Trying to get it right the first time

[gwark]

I'm looking to put together a reasonably quiet computer with a minimal amount of extra tinkering. I'm hoping (perhaps naively) to get things right the first time. To that end, I've been doing a lot of reading over the past few days. I feel like I have a reasonable grasp of the overall picture, but there's so many specific options to consider. Without the luxury of a lot of time to keep researching, I thought I would post my ideas and hopefully get some help clarifying what I should buy.

I am not a gamer and have little need or interest in overclocking. I would like to use the computer for playing videos and such, though that will not be its primary purpose. I do statistics work which involves occasionally running simulations that are computationally intensive and/or working with very large (~1GB) datasets. I also spend a lot of time with applications such as Adobe Lightroom, and in the future intend to do more with sound using Adobe Audition. It's not uncommon for me to be running one or more of these things while also doing other things such as web surfing and editing of other documents. Finally, I would like to run Ubuntu on this machine (using Windows in a Virtual Machine for some software) if I can do so without it being too difficult to get running.

Here's what I've come up with so far based mostly on what I've read on this site:

Case: Antec Solo

PSU: Enermax Modu82+ 425W

Mother Board: Gigabyte_GA-EP35-DS3L

CPU: either the E8400 or a quad core (Q6600 or Q9400); the quad core appeals as it would allow me to run more than one simulation at a time without compromising my ability to do other things, but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra money and additional cooling. In either case, I'm sure I will need to get third party cooling for the cpu, though I've not figured out what to go with yet.

I've also considered AMD processors, but it seems like they may tend to run hotter. I'm willing to go this way if it seems like a better choice, given what I'm planning to do with the machine.

RAM: DDR2 800MHz, probably 4GB to start with, possibly 8GB

graphics card: I don't need power for gaming, but would like the capability of fairly high resolution for photo editing. Also, the ability to play back videos and something that's easy to get going in linux. If I could get by with integrated graphics, that would be okay with me.

hdd: I'll go with a recommended quiet one and may get a second one, but I don't anticipate those choices being difficult.

As far as other things go, I'll want to have an optical drive or two, though noise isn't so much an issue for me with those. It's possible I would eventually get a sound card, but it's unlikely that I will get more pci cards than that.

[KlaymenDK]

That sounds very much like the pc I'm putting together (just with less disks). See the bottom of the first post.

[gwark]

Yes, it does, now that you mention it. I spent quite a bit of time reading through that thread, and for some reason it didn't occur to me how similar what you were doing is to what I want. I guess it was fairly early on in the process, and as you suggested there, all of the options are enough to make my head spin.

Have you ordered your stuff yet?

Having looked through your choices, I was wondering why you opted to go with the Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2L as opposed to the GIGABYTE GA-EP35-DS3L? Is there an advantage to the mATX board?

I have considered the quad core Q6600, but wondered about the extra heat it might have as compared to the Q9400, though I'm not sure the extra $100 or so is worth it.

Thanks for the help.

[KlaymenDK]

Yes, it does, now that you mention it. I spent quite a bit of time reading through that thread, and for some reason it didn't occur to me how similar what you were doing is to what I want. I guess it was fairly early on in the process, and as you suggested there, all of the options are enough to make my head spin.

It's why I butted in here. I figured we could help each other, or at least help confuse each other.

Have you ordered your stuff yet?

You obviously have no idea how anal I am. I rarely buy anything without having read all the reviews. No, I'm still waiting for the very last few pieces to fall into place, and mulling it over for a few days helps, too -- either by reassuring it's the right thing, or by giving time for others to put new pieces on the game board, so to speak, just as you are doing just here:

Having looked through your choices, I was wondering why you opted to go with the Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2L as opposed to the GIGABYTE GA-EP35-DS3L? Is there an advantage to the mATX board?

Yeeah, why did I do that? Hmm, here in Denmark we have a very handy (but not quite all-encompassing) shopping portal, and I guess that's what came out of my filters. I was looking for something that has a VGA connector as well as 4 SATA connectors. The P35 looks good, and costs nearly the same. Consider it replaced! That is ... unless someone else has any substantial insights?
Note: a Tomshardware review mentions some very curious caveats regarding memory speed.
[Edit:] Arr crap, just realized it's got no VGA port ... that was why. Sigh.

I have considered the quad core Q6600, but wondered about the extra heat it might have as compared to the Q9400, though I'm not sure the extra $100 or so is worth it.

Hmm, according to 'the portal', I can't find any Q9400, and the Q9450 costs twice that of a Q6600.
Really, I have no idea. Last I bought anything was an AMD 1.4GHz which turned out to be a furnace. I don't know what the practical difference is between a quad-core 2.1 or 2.5 GHz cpu, in terms of speed, heat, what memory to use with it, or anything else. I just want a fast and silent pc, you know?

Thanks for the help.

Don't mention it. I'm leeching off of your thread, too!

[gwark]

Yeeah, why did I do that? Hmm, here in Denmark we have a very handy (but not quite all-encompassing) shopping portal, and I guess that's what came out of my filters. I was looking for something that has a VGA connector as well as 4 SATA connectors. The P35 looks good, and costs nearly the same. Consider it replaced! That is ... unless someone else has any substantial insights?
Note: a Tomshardware review mentions some very curious caveats regarding memory speed.
[Edit:] Arr crap, just realized it's got no VGA port ... that was why. Sigh.

