System for developer

jerryk · Post by **jerryk** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:00 am

Hi,

I am planning on building a new Athlon 64 system. I want to do this rather cheaply and of course, end up with a quite system. I plan on using the system for software development, an maybe some light gaming. I will alternate between Windows and Linux OSes. I have some Samsung drives that I plan on using, and willl use a Seasonics Super Silencer, but need advice on CPU (3000, 3500, etc), motherboards, and video cards.

Thanks,

Jerry

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:10 am

If it were me, I'd get the following:

1. Winchester Athlon 64 (the new .09 chips) 3500+
2. Zalman AlCu cooler (nice and quiet)
3. If you're going to be using Visual Studio 2003 or the upcoming Whidbey, I'd strongly recommend a gig of RAM. 2003 can use 512 pretty well, but Whidbey is a pig. Large solutions (mine, anyways) eat up close to five hundred megs of RAM when debugging...If you're not using VS200x, then 512 is probably just right.
4. 300W Seasonic Super Tornado - really can't go wrong with this PS.
5. Some passive Geforce FX5200 or ATI Radeon 9600....both are good enough for recent games, although don't expect 60 fps in Doom 3 at 1200*1600

edit: since you're thinking about linux, don't get the ATI. No good drivers.
6. Get one of the SPCR.com recommended hard drives, and decouple it.

...voila. Very quiet, very fast system--and easy on the wallet as well. If you're short on cash, drop down to one of the slower Athlons, or stick with 512MB ram. This system would crush VS.NET 2005....

jerryk · Post by **jerryk** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:21 pm

Beyonder wrote:If it were me, I'd get the following:

...voila. Very quiet, very fast system--and easy on the wallet as well. If you're short on cash, drop down to one of the slower Athlons, or stick with 512MB ram. This system would crush VS.NET 2005....

Thanks.

Yes I will be running Whidbey (just got some new bits!), so your comments are very appropriate!

teejay · Post by **teejay** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:48 am

Beyonder wrote:If you're short on cash, drop down to one of the slower Athlons, or stick with 512MB ram.

If you have to face this choice, I'd always go for lower CPU speed and more memory. My old work laptop (P3 sub GHz with 1 Gb mem) was able to beat our standard desktops (P4 ~2.4 Ghz with 512 Mb) when it came to that subjective "feel of responsiveness" while developing in VS.NET. OK, maybe the faster CPU will do a build 3 seconds faster - even 30 perhaps, but who cares? Waiting that 1 extra second for each and every property window to open... that's the thing that'll get to you.

IMO, the above holds true for VS2003, not only Whidbey, especially if you (like me) have IIS, SQL Server and some other stuff running on the same rig.

StarfishChris · Post by **StarfishChris** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:15 am

I second the more-memory argument. Also, the 3000+ CPUs are good overclockers and can easily reach the speed of a 3500+ if that's what you want. (You can probably achieve a higher maximum with the 3500+, but probably not much more - and it costs more!)

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:51 am

teejay wrote:
Beyonder wrote:If you're short on cash, drop down to one of the slower Athlons, or stick with 512MB ram.
If you have to face this choice, I'd always go for lower CPU speed and more memory. My old work laptop (P3 sub GHz with 1 Gb mem) was able to beat our standard desktops (P4 ~2.4 Ghz with 512 Mb) when it came to that subjective "feel of responsiveness" while developing in VS.NET. OK, maybe the faster CPU will do a build 3 seconds faster - even 30 perhaps, but who cares? Waiting that 1 extra second for each and every property window to open... that's the thing that'll get to you.

IMO, the above holds true for VS2003, not only Whidbey, especially if you (like me) have IIS, SQL Server and some other stuff running on the same rig.

Good point. I don't do ASP.NET stuff, so I generally am not running IIS or SQL in the background, but if you were running all three, I wouldn't even waste time with 512 MB RAM. Heck, I might even think about getting 1.5 or 2 GB of RAM...

jerryk · Post by **jerryk** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:53 pm

Thanks for the replies.

The 3200+ or 3000+ are probably fast enough for me. How about a motherboard? I was thinking abous the Asus A8V. Thoughts? Also, any advantage with going with a SATA drive?

BTW, another app I run is Photoshop CS, if that makes a difference.

jerry

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:04 am

Hello Jerry:

If you want/need to avoid the Linux bootloader (so the Windows side can boot as it would without Linux installed) , then there are external switches that toggle between two HD's, though I think they may only work with IDE.

Otherwise, a SATA drive is fine, though you'll need a floppy (at least temporarily) installed to install Windows. And obviously, make two partitions at the beginning, so you can install Linux after Windows.

I would just get a motherboard with a passive NB cooler and an AGP slot.

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:05 am

jerryk wrote: BTW, another app I run is Photoshop CS, if that makes a difference.

...another memory hog, IIRC...so if you have a gig of RAM, you'd probably be fine.

jerryk · Post by **jerryk** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:08 pm

A friend of mine has a 3.2 GHZ Intel + MB he got at Fry's this weekend. It turns out he did not need it, and will sell it to me for $200. Cost $220. Should I give this a whirl, or go for the AMD 3200 based setup which looks like about $400.

BTW, can you keep on of these 3.2 GHz Pentiums cool?

jerry

nici · Post by **nici** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:44 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello Jerry:

Otherwise, a SATA drive is fine, though you'll need a floppy (at least temporarily) installed to install Windows. And obviously, make two partitions at the beginning, so you can install Linux after Windows.

No, actually you dont anymore. At least if you have a chipset with integrated sata, i didnt need any drivers on the DFI Ultra-D and neither did my cousin on his A8N-SLI or shuttle barebone, wich apparently also has sata controller integrated to the chipset. I cant think of any other explanation why the drivers are not needed. Am i correct or am i completely wrong about this?

jerryk · Post by **jerryk** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:12 pm

nici wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello Jerry:

Otherwise, a SATA drive is fine, though you'll need a floppy (at least temporarily) installed to install Windows. And obviously, make two partitions at the beginning, so you can install Linux after Windows.
No, actually you dont anymore. At least if you have a chipset with integrated sata, i didnt need any drivers on the DFI Ultra-D and neither did my cousin on his A8N-SLI or shuttle barebone, wich apparently also has sata controller integrated to the chipset. I cant think of any other explanation why the drivers are not needed. Am i correct or am i completely wrong about this?

Which Linux distro did you use?

nici · Post by **nici** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:21 pm

Me? I dont use Linux, i was talking about the windows installation needing sata drivers on a floppy, or not needing it to be more precise.

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:36 am

jerryk wrote:A friend of mine has a 3.2 GHZ Intel + MB he got at Fry's this weekend. It turns out he did not need it, and will sell it to me for $200. Cost $220. Should I give this a whirl, or go for the AMD 3200 based setup which looks like about $400.

BTW, can you keep on of these 3.2 GHz Pentiums cool?

jerry

If it really only costs $200, then I'd go for it. That's a great deal--on Newegg, a 3.2 GHz P4 costs $200+ alone...

For an Athlon rig, I'd get the 3200+ ($180 on newegg) and some socket-939 board for around ~$100. I don't think it should be $400 for CPU/MB alone...

Generally speaking, the Athlon64 is a much better compiler than the Pentium 4. I know that rebuilding our application on my Athlon 64 is quite a bit faster than using my work computer (Pentium 4 2.66 GHz), but then again this app takes close to three minutes to compile, so your results may vary. Also, in my opinion, the option to upgrade to a 64 bit OS in the future is a big plus.

If you're going to be doing big compiles, I'd say the Athlon is a clear winner. Otherwise, it's sixes. An Athlon64 system is also easier to cool/silence, IMO.

jerryk · Post by **jerryk** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:28 pm

Beyonder wrote:[
If it really only costs $200, then I'd go for it. That's a great deal--on Newegg, a 3.2 GHz P4 costs $200+ alone...

For an Athlon rig, I'd get the 3200+ ($180 on newegg) and some socket-939 board for around ~$100. I don't think it should be $400 for CPU/MB alone...

Generally speaking, the Athlon64 is a much better compiler than the Pentium 4. I know that rebuilding our application on my Athlon 64 is quite a bit faster than using my work computer (Pentium 4 2.66 GHz), but then again this app takes close to three minutes to compile, so your results may vary. Also, in my opinion, the option to upgrade to a 64 bit OS in the future is a big plus.

If you're going to be doing big compiles, I'd say the Athlon is a clear winner. Otherwise, it's sixes. An Athlon64 system is also easier to cool/silence, IMO.

Thanks.

I looked at the MB and it really was pretty generic. It only had two memory slots. He really did get it for $214. Apparently Fry's sells the Intel 3.2 for $160 or so in these combos.

I decided to go with the AMD 64 3200+ (Winchester) and a Asus MB with 2 GB or RAM. I am going to cool it with a XP-120 and throw the whole lot in a Antex SLK3000B case with a Seasonic's PSU. Hopefully I will end up with a quiet and cool system that I see, but not hear.

jerry

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:47 pm

I can't imagine being unhappy with such a setup. That rig should scream, albiet quietly.

System for developer

System for developer

A new wrinkle

Re: A new wrinkle

Re: A new wrinkle