Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Building New Pc From Ground Up!


  • Please log in to reply

#31
Burton1

Burton1

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 430 posts

Well I guess I am still lost on this one. Are you saying don't get a Dell monitor?? or are you saying to get a whole Dell PC.....if you are talking about the PC I agree and I would never buy a store put to gether pc any ways.

My very 1st pc as a gateway...(nothing more than a very expensive paperweight)...from that point on I have always bought all my parts from the net and had them shipped to me and put the system together with help of friends.
What do you think about the hardware that I have picked out so far??
Thanks


Repost once more please.
  • 0

Advertisements


#32
ATG

ATG

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Before you start riping on dell search their XPS Renegade. Its amazing just go check it out :tazz:.

Here they are
http://accessories.u...s&~topic=gaming

Go to the left a little down and click on the fire computer..
Specs

Name XPS 600 Renegade

Quad Nvidia SLi- Dual 1 gig NVIDIA Geforce 7800 graphics card

Xp Pro

Nvidia NFORCE 4 Sli x16

Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Processer HT OVERCLOCKED at 4.26 GHZ



2Gb Dual channel Ram 667 MHZ

Custom Paint Job


Aye I agree that is a very nice system...but I still think that you can build a faster better pc if you pick it out your self and it will be a lot cheaper I think.
  • 0

#33
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Man that renegade is a waste of money, aye tis fast, but i could build faster and overclock it myself for less, and there is alot of companies that build systems much more impressive for much less, and they dont just paint it, they do laser etched designs into lian li cases(amari and voodoo are amazing builders overclocked X2s with hand engineered water cooling makes a renegade look like ATGs gateway and they cost less and they arent intel).

Lots of amazing montior makers, samsung, phillips, toshiba, hitachi, viewsonic and sony(sony monitors are amazing in terms of colour and clarity) all been in the game a long time, and Dell as far as i know get there monitors from samsung.
  • 0

#34
ATG

ATG

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
Ok is it just me...so far every where I look (sony, toshiba ect....) for lets say a 24" lcd falt panel desk top the prices are way through the roof??

I mean sony was like $1300 to $1500 for a 24" and heck Toshiba is about the same.....is there a reason why there's are going for some much more than a Dell 24" which average's about $750 to $850.....Heck I even looked on newegg and they where sky high as well compared to the Dell???
  • 0

#35
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts
I said that about dell pc's. They are pretty good.. They cost too much for what your getting is all im saying. Said nothing about the monitors, but I would rather get a differend brand if I could.


There are many types of monitors / lcd tv's you can get. Many different options to cheap to extreme. The lower the ms the better. The ms means the milliseconds it takes to display the game/information etc.. Lower the millisecond the better for games and everything. Its basically the response time.

Samsung makes great monitors and lcd monitors. Viewsonic is good also.
  • 0

#36
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Samsung and Viewsonic are the cheapest and will be similar to the dell the sony and hitachi monitors are the best monitors, the sony ones also have tv tuners at that size and they all now use the x-black coating which if youve ever seen it is amazing to image clarity.
  • 0

#37
ATG

ATG

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
Ok will check the others out as well.

Is it possible to get a sony or hitachi 24" for under a $1,000 ???
  • 0

#38
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Dont think so unless you get lucky you have to pay to get the best im afraid and LCDs unfortunately are one of the few commodities today that are still very hard and expensive to make, they dont make alot of profit on LCDs because they cost so much to make and generally the higher the quality and the more advanced the harder to make.

The samsungs or viewsonics you should find for less.
  • 0

#39
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts
For what I have seen so far dell makes the cheapest 24 inch lcd monitor for the pc. Should be good and would probably be the best bet because all the other companies are expensive on the monitors. Yes, big lcd monitors is a different story than pc's. I dont know what millisecond time the dell 24inch lcd monitor has but its probably not going to be a low response time. For the price of that dell lcd 24inch monitor you could get a lcd tv of some kind but I would stick with a Lcd Monitor of some type. Why dont you look into getting a smaller lcd monitor from a good company.

Look at the samsung 19inch or 20 inch lcd monitors with 8 ms "millisecond response time" or lower. Get a 8 ms response time or lower for gaming. You will thank me.. They are really good priced..

Edited by jrm20, 07 February 2006 - 05:59 PM.

