 1 minute, second over 5 minutes, third over 15 minutes. Not sure about the exact numbers tho, but it's something like that.

The command is top.

AF · Post by AF » 11 Dec 2006, 02:02

Must be a Unix command....

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 11 Dec 2006, 12:34

I have more issues than just these 2... but these are the MAJOR GLARING WTF issues...

#1) POWERSUPPLY you've planned to build a Panoz for a computer... yet you put a friggin Kia 4 cylinder motor on it...

- 550 watts all by itself isn't enough, the processor/mobo/vidocard ALONE will eat up 650 watts, now add the dual hdd's, CD-ROM's, fans, RAM, and whatever else you put in the case... you'll need more like 700 watts.. and if you overclock it, I wouldn't go under 700, regardless. (not to mention your cooler is gonna fry eggs if you overclock it... lols)
look here even:
http://extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine

- wtf brand is that? Generic? is it even tested? do the rails push the same +12V under load? what about the 5V rail? I'd reccomend HIGHLY, VERY VERY VERY VERY HIGHLY, a top brand PSU, Enermax, Ultra, Silverstone, Zaleman, OCZ, Antec, lots of good names, and many I didn't list.. get a REAL PSU! you will thank me later...

#2) YOUR MONITOR!!
These stats are just pathetic:
Brightness 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 700:1
Response Time 5ms (isn't that bad though)
the brightness is effin DULL! you want a pretty crisp image to go with that 200$ on the monitor? with only 300 cd/m2 ?? lol hardly, that's gonna be dim. then the contrast suffers TERRIBLY! note the 700:1 ratio... I've got a 1400:1 ratio @ 600 cd/m2 and I still wish it was more.. (I'm an enthusiast though).. but yeah, I'd get at LEAST at the very very least, 900:1 preferably, 1200:1

but yeah, those are my biggest kicks there.

your PSU being unable to perform to what you are gonna want it to do, and yeah, it'll overheat, and prolly burn your house down.
and #2 your monitor lookin like crap and all dull and muggy when you blew enough money to buy a nice car so that you have to watch it in the dark while it burns your house down..

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 11 Dec 2006, 12:45

has there been a single unexaggerated post in this thread? you guys should sell freaking window insurance >.>
e: i didn't imply you didn't but its exaggerated. you're right but you don't need to be so forceful! besides if he wants to burn down his house i'll be there with the marshmellows...
and the other posts too? yours just seemed to stand out

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 11 Dec 2006, 12:48

Min3mat wrote:has there been a single unexaggerated post in this thread? you guys should sell freaking window insurance >.>

no, and no. I know what I'm talking about.

Zydox · Post by **Zydox** » 11 Dec 2006, 14:06

Tobi wrote:First is load average over 1 minute, second over 5 minutes, third over 15 minutes. Not sure about the exact numbers tho, but it's something like that.

I don't think the load average is the same as CPU usage, if a process is waiting for disk access it's also displayed in the load average... if I've understood it correctly

Here's a dump from one of my servers at work:

top - 14:01:48 up 167 days, 7:25, 1 user, load average: 8.02, 8.08, 8.11
Tasks: 118 total, 3 running, 115 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 11.2% us, 7.1% sy, 77.6% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 4.1% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 2073956k total, 979212k used, 1094744k free, 190940k buffers
Swap: 1100444k total, 17140k used, 1083304k free, 579280k cached

It's got an load average of 8, though most of the CPU is in nice, ie: if other processes needs the power, they get it...

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 12 Dec 2006, 01:31

Okay, I get it about the power supply. I guess I'm stuck in the past. Last time I messed around with computer hardware, I used a 250W power supply, and that was more than enough power for anything I'd ever want. That was in... 1998? Something around then.

As for the monitor, I mean, I'd love to get a better one, but as I said I don't have unlimited funds. I've been thinking about not even getting a monitor with the computer and going with a spare 17" CRT that I have laying around at home, left over from the computer before the last one, from 2002 or so...

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 12 Dec 2006, 01:35

Put the money toward your PSU, and forget the monitor for now, then. You'll thank yourself later.

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 12 Dec 2006, 04:10

neddiedrow wrote:Put the money toward your PSU, and forget the monitor for now, then. You'll thank yourself later.

I concur.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » 12 Dec 2006, 08:17

Erom wrote:Bigger aint always better. Every time I've tried to use a monitor higher than 1440x900, it's given me migrain headaches. Maybe he has the same issue.

That's because your refresh rate was set lower at the higher resolutions... that'll give anyone a headache!

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 12 Dec 2006, 09:38

neddiedrow wrote:Put the money toward your PSU, and forget the monitor for now, then. You'll thank yourself later.

agreed, PSU has priority, and don't cut corners, the CRT works, but don't buy a cheap PSU and a cheap monitor to just "make due"...

if you cut back anywhere, I'd cut back on the VPU or vidocard... consider getting something abotu 6 months old, its effectively 30-50% cheaper than when it was first released, and will maintain a resale value of at least 50% of what you got it for, for about a year and a half... meaning, you buy a 6 mo. old card now, and upgrade it 18 months later, to something even BETTER than what you plan on, for less money that getting the brand new one first..

I.E.
Now
Buy a 7000 series card spend 200-300$
upgrade to a top notch, maybe a weak 9000 series card in 18 months that will last another 18 months... 350-400$ (after inflation, yes its that fast)

OR:
buy the top of the line NOW, have a uber e-peen for 2 months 600-900$ and stretch it to last for the next 3 years (36 months) and have a lower end card, almost obsolete, for the last year when you finally get rid of it.

comparison:
option 1 = 550 - 700$ no e-peen, but no impotent-peen either
option 2 = 600 - 900$ 12" e-peen for 2 months, grandpa wrinkly peen after 3 years...

frankly, I'd take the option of upgrading..

Lippy · Post by **Lippy** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:16

@LathanStanley

You are forgetting that you buy a 7000 series graphics card now instead of a 8800, you will lose out in two respects:
1) Graphics over the next 18 months; as time progresses you will have to put down AA and detail, where you wouldn't need to with a 8800
2) Directx10 enchanced games; e.g. crysis & supreme commander. Granted, we don't yet know what kind of performance the 8800 has under directx10, but I doubt very much it would be v. bad....

I'm normally a person who encourages everyone not to pay extra for the latest greatest hardware, but with the massive performance benefits of the 8800, i would really recommend it.

BTW, if you do get a 8800, make sure you have a good power supply as stated before, but also make sure your case is large enough to house it, as the 8800 is a BEAST.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:59

For DX10 you'll need vista or XP, if they are porting it, anyway. I'd say a 7000 series card is your best bet atm instead of the 8000, mainly because of the inflation. Also cheapest price I've seen yet was about ├óÔÇÜ┬¼500-550 which is way too much for a graphics card. Anyway I'd wait (or rather I am waiting) at least another half a year. You can probably get that 8800 at a good price or one of the 7000 series for little money by then. I assume the 8800 will cost about ├óÔÇÜ┬¼250 and 7000 series about ├óÔÇÜ┬¼150-200 which is okay.

I read the 8800 will be way faster with DX9 apps than the 7000 series but it's just not worth the money at the moment.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 12 Dec 2006, 22:45

The 8800 I have picked out (by XFX) is $459, yay for living in the US where we get cheaper electronics.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 13 Dec 2006, 03:07

http://www.overclockers.co.uk

guess its not as good but still ^.^

Spring RTS Engine

Computer that I might build