So I need another hard drive and I'm researching what kind to buy. Does anyone know if there's an advantage to using a single platter drive as opposed to a multi-platter drive? Or if two heads a platter is better than one?
If there is a difference, it's not significant for home use. Just get a big old Seagate unless you need an SSD.
So I'm just finalising all the components for my first computer and after listening to to all the Geeknights I could find on the topic, I want to have two hard drives like was recommended - one for the OS and one for my data. If I understand right, this means if I get malware I can reinstall Windows without losing my data? So my question is what size hard drive will I need to buy for my installation of Windows 7, and how do I set it up such that my data saves to the other hard drive?
It really depends on how much do you think you need. I have a 250gb for the OS, 500gb for my music, and 1 TB for my videos. The only thing on the OS drive are programs I can always download again as well as podcasts. iTunes likes to be picky in regards to what drive they like to default to. I've tried installing iTunes on the other drives, but it was always wonky and always went to My Music folder on the C:/ drive.
I back up My Pictures and my iTunes library every month or so.
It really depends on how much space you think you need. You really don't need that large of a HD for just the OS.
As for other programs you use to download stuff, go under options and change the directory of where you want the files to download to. Easy peasy.
So I'm just finalising all the components for my first computer and after listening to to all the Geeknights I could find on the topic, I want to have two hard drives like was recommended - one for the OS and one for my data. If I understand right, this means if I get malware I can reinstall Windows without losing my data? So my question is what size hard drive will I need to buy for my installation of Windows 7, and how do I set it up such that my data saves to the other hard drive?
Separate hard drives for OS and data won't help against any semi-intelligently written malware. Sophisticated malware will spread itself to every drive you plug into the system that it can write to in ways such that when the drives are read, they'll reinfect the system (or any other systems they are attached to).
After 4.5 years of gaming, my video card (EVGA 8800 GT) is in the slow process of dying on me.
It's a good thing my bonus money came in and didn't really hurt my savings, but it sucks.
I went to Fry's right before they closed and picked up the EVGA GeForce GTX 550Ti 1gb on sale for $140 with a $20 mail-in rebate. I was a bit surprised that the card was so huge that it took up 2 slots for the back. One for the actual DVI slots, and another for the fan vent. Well as long as it keeps it cool, that works for me.
I had little to no issue selecting the card and figuring out if it was what I needed and installing it. I thank Geek Nights & their computer podcasts for edumacating me on such things.
Pixels, mostly. I wouldn't be satisfied with any less than 1680x1050, in your position. There's some fairly cheap monitors with 1920x1080 on Newegg, if you look here.
Also, unless it's a significant jump up in price, you'd probably be better off with a Sandy Bridge quad-core like the Core i5-2400. Depending on what you want from the CPU, you might even be fine with a Core i3 or low-end AMD.
I'd also recommend a better graphics card. Something like a Radeon HD 6850 or a GTX 460. If however, you are set on the $120 pricepoint, a Radeon HD 5770 would serve you better than a GTS450. As for the mouse, I'd recommend a Razer Abyssus or Logitech G500.
Pixels, mostly. I wouldn't be satisfied with any less than 1680x1050, in your position. There's some fairly cheap monitors with 1920x1080 on Newegg, if you look here.
1680x1050 is sufficient, but more can't hurt. The point of Ultrasharp is that it can take many many inputs, do picture in picture, and most importantly has an IPS screen. Most LCD monitors are not IPS, so they can't actually display all 2^32 different colors that your video card is sending it. Might as well just run the game in 16 bit color if you don't have an IPS display. The only IPS displays I know of are on Apple products (including iPhone and iPad), the Dell Ultrasharp, and multi-thousand dollar professional monitors. The Dell is a fraction of the price of the Apple, and has a zillion more features. Also, all the Apple displays are glossy. The Ultrasharp is pretty much the only matte IPS display you can get. It really has effectively no competition.
I don't work for Dell here. I keep hyping up these screens for a reason. I see all these people buying crazy expensive video cards, sometimes multiple video cards. Then they hook them up to $200 cheapo LCDs. What is the fucking point? Hey dude, I bought the Mona Lisa. Yeah, I keep it in this closet. You can only see it by looking at its reflection in a fun house mirror. Look at it directly? Are you mad? That would cost me $300 extra! (sorry couldn't come up with better analogy that actually made sense).