  • 0

#40
ATG

ATG

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
Sorry for the late repsone on this thread.......father is really sick right now so have been busy.

I did check out several of the others.....and it was either more expensive for a smaller version or cheaper for really small version.

I currently have a 21" monitor and don't want to go smaller......


Plus another thing I head was that the x1900xt was not compatiable with the Dell 24" flat panel.

Can this be ture......how can a video card not be compatiable with a monitor??? I have never heard this before.


One more thing that a friend asked me (yes the friend who loves 10,000 rpm HD and is stuck on the Intel memory speed) he asked on the dual core amd processors do they share the FSB. So if it is a 1000Mhz FSB does each processor get 500Mhz or do they both shard the same 1000Mhz FSB.

If they share the same 1000Mhz would it be faster to get a single core processor that would have the whole 1000Mhz FSB to its self???


These crazy questions my friends thinks of!

Edited by ATG, 10 February 2006 - 01:42 PM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#41
Hammm

Hammm

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
how much cash have you got ATG? that system will be one [bleep] of a lot over in NZ, but man. You'll need the very latest of games and apps to take full advantage of something like the 4800+ or FX-57. Altec from Australia made what they said to be the fastest PC on the planet. Specs were:
FX-57 2.8GHz CPU overclocked to 3.31 GHz!
Abit Fatal1ty SLI Ultra Mobo
2x 7800GTX OC'ed in SLI
and they only had 1024Mb Corsair XMS RAM(you've got 2 gigs)
Creative Audigy ZS2 Platiumn Sound Card
4x 80 gig HDD in RAID 0

but seriously, that was a waste(it cost 7222 NZD so that's 5055 USD, a [bleep] of a lot in any ones term). I'm building my PC and want a good preformance so getting the 4400+. There really is no difference in preformance, especially for games, it's all about the gfx card not the CPU(not at such high levels) so i think you should cut back to a 4400+ and save a few dollars. And as for the gfx card, a X1800XT 512Mb will do everything you need, there's no point going for invisible fps increases with the X1900XT. the X1800XT can still play COD2 and FEAR at 1600x1200 res with out lagging, at the best settings. I think you should cut down on the specs because with AMDs M2 socket, DDR3 and more coming out, you'll never be the best and it's better to save a few hundred dollars and buy only what you'll use.
  • 0

#42
ATG

ATG

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
Really sorry about the late response.

Well the main reason why I am building this system is becaue I have the money now to build which every one I want, but also because I want to build one that will be good for a few years (condition of wife..lol).

Just my luck....I just recently read on AMD's Web site that they are about to release there new M2 processors which will be even faster than the fx-60 or fx-57...and they will now support DDR2 memory.....


One more thing that a friend asked me (yes the friend who loves 10,000 rpm HD and is stuck on the Intel memory speed) he asked on the dual core amd processors do they share the FSB. So if it is a 1000Mhz FSB does each processor get 500Mhz or do they both shard the same 1000Mhz FSB.

If they share the same 1000Mhz would it be faster to get a single core processor that would have the whole 1000Mhz FSB to its self???


Thanks
  • 0

#43
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts
LOL I have an intel now. About the memory speed on some of the newer intel boards that do support ddr2. Yes DDR2 is nice but the amd is designed better. Amd chips dont need the ddr2 memory and they are still faster than the intel processors with ddr2 for example. Amd's will run very fast even with crappy memory. That is the reasons why they havnt used ddr2 yet, because they havnt needed it and they have learned to cope with regular DDR memory and make there chips run extremely fast with plain ddr memory. Ya the ddr2 amd motherboards and the new m2 chips are coming sometime, I dont know when.

tell your friend that the intel memory speed doesnt mean jack because the amd processors out now that only uses regular ddr is faster than intel chips that use ddr2.

I like intel and amd both. Amd is the better chip for dual core..
  • 0

#44
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
DDR2 makes no difference and considering the switch from DDR2 to whatever the next will be will be short(looks like XDR will be the next either that or a verison of DDR3 but they are both similar).

Clock speed isnt a resource like memory you cant "share" it as such its more fo a constant.
  • 0

#45
ATG

ATG

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
so on a dual core both of them will have use of the full 1000Mhz FSB?


Has anyone heard anything about the new price of these new M2 processors or any guess on the core clock speed (if we even go by that anymore)?



ATG
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP