My parents are buying me a new computer for Christmas, and my Dad wants me to go with him to look at them. I don't really know much about the specs, other than a lot of RAM is good, and I need a fast processor. I need some help searching through what is out there, so here's a list of a few things that I'd like it to do:
~ Play current games smoothly. For example: Oblivion, Source, Neverwinter Nights II, etc.
~ Run Garritan Personal Orchestra.
~ Have enough HD space for my huge music, movie, and game collection.
Kyriel has recommended this (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10598335), which comes with:
[spoiler]# 19" Dell SE198WFP widescreen LCD monitor
Presents 1440 x 900 resolution, 600:1 contrast and 8-ms. typical response rate
# Intel Core 2 Q6600 Quad-Core processor
Delivers the processing power to efficiently run today's demanding software
# 3 GB of DDR2 system memory, 667 MHz
Offers excellent performance for today's demanding applications
# 320 GB hard drive
Provides plenty of storage space for documents, games, music, photos and videos
# DVD+/-RW drive
Lets you burn and play DVDs and CDs for entertainment and data backup
# 19-in-1 digital media card reader
Reads the most popular memory card formats so you can transfer photos, music or documents
# 10/100/1000 Gigabit network interface and 56K modem
Connects to the Internet via DSL, cable or dial-up service
# Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition with Service Pack 1
Makes your total computing experience more efficient, more secure and more fun[/spoiler]
Any thoughts?
I rarely use Garritan anymore, but when I did, I had less than a gigabyte of RAM and it stell ran pretty well unless I tried to load a full orchestra. And what Garritan means by a full orchestra is literally loading 2 clarinets, 3 trumpets, etc.; exactly the number of instruments you want, rather than loading just one of each. So really it's not as heavy on RAM as they make it out to be. Well, depending on what quality you're going for. But I always had one sample of each instrument loaded (and the brass requires overlays) and it sounded pretty good.
tl;dr: You'll have more than enough RAM to run Garritan.
Garritan does have a few drawbacks though, as far as quality.
*The oboe sounds like shit.
*Not much percussion
*The percussion sounds like shit.
*French horn isn't that great, but it's alright.
That being said, the piano and solo string instruments are beautiful. Though, you may want to think about someday adding this (1 (http://tapspace.com/vdl2/index.html)|2 (http://tapspace.com/images/VDL2-5-InstrumentList.jpg)) for more percussion. Obviously if you did that would be further down the road considering the high price, but still.
Yeah, uh, that's all the help I can offer. :3
newest processors are the i7 line, and why not built it yourself :)
ton of fun, and will teach you something too. what was the price of that dell listed above?
Quote from: Nouman on December 08, 2008, 01:32:21 PM
newest processors are the i7 line, and why not built it yourself :)
ton of fun, and will teach you something too. what was the price of that dell listed above?
[01:43] <Kyriel> someone asked me why I don't build computers for people anymore
[01:44] <Kyriel> I told them that I can't compete with dell's value
[01:44] <Kyriel> their margins are so low, they can build a better system than I can,
$998.00
Well you saw what I built for you with $800 =)
And dell makes their machines sound good, but they'll be cutting alot of corners that the average user won't notice. Most users only care about the screen, CPU, memory and hard drive space.
You probably don't know that 667Mhz memory is shit. They will put the weakest and cheapest PSU possible inside there. They will use the most outdated chipset (and therefore cheapest) possible that they can to go with that q6600. I could go to newegg and build something for that $900 there that would not only have more of everything and last alot longer, but also give you some change. Building it yourself is a much better option, it's not that hard really.
After much looking and questioning of my friends, I have decided to go with nearly the setup that Roph had proposed. Here is an image of the parts.
Comments?
dual cores are on their way out especially with their i7 line, but its a solid machine I suppose.
Buying a quad core (with the intention of actually having a use for those cores, almost all of the time 3 of nouman's cores will be doing nothing at all) now is akin to buying an athlon 64 when they first came out.
If you bought an Athlon 64 when they first came out BECAUSE it was 64 bit, now that 64 bit vista is available (and still you might argue not ready; almost all the computing world is still in the 32 bit era) you'll find that your Athlon 64 is a bit weak for the task, and you'll need a new 64 bit capable CPU to get your mileage out of it.
Quote from: Roph on December 10, 2008, 04:40:02 AM
Buying a quad core (with the intention of actually having a use for those cores, almost all of the time 3 of nouman's cores will be doing nothing at all) now is akin to buying an athlon 64 when they first came out.
I find this to be an immensely attractive prospect.
I think he's trying to say that there's absolutely no reason to have one, and by the time there is a reason, the current ones will be outdated.
Quote from: Holk on December 10, 2008, 05:07:55 AM
I think he's trying to say that there's absolutely no reason to have one, and by the time there is a reason, the current ones will be outdated.
Not really, with new software on the way (such as 10.6, windows 7 should follow) multi core use will be included. By that time, that dual core will be puny. If multi core's don't work, then what would you even need two cores, right?
Both Mac OS X and Vista are programmed for multi-core systems, they're just not yet optimized uniformly on the API level - with the release of OpenCL for Snow Leopard, Apple is going to beat Microsoft to the punch yet again. ;)
P.S., OS X has been coded for multi-processor systems since it was first released back in 2001 - adapting the code for multicore processors was simple.
Quote from: Kyriel on December 10, 2008, 05:51:03 AM
Both Mac OS X and Vista are programmed for multi-core systems, they're just not yet optimized uniformly on the API level - with the release of OpenCL for Snow Leopard, Apple is going to beat Microsoft to the punch yet again. ;)
P.S., OS X has been coded for multi-processor systems since it was first released back in 2001 - adapting the code for multicore processors was simple.
At least you can play games on a Windows PC.
Quote from: Joshua Reece on December 10, 2008, 05:55:51 AM
At least you can play games on a Windows PC.
Quote from: Holk on December 08, 2008, 07:49:19 AM
~ Play current games smoothly. For example: Oblivion, Source, Neverwinter Nights II, etc.
Game Set match
Mac vs PC discussion averted.
There's plenty of things on Macs you would need more powerful processors for.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/
http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1215&Itemid=66
But holk wants to play games. :3
Uh XP came out in 2001 also, and also supported multiple CPUs or Cores?
NT Before that also did, therefore MS beat apple to it? Who cares anyway.
Quote from: Arrow-1 on December 10, 2008, 05:00:19 AM
Quote from: Roph on December 10, 2008, 04:40:02 AM
Buying a quad core (with the intention of actually having a use for those cores, almost all of the time 3 of nouman's cores will be doing nothing at all) now is akin to buying an athlon 64 when they first came out.
I find this to be an immensely attractive prospect.
Read the next part. Nobody nowadays is running Vista 64 and taking advantage of 64 bit computing on an old single core Athlon 64 3000+.
My only bit of advice is to avoid Dell like a plague.
Dell knowingly sells bad hardware, which will break
they modify hardware to require that you use their in-house drivers, which are less efficient than the official drivers
their customer service is essentially "reformat your computer and reinstall windows"
and you can get a much better value either building your own, or going to another company.
I.e. Listen to Roph :3
i bought a dell in 2006 and its still running fine :D i dont see the problem with them
however wouldnt by from them again now. as they are overpriced :P
Sent the order out about two hours ago.
I got what I had listed in that screenshot, only got a 1TB HD, and a 22" widescreen monitor, too.
What kind of hard drive and monitor did you get? :O
I got the same HD that you did. When I went to send my order out, the 500GB one had sold out. My dad was like, "Fuck it, just get the big one." So, I did.
The monitor is a 22" Acer widescreen.
why not a faster hardrive for the OS and OS only? Personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck with one drive holding ALL my data, but just be sure to back it up I suppose.
A drive for documents and a drive for programs works nicely its the current setup on my system(mostly because my second hard drive had too many start up and shut downs it was impacting on its health).
1TB is a bit excessive dont you think.(my school has 12TB but bleh)
Quote from: Nouman on December 10, 2008, 11:56:38 PM
why not a faster hardrive for the OS and OS only? Personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck with one drive holding ALL my data, but just be sure to back it up I suppose.
I'm salvaging the mini-HD from this computer. It's 12GB, so it's enough to run the OS, if I wanted to do it that way. We don't all have rich families, Nouman. Anyway, I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just being disagreeable for it's own sake.
Quote from: Holk on December 11, 2008, 01:02:07 AM
Quote from: Nouman on December 10, 2008, 11:56:38 PM
why not a faster hardrive for the OS and OS only? Personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck with one drive holding ALL my data, but just be sure to back it up I suppose.
I'm salvaging the mini-HD from this computer. It's 12GB, so it's enough to run the OS, if I wanted to do it that way. We don't all have rich families, Nouman. Anyway, I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just being disagreeable for it's own sake.
before finishing up your sentence I figured through this and IRC you had developed something against me, then I read it through. How was what I said being disagreeable? I though I'd pitch in some advice and you didn't send a rebuttal to actually start a disagreement but yet jumped to the conclusion I was disagreeing.
I don't have anything against you at all. It just seems like in this thread, you oppose what nearly everyone else is saying. I do appreciate your input, but I already bought the system.
you should really re-read the thread.
No need. In fact, :lock:
Quote from: Holk on December 11, 2008, 04:49:02 AM
No need. In fact, :lock:
you know we can still reply, right?