Also, the Ultrasharp will not become obsolete. If you buy the U2410 now for $500, it will last you until DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are all no longer being used. We're talking 15-20 years. You'll be using it on your third or fourth PC from now if you don't hit it with a hammer or something. Compare that $500 15 year investment to a $200 CPU + $100 video card that will both be slow and crummy in 5 years.
Hey dude, I bought the Mona Lisa. Yeah, I keep it in this closet. You can only see it by looking at its reflection in a fun house mirror. Look at it directly? Are you mad? That would cost me $300 extra! (sorry couldn't come up with better analogy that actually made sense).
I think a better analogy is saying you keep the Mona Lisa in a frame, but you put a Fresnel lens over the frame instead of looking at it through glass.
Not that I know if you are right in the first place. I guess I'll have to find an Ultrasharp at work and compare it to a non ultrasharp.
I can't pay $500 now for a monitor. I will probably need a $100 or less monitor. If I splurge and get a better video card, I won't be able to get other nice things...Are the expensive mouse and keyboard in my expensive computer option not worth it? Some people have told me to forget them, but they're really shiny...Also, is there any point in getting the more expensive case?
I can't pay $500 now for a monitor. I will probably need a $100 or less monitor. If I splurge and get a better video card, I won't be able to get other nice things...Are the expensive mouse and keyboard in my expensive computer option not worth it? Some people have told me to forget them, but they're really shiny...Also, is there any point in getting the more expensive case?
Worth it?: Keyboard: Nah Mouse: Maybe, if you do a lot of FPS-ing. Case: Only if it cools better. NOTE: That doesn't mean "If it's better at making you look cool."
The point of Ultrasharp is that it can take many many inputs, do picture in picture, and most importantly has an IPS screen. Most LCD monitors are not IPS, so they can't actually display all 2^32 different colors that your video card is sending it. Might as well just run the game in 16 bit color if you don't have an IPS display.
Much of this is simply false. First of all, if you're outputting so-called 32-bit colour there are in fact only 2^24 different colours (or around 16.8 million) - i.e. 8 bits per colour channel (R/G/B). The last 8 bits are the alpha (transparency) channel. Also, IPS panels are not the only type to offer 24 bits of colour - in the past some Ultrasharps have in fact used other panel types such as PVA or MVA. Yes, most of the cheap panels offer only 6 bits per colour channel, but that's still much better than 16-bit colour, which is 4 bits per colour channel, so you clearly would not want to drop down to 16-bit colour. Furthermore, dithering allows such panels to effectively display ~16.2 million colours.
Also, the Ultrasharp will not become obsolete. If you buy the U2410 now for $500, it will last you until DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are all no longer being used. We're talking 15-20 years. You'll be using it on your third or fourth PC from now if you don't hit it with a hammer or something. Compare that $500 15 year investment to a $200 CPU + $100 video card that will both be slow and crummy in 5 years.
That's a good point, and I do agree that it's a good investment, but only if Axel can actually afford it without completely gimping the rest of his hardware. Also, I'd like to add that if gaming is the main purpose, $200 CPU + $100 video card <<<< $100 CPU + $200 video card.
I actually kinda am more used to a small keyboard now, and I can definitely type better on my tiny netbook keyboard than normal-sized keyboards. Can/should I find a small keyboard to buy, or should I re-adapt to larger keyboards?
Also, gaming is secondary. I will be doing lots of programming (most likely in C# and Visual Studio), and this year I will probably need to use it to do things like Flash and some form of 3D animation (likely with Maya or whatever).
You don't need much power at all for programming. You're probably justified in getting a 4+-core CPU for 3D stuff and Flash, though I would suggest an Intel Core i5-2400 over the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T - it will be faster in the majority of circumstances. You should check on the overall cost difference, though, as motherboards for Intel CPUs tend to cost more.
Worth it?: Keyboard: Nah
Yeah, pretty much. The LCD panel on the Logitech is pretty cool and actually not useless, and it is nice to have extra buttons on your keyboard for macros, but if you're on a budget the cost isn't justified.
Mouse: Maybe, if you do a lot of FPS-ing.
A mouse with a quality sensor is important, at least for FPS. At $50 you can get a Razer DeathAdder or Logitech G500 (I think the DeathAdder is definitely worth $10 over the Abyssus, for the two thumb buttons). As for G500 vs DeathAdder, the DeathAdder has what is basically the best mouse sensor ever made, while the G500 has a richer featureset.
Case: Only if it cools better. NOTE: That doesn't mean "If it's better at making you look cool."
Even then, better cooling isn't really worth it if the cheaper case already does the job.
