Software, Computers, Video Games and D&D UtilitiesGeneral discussion on computer software and hardware, PC and console games, and RPG utilities such as eTools, PC GEN, etc.
I am wanting to get a new computer to replace my current dinosaur. So I have been looking around and I see alot of choices regarding the processor (intel vs amd etc) and don't really know how to compare them. I know that bigger is better - but how much bigger do I need.
I plan to surf the net and watch movies (netflix, hulu and anything I can legally download).
Oh, I plan to get windows XP if that makes a difference.
I am wanting to get a new computer to replace my current dinosaur. So I have been looking around and I see alot of choices regarding the processor (intel vs amd etc) and don't really know how to compare them. I know that bigger is better - but how much bigger do I need.
I plan to surf the net and watch movies (netflix, hulu and anything I can legally download).
Oh, I plan to get windows XP if that makes a difference.
Any help would be appreciated.
For surfing the net and watching movies, essentially anything will do. CPUs long ago surpassed what you needed for anything like that.
Just get at least 2 gb ram (4 gb preferable - should be dirt cheap).
Gigabit ethernet is preferable, 100 mb Ethernet will do.
You should try to avoid "integrated graphics" they basically suck. You want a graphics card. Unfortunately, there's so many of them that it's difficult to give specific recommendations without more info.
__________________ "We are all Individuals! They chanted in unison...
Well, I don't plan on playing video games or WOW. On the other hand, I dream of getting a HD monitor, but that's not necessary.
For a computer monitor, the resolution is not so important in terms of "picture quality". A "HD" monitor that is small tends to be self defeating because it makes things so small. A smaller screen with more pixels means each pixel is smaller and since objects tend to be a set number of pixels a 20" monitor with the same resolution as a 30" monitor, everything is going to be about 2/3rds the size on the smaller monitor. You can't tell the difference between HD rez and 720p/1080i rez on a TV of less than 50" size. So on a 20ish inch monitor it isn't going to make a difference, except for how much you can show on a screen.
A 20-22" monitor should be available for $100-$200 and is the minimum I would recommend. You might even be able to get a 23-24" for that price range. But don't worry about the resolution too much.
If you have a decent recent model TV you can probably use your TV as a monitor. Some graphics cards even have an HDMI output, but you can easily get a DVI (typical monitor interface) to HDMI cable or adapter.
Do you have a price range for the computer? Or a place/source you are planning to buy it from?
BTW, it is going to be difficult to get a mass market consumer oriented computer that will come with windows XP. You pretty much have to either build one, get a business machine from Dell or go to a custom PC builder in order to get XP on a machine. Unless you have some specific need for XP, windows 7 does by all accounts suck considerably less than Vista.
__________________ "We are all Individuals! They chanted in unison...
I am wanting to get a new computer to replace my current dinosaur. So I have been looking around and I see alot of choices regarding the processor (intel vs amd etc) and don't really know how to compare them. I know that bigger is better - but how much bigger do I need.
I plan to surf the net and watch movies (netflix, hulu and anything I can legally download).
Oh, I plan to get windows XP if that makes a difference.
Any help would be appreciated.
If that's all you're doing, essentially any computer on the market right now will have a fast enough processor for you, so just find something that fits your budget. At the low end of the price spectrum, AMD processors give you more bang for the buck. Intel is better for mid- to high-budget PCs.
There's no reason not to get 4 GB of RAM; I recommend DDR3.
You may be able to get away with integrated graphics, but I don't recommend it. There are plenty of good cheap graphics cards, particularly from Radeon. It's well worth the extra money.
As for the OS, while I usually like to wait for the first service pack before using a new version of Windows, I don't think going with XP is a good idea at this time. I'd go with Windows 7.
__________________ I think so Brain, but wouldn't his movies be more suitable for children if he were named 'Jean-Claude Van Darn'?
Well, here's a quick budget build for ya, but still with some room to move down the track. If you could put it together yourself (not as hard as it might sound) or get a buddy to do that for you - or hey, even pay a shop to do it, for cheap - it'll end up very inexpensive indeed.
CPU: AMD Athlon II x2 240
M/Board: Gigabyte GA-MA770T-UD3P
RAM: Kingston [or other OK cheapish brand] 2x2GB dual channel DDR3-1333 kit
Graphics: AMD HD4650 [?] - should help with general stuff, like HD vids.
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 500GB [SATA II]
Optical: Any [SATA II] DVD-RW (Pioneer, Sony, Asus. . .)
Power Supply: included below. . .
Case: Coolermaster Elite 360 with 420w PSU
Monitor: 22" or 24" full HD LCD (Asus, Samsung, BenQ, Dell. . .)
Mouse & KB: to taste.
Just some ideas really. I don't know what your budget is, so that makes it a bit tricky! The case might seem a bit odd in that mix, but I do believe in getting a decent one, and that particular CM Elite is quite flexible in how it's used, and even how it's placed. The PSU included admittedly isn't the best, but it ain't one of the worst either. And you do *NOT* want any of those time-bombs. The CPU is a budget buy, but not shabby anyhow, and certainly upgradeable at some stage, if needed. Monitor is an item you might as well spend a bit on, because you're staring at that for possibly hours at a time. But the good thing is, full HD is standard now, and 22 or 24 inch is around the sweet spot.
USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0 are both being included in new motherboards as of, well, right now, but they're very new tech, so I wouldn't worry about either thing for qutie some time.
Last edited by Aus_Snow; 6th November 2009 at 07:02 AM..
Reason: forgot mouse and KB! Aiiiieeee!!!
BTW, it is going to be difficult to get a mass market consumer oriented computer that will come with windows XP. You pretty much have to either build one, get a business machine from Dell or go to a custom PC builder in order to get XP on a machine. Unless you have some specific need for XP, windows 7 does by all accounts suck considerably less than Vista.
Well, now that Win7 is generally available, there's no reason not to go that way on a new machine. But reports of Vista sucking on anything other than an ancient box or a netbook are greatly exaggerated.
Well, now that Win7 is generally available, there's no reason not to go that way on a new machine. But reports of Vista sucking on anything other than an ancient box or a netbook are greatly exaggerated.
The User Account Control. Explain to me how something that nags you to death for absolutely anything you want to do or change on the machine is not pure suck?
Our vista machine at work has to be rebooted every couple of days unlike any of our XP/2000 machines.
And it's suckyness is pretty much the feed back I've gotten from my windows using friends.
__________________ "We are all Individuals! They chanted in unison...
I see a couple of 'mistakes' in the replies above.
You do need to look at processing power of your CPU if you want to watch 1080p movies. An alternative is to use a video card that supports certain features to do some of the prosessing of you 1080p movie.
You can see the difference between DVD and 720p clearly on a 20" screen, I can see the difference between a 720p and 1080p movie on my 30" monitor.
Do you expect to do a lot of different things at the same time (multiple programs)? If so you might want to consider a multicore processor (dual, triple, or quad), that generally helps more then a faster CPU (if you run multiple programs at the same time). But if it's only surf the web OR watch movies, you don't really need a multicore CPU.
__________________ The Helix - Datahaven When cutting edge isn't sharp enough. I will not accept that. No regret.
You do need to look at processing power of your CPU if you want to watch 1080p movies. An alternative is to use a video card that supports certain features to do some of the prosessing of you 1080p movie.
Considering that you can get a video card for <$50 that will do the 1080p playback, the processor as I said is not worth worrying about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cergorach
You can see the difference between DVD and 720p clearly on a 20" screen, I can see the difference between a 720p and 1080p movie on my 30" monitor.
A 30" monitor at typical prices is around $1,200. That's probably about twice as much as the OP is looking to spend on the computer and monitor. It's more than most people spend on their TVs. Also it requires a dual-link capable video card to drive it, which is also more money. I would certainly hope you'd be getting something for all that money.
That you can "see the difference" doesn't change the fact that on a computer monitor, the resolution does NOT directly relate to the picture quality. It simply affects how much you can see on the screen at one time. Computer monitors btw have almost always been of much higher quality than TVs, since clarity is paramount with most computer work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cergorach
Do you expect to do a lot of different things at the same time (multiple programs)? If so you might want to consider a multicore processor (dual, triple, or quad), that generally helps more then a faster CPU (if you run multiple programs at the same time). But if it's only surf the web OR watch movies, you don't really need a multicore CPU.
For any typical sort of user, there is essentially zero advantage to anything more than a dual core. You need to be using highly threaded, highly parallel software before triple or quad cores give you any advantage. Given that triple and quad core chips often have lower clock speeds than the equivalent dual core chips, this actually makes their larger number of cores a liability for most people.
__________________ "We are all Individuals! They chanted in unison...
The User Account Control. Explain to me how something that nags you to death for absolutely anything you want to do or change on the machine is not pure suck?
The thing that finally got developers to pay attention to Windows user account guidelines and make the vast majority of software useable as a non-Admin? That's a bad thing???
The thing that finally got developers to pay attention to Windows user account guidelines and make the vast majority of software useable as a non-Admin? That's a bad thing???
Security that annoys you to the point where you simply turn it off does not do any good and that's what UAC did to a lot of people. It asks you if you want to be doing "this" far, far too often.
Getting software to be usable/installable as a non-admin does not require that kind of or level of nagging. That's a completely separate issue.
__________________ "We are all Individuals! They chanted in unison...
Considering that you can get a video card for <$50 that will do the 1080p playback, the processor as I said is not worth worrying about.