I'd also recommend a better graphics card. Something like a Radeon HD 6850 or a GTX 460. If however, you are set on the $120 pricepoint, a Radeon HD 5770 would serve you better than a GTS450.
Yeah, that's about right, though due to current availability it would likely be a 6770 - note that the 6770 is the exact same card as the 5770. I too would suggest you go higher than that, though. Overall, given current pricing, a GTX 460 (NOT THE GTX 460 SE!) with a decently high clock speed (~750MHz core) is probably your best option, though the HD 6850 and HD 6870 are good alternatives.
Are the expensive mouse and keyboard in my expensive computer option not worth it?
I bought a laser mouse with my new internals (already had a case, why buy a new one then, eh?) and it's pretty fucking sweet. It still feels weird, yet also awesome, to use it. Laser is magnificent compared to regular optical, and isn't out of place outside of gaming.
There are a couple of issues. First of all, that graphics card is too expensive for a GTX 460 - at that price you're already in GTX 560 territory, and you're not too far short of cards like the GTX 560 Ti or the HD 6950, which are much better than a 460.
On the whole, I don't think that combo deal is worth it, either. The $50 discount is offset by overpaying for the RAM as compared to a 2x4GB kit and a motherboard that is more expensive than it needs to be, and with current pricing you should be getting 1.5TB HDDs as the price jump from 1TB is minimal.
I don't think the extra $100 for a Core i7 over an i5 is worth it - you're only getting slightly more clock speed, an extra 2MB of L3 cache, and Hyper-Threading for that price jump - overall the performance difference is something like 10-30%, depending on what you use it for.
I'm not sure about your choice of screen - what are you aiming for there?
If you're going to be using this mainly for gaming, I'd recommend an i5 over the i7 and bumping up that video card to at least a 6870. Also, don't go with Rosewill for a power supply, you can get a 650W Corsair for a pretty good price.
My laptop has an IPS screen, while my desktop has a big fancy non-IPS panel. The only significant difference I have noticed are some slightly deeper blacks and a better viewing angle on the laptop. Not worth a hundred bucks extra until I'm reading MRIs for a living.
And before Scott jumps in with his Ultrasharp fanboyisms, that Viewsonic uses the same technology IPS technology the ultrasharps do.
Huh. That Viewsonic didn't show up in my search. Interesting. It still doesn't have HDMI, Display Port, memory card reader, etc., but is all that stuff worth $200?
The only other weird thing is, why is it 1080p? It's not a TV, it's a monitor. You generally want a monitor to have a higher resolution and aspect ratio than a TV. I like a 16:10 monitor, not 16:9. Interesting also they advertise it as 23". Remember, the " measurement is the diagonal measurement, use the Pythagorean theorem. a^2 + b^2 = 23^2 and a/b is proportional to 16/9. I kind of hate how they use inches as the measurement, though. There are really three things that matter in terms of size. You need to know the viewable area, a * b and the resolution, and then derive the pixel density from those two. You want pixels to be very small, and you want lots of them.
My laptop has an IPS screen, while my desktop has a big fancy non-IPS panel. The only significant difference I have noticed are some slightly deeper blacks and a better viewing angle on the laptop. Not worth a hundred bucks extra until I'm reading MRIs for a living.
Get thee to an eye doctor. My regular monitor next to my 20" ultrasharp is night and day. My Lenovo laptop, which has ha pretty good non-IPS screen, next to either my home or work Ultrasharp, is like chocolate and shit. The colors are completely different even with the same vim colorscheme let alone games or movies.
Comments
I back up My Pictures and my iTunes library every month or so.
It really depends on how much space you think you need. You really don't need that large of a HD for just the OS.
As for other programs you use to download stuff, go under options and change the directory of where you want the files to download to. Easy peasy.
It's a good thing my bonus money came in and didn't really hurt my savings, but it sucks.
I went to Fry's right before they closed and picked up the EVGA GeForce GTX 550Ti 1gb on sale for $140 with a $20 mail-in rebate. I was a bit surprised that the card was so huge that it took up 2 slots for the back. One for the actual DVI slots, and another for the fan vent. Well as long as it keeps it cool, that works for me.
I had little to no issue selecting the card and figuring out if it was what I needed and installing it. I thank Geek Nights & their computer podcasts for edumacating me on such things.
Ideal Build (a.k.a. Most Expensive Build)
Less Ideal (Cheaper)
Any advice?
Also, get cables from here instead.
Also, unless it's a significant jump up in price, you'd probably be better off with a Sandy Bridge quad-core like the Core i5-2400. Depending on what you want from the CPU, you might even be fine with a Core i3 or low-end AMD.
I don't work for Dell here. I keep hyping up these screens for a reason. I see all these people buying crazy expensive video cards, sometimes multiple video cards. Then they hook them up to $200 cheapo LCDs. What is the fucking point? Hey dude, I bought the Mona Lisa. Yeah, I keep it in this closet. You can only see it by looking at its reflection in a fun house mirror. Look at it directly? Are you mad? That would cost me $300 extra! (sorry couldn't come up with better analogy that actually made sense).
Also, the Ultrasharp will not become obsolete. If you buy the U2410 now for $500, it will last you until DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are all no longer being used. We're talking 15-20 years. You'll be using it on your third or fourth PC from now if you don't hit it with a hammer or something. Compare that $500 15 year investment to a $200 CPU + $100 video card that will both be slow and crummy in 5 years.
Not that I know if you are right in the first place. I guess I'll have to find an Ultrasharp at work and compare it to a non ultrasharp.
Keyboard: Nah
Mouse: Maybe, if you do a lot of FPS-ing.
Case: Only if it cools better. NOTE: That doesn't mean "If it's better at making you look cool."
Yes, most of the cheap panels offer only 6 bits per colour channel, but that's still much better than 16-bit colour, which is 4 bits per colour channel, so you clearly would not want to drop down to 16-bit colour. Furthermore, dithering allows such panels to effectively display ~16.2 million colours. That's a good point, and I do agree that it's a good investment, but only if Axel can actually afford it without completely gimping the rest of his hardware.
Also, I'd like to add that if gaming is the main purpose, $200 CPU + $100 video card <<<< $100 CPU + $200 video card.
Also, gaming is secondary. I will be doing lots of programming (most likely in C# and Visual Studio), and this year I will probably need to use it to do things like Flash and some form of 3D animation (likely with Maya or whatever).
You're probably justified in getting a 4+-core CPU for 3D stuff and Flash, though I would suggest an Intel Core i5-2400 over the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T - it will be faster in the majority of circumstances. You should check on the overall cost difference, though, as motherboards for Intel CPUs tend to cost more. Yeah, pretty much. The LCD panel on the Logitech is pretty cool and actually not useless, and it is nice to have extra buttons on your keyboard for macros, but if you're on a budget the cost isn't justified. A mouse with a quality sensor is important, at least for FPS. At $50 you can get a Razer DeathAdder or Logitech G500 (I think the DeathAdder is definitely worth $10 over the Abyssus, for the two thumb buttons). As for G500 vs DeathAdder, the DeathAdder has what is basically the best mouse sensor ever made, while the G500 has a richer featureset. Even then, better cooling isn't really worth it if the cheaper case already does the job.
I too would suggest you go higher than that, though. Overall, given current pricing, a GTX 460 (NOT THE GTX 460 SE!) with a decently high clock speed (~750MHz core) is probably your best option, though the HD 6850 and HD 6870 are good alternatives.
What do you think of this loadout?
On the whole, I don't think that combo deal is worth it, either. The $50 discount is offset by overpaying for the RAM as compared to a 2x4GB kit and a motherboard that is more expensive than it needs to be, and with current pricing you should be getting 1.5TB HDDs as the price jump from 1TB is minimal.
I don't think the extra $100 for a Core i7 over an i5 is worth it - you're only getting slightly more clock speed, an extra 2MB of L3 cache, and Hyper-Threading for that price jump - overall the performance difference is something like 10-30%, depending on what you use it for.
I'm not sure about your choice of screen - what are you aiming for there?
It's been too long since I've built a machine.
And before Scott jumps in with his Ultrasharp fanboyisms, that Viewsonic uses the same technology IPS technology the ultrasharps do.
The only other weird thing is, why is it 1080p? It's not a TV, it's a monitor. You generally want a monitor to have a higher resolution and aspect ratio than a TV. I like a 16:10 monitor, not 16:9. Interesting also they advertise it as 23". Remember, the " measurement is the diagonal measurement, use the Pythagorean theorem. a^2 + b^2 = 23^2 and a/b is proportional to 16/9. I kind of hate how they use inches as the measurement, though. There are really three things that matter in terms of size. You need to know the viewable area, a * b and the resolution, and then derive the pixel density from those two. You want pixels to be very small, and you want lots of them.