That might be true, but you do need to look for the correct videocard and some systems don't have that option.
Quote:
A 30" monitor at typical prices is around $1,200. That's probably about twice as much as the OP is looking to spend on the computer and monitor. It's more than most people spend on their TVs. Also it requires a dual-link capable video card to drive it, which is also more money. I would certainly hope you'd be getting something for all that money.
I'm an IT guy ;-) But that's not the point. A monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200 or TV with a resolution of 1920x1080 is also capable of displaying 720p and 1080p video. So you should be able to see the difference on a 32" TV (with the correct resolution), I'm guessing that you would probably see the difference on an affordable 24" monitor (don't have one, so can't guarantee it).
Quote:
That you can "see the difference" doesn't change the fact that on a computer monitor, the resolution does NOT directly relate to the picture quality. It simply affects how much you can see on the screen at one time. Computer monitors btw have almost always been of much higher quality than TVs, since clarity is paramount with most computer work.
The number of pixels do affect picture quality, the higher number of pixels used, the better the quality of the image. It isn't the only factor, but it is one. Movies on monitors and TVs scale to fit the screen. So a low resolution video can be as large as a high resolution video, the quality of the video is different though. In other words, if your video doesn't have a lot of pixels, having more pixels in your TV/monitor isn't going to improve the quality one bit.
Quote:
For any typical sort of user, there is essentially zero advantage to anything more than a dual core. You need to be using highly threaded, highly parallel software before triple or quad cores give you any advantage. Given that triple and quad core chips often have lower clock speeds than the equivalent dual core chips, this actually makes their larger number of cores a liability for most people.
There's not really a 'typical' sort of user, everyone has different 'needs'. You might only use the browser, but if you have 20+ tabs open at the same time, chances are that you'll need a more capable PC then someone that only uses a single tab.
__________________ The Helix - Datahaven When cutting edge isn't sharp enough. I will not accept that. No regret.
That might be true, but you do need to look for the correct videocard and some systems don't have that option.
That's where the "avoid the integrated graphics" comes in and the list of decent basic video cards. Pretty much any system with a PCIe video card will be able to do the 1080p. IME, integrated graphics are a sign that you should simply avoid the computer, if there are no options for upgrading that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cergorach
I'm an IT guy ;-) But that's not the point. A monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200 or TV with a resolution of 1920x1080 is also capable of displaying 720p and 1080p video. So you should be able to see the difference on a 32" TV (with the correct resolution), I'm guessing that you would probably see the difference on an affordable 24" monitor (don't have one, so can't guarantee it).
According to all the testing I've seen. Most people can not tell the differences between 1080i/720p and 1080p on less than a 50" TV. Now I'm talking about video not still images. 30 frames per second covers up a multitude of sins in individual video frames.
I've seen a lot of comparison threads showing the same frame from the DVD and the Blu ray disks and while there is a clear difference most of the time, you do have to look for the small details to tell the difference. It's at best an incremental difference, not a night and day one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cergorach
The number of pixels do affect picture quality, the higher number of pixels used, the better the quality of the image. It isn't the only factor, but it is one. Movies on monitors and TVs scale to fit the screen. So a low resolution video can be as large as a high resolution video, the quality of the video is different though.
They can scale to the larger size, you don't have to scale them. A lot of the time you are better off not scaling the videos. A small "sharp" video is better than a large, fuzzy, pixilated image IME.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cergorach
In other words, if your video doesn't have a lot of pixels, having more pixels in your TV/monitor isn't going to improve the quality one bit.
This was basically my point about "number of pixels not being directly related to picture quality".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cergorach
There's not really a 'typical' sort of user, everyone has different 'needs'. You might only use the browser, but if you have 20+ tabs open at the same time, chances are that you'll need a more capable PC then someone that only uses a single tab.
That's a bad example. It only shows that you don't bother to close tabs. The number of tabs you have open is irrelevant to how much processing power you need. HTML rendering simply doesn't require that much of a processor and you're only rendering the one tab showing in any case. I've often had a ton of "tabs" up while doing a bunch of other things on a fairly low powered machine at work and it didn't slow things down in the slightest. A dual core gives you at least one core for system tasks and one for what ever your "primary" activity is. Very, very few people are doing something or using software that requires more than that.
As far as "typical" users go, that is rather the point of asking the OP questions about what they need isn't it?
__________________ "We are all Individuals! They chanted in unison...
Thanks for the responses! It's helped some of my decisions a lot. I've decided to go ahead with the windows 7 - I played around with it in the store and some of those features are cool.
One more question, though. If a computer has integrated graphics does that preclude uprading with a better card (assuming the tower has a free pci slot)?
Based on my budget (about 550 dollars, including tax) I'm ok with waiting a few months to get a graphics card.
One more question, though. If a computer has integrated graphics does that preclude uprading with a better card (assuming the tower has a free pci slot)?
No, it does not preclude it. You can in fact use both simultaneously to drive 2-3 monitors (many graphics cards will drive 2 monitors). However a lot of the integrated graphics will steal some of your computer's ram.
You actually want what's called a "PCIe x16" or "PCI Express x16" slot. The sixteen refers to both the number of PCIe "lanes" and the physical slot. You will see some computers with PCIe x8 slots. Which generally speaking are physically identical to an x16 slot, but have half the number of data lanes. A PCIe X8 slot is acceptable for what you want it for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by physics_ninja
Based on my budget (about 550 dollars, including tax) I'm ok with waiting a few months to get a graphics card.
You can probably get a graphics card for that much. It depends on what else you get/want, especially in a monitor. Does that budget include a monitor?
If you can tell us where you are likely to buy it we can probably recommend specific models.
Make sure it comes with some sort of a DVD burner (DVD-RW+/-).
I highly recommend getting a cheap USB "thumb" drive. A 4 gig one should be $10 or less and is terrific for transferring files and such.
Don't pay for "security" software. AVG anti-virus is free and works well. Malwarebytes and Spybot-Search & Destroy are two good free anti-malware packages (not the same thing as anti-virus software). Make sure you have those downloaded and ready to install onto your new computer before you connect it to the internet. The first thing you should do after you do hook it up to the internet is to hit "windows update" and install any security patches and updates available.
Update them regularly and run them regularly. The average unpatched unprotected PC connected to the internet will be compromised in something like 15 min.
__________________ "We are all Individuals! They chanted in unison...
You actually want what's called a "PCIe x16" or "PCI Express x16" slot. The sixteen refers to both the number of PCIe "lanes" and the physical slot.
Quote:
If you can tell us where you are likely to buy it we can probably recommend specific models.
In town stores include wal-mart, best buy, target, comp usa and the office supply stores. I'd rather not order online, but I'm not opposed to it.
Quote:
Make sure it comes with some sort of a DVD burner (DVD-RW+/-).
Definately.
Quote:
I highly recommend getting a cheap USB "thumb" drive. A 4 gig one should be $10 or less and is terrific for transferring files and such.
Already have one and I love it.
Quote:
Don't pay for "security" software. AVG anti-virus is free and works well. Malwarebytes and Spybot-Search & Destroy are two good free anti-malware packages (not the same thing as anti-virus software).
In the past I have had problems with AVG and Spybot not playing well together, (currently I use stopzilla - which is OKay but not spectacular)
Quote:
Make sure you have those downloaded and ready to install onto your new computer before you connect it to the internet. The first thing you should do after you do hook it up to the internet is to hit "windows update" and install any security patches and updates available.
Oooo . . . good idea. downloading to flashdrive now.
In the past I have had problems with AVG and Spybot not playing well together, (currently I use stopzilla - which is OKay but not spectacular)
I'll just repeat (more or less) what I said in another thread here recently:
I would recommend the stuff I use. Yeah, big surprise.
This happens to be, for Windows, Avast! Antivirus, Malwarebytes Antimalware, IOBit Security 360 and Outpost Firewall. They are all freeware, work together flawalessly, are easy to use and (by default) self-configuring, and offer just about everything you'd need for Windows security, other than using Firefox and Thunderbird as browser and email client, and a couple of other minor things. IMO.
Oh, and if you do use an application-level packet-flitering firewall (like Outpost) make sure you disable Windows Firewall first! Likewise, totally uninstall any antivirus program before installing any other (like Avast!, for example.)
IOBit 360 Security is particularly handy, whatever else you decide on, because it's that extremely rare (unique?) combination of fast, effective and real-time (for an anti-malware application, that is.)
One more question, though. If a computer has integrated graphics does that preclude uprading with a better card (assuming the tower has a free pci slot)?
Just make sure you can open up the PC without breaking some sort of warranty seal, I know it's ridiculous, but I've come across them (some Fujitsu machines for example). Normally i don't have a problem with that, as I've built my machines myself for the last two decades, but not everyone does that so it's pretty easy to forget...
__________________ The Helix - Datahaven When cutting edge isn't sharp enough. I will not accept that. No regret.
The case might seem a bit odd in that mix, but I do believe in getting a decent one, and that particular CM Elite is quite flexible in how it's used, and even how it's placed. The PSU included admittedly isn't the best, but it ain't one of the worst either. And you do *NOT* want any of those time-bombs. The CPU is a budget buy, but not shabby anyhow, and certainly upgradeable at some stage, if needed. Monitor is an item you might as well spend a bit on, because you're staring at that for possibly hours at a time. But the good thing is, full HD is standard now, and 22 or 24 inch is around the sweet spot.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