I guess a VGA port might be handy to have. I'll look into other options. I guess all else equal, I would prefer ATX over mATX because I imagine it's easier to put things together with the additional space on the motherboard. Maybe this is faulty reasoning, however. I really doubt I will need extra PCI slots, so maybe I should just go with the mATX.

Hmm, according to 'the portal', I can't find any Q9400, and the Q9450 costs twice that of a Q6600.
Really, I have no idea. Last I bought anything was an AMD 1.4GHz which turned out to be a furnace. I don't know what the practical difference is between a quad-core 2.1 or 2.5 GHz cpu, in terms of speed, heat, what memory to use with it, or anything else. I just want a fast and silent pc, you know?

Here's what I find on newegg.com
Q6600 2.4GHz @ $179.99
Q9400 2.66GHz @ $274.99

There's also the Q9300 2.5GHz @ $259.99, but only $15 for the faster version seems worth it.

As best I can tell, the biggest difference (other than the speed) is that the Q9xxx is built with the 45nm technology, and the Q6xxx with 65nm technology. I'm not positive about it, but I think the practical implications of this are greater power efficiency for the 45nm chips. I assume this translates into less power consumption and heat generated, but I'm not sure.

[m0002a]

I've also considered AMD processors, but it seems like they may tend to run hotter.

AMD CPU's do not run hotter, in fact AMD pretty much invented the cool running CPU and Intel has only recently caught up with them in this regard. However, some of the older CPU's may run hotter than a newer one, since the newer ones from both manufacturers are almost always cooler running on a 65nm Manufacturing Tech as opposed to 90nm or higher in the older CPUs (generally the smaller is the cooler for same processing power).

One of the coolest running (and hence potentially quietest) chips available is the AMD 4050e/4450e/4850e line 65nm CPUs that are rated for about 45 watts (idle at about 7 watts from what I understand). Unfortunately for your application they are only dual-core.

The AMD quad-cores 9100e/9150e/9350e are rated at 65 watts and have pretty much the same technology as the 45 watt dual-cores mentioned above. I would be interested to see how these compare to the best Intel CPU's in terms of heat.

Here is a link which shows a comparison of the AMD tri and quad core CPUs (you can sort them Wattage):
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCP ... =&f9=&f10=&

I have the AMD 4050e dual-core running on Fedora 9 Linux which comes with Cool n Quiet software included and automatically enabled for AMD chips. This makes a huge difference in energy conservation and cooling. So make sure that the equivalent software for Intel chips is available for your Linux distro if you go that route.

[gwark]

Upon further review, it appears that the only Gigabyte options with integrated video are mATX boards. I'm not sure about other vendors.

I'm not really sure whether I'm better off going with the on-board graphics, or a separate card that maybe is not so powerful as to require a lot of cooling.

However, now I wonder also about an AMD option, based on what m0002a said. Perhaps something like Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H or the updated version GA-MA78GPM-DS2H plus an AMD Phenom 9850?

[m0002a]

I have never used Gigabyte mb's. Most of the Asus mb's (including the M2A-VM that I used for my Linux server) allow one to use memory slots 3 & 4 and leave slots 1 & 2 empty. This can make a big difference when you use a large CPU heatsink (I have the XIGMATEK S-1283 CPU heatsink running without a fan). Maybe someone familiar with Gigabyte mb's can tell you whether that is available on their mb's also.

Not sure if the M2A-VM supports quad core, but I am sure they have an equivilent model that does.

[m0002a]

However, now I wonder also about an AMD option, based on what m0002a said. Perhaps something like Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H or the updated version GA-MA78GPM-DS2H plus an AMD Phenom 9850?

I am going to assume you need very fast CPU speeds (and since you live in Alaska you may also need a room heater); however, the 2.5 Ghz 9850 is rated at 125 watts and the 2.3 Ghz 9650 is rated at 95 watts.
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCP ... 398&id=450

[gwark]

While I do live in Alaska, I don't live in the really cold part of Alaska, just the cool all the time part. That said, I don't really need an extra room heater, it was just an oversite on my part that resulted in my mention of the 9850 instead of the 9650. I think I had looked at the 9650 earlier, then for some reason got onto the 9850 page and didn't think about it again. Thanks for pointing out the sizable difference in wattage ratings.

[KlaymenDK]

gwark, feel free to kick me out of your thread if I'm stealing too much bandwidth. Having said that, ...

m0002a, any tips on how to find a listing of cool-running quad cores in relation to speed? For my own part, I'm not so interested in AMD because their [ATI] chipsets supposedly aren't very well-liked by FreeBSD, but that's not an absolute.

Low idle draw is an important factor (another reason why I prefer to avoid a dedicated graphics card).

[m0002a]

m0002a, any tips on how to find a listing of cool-running quad cores in relation to speed? For my own part, I'm not so interested in AMD because their [ATI] chipsets supposedly aren't very well-liked by FreeBSD, but that's not an absolute.

Low idle draw is an important factor (another reason why I prefer to avoid a dedicated graphics card).

I really don't know much about the latest Intel chips. As I said before, Intel only recently caught up with AMD on power saving and running cool, and I have not checked out their new lines. If they have only “caught upâ€

[jaganath]

[quote]I really don't know much about the latest Intel chips. As I said before, Intel only recently caught up with AMD on power saving and running cool, and I have not checked out their new lines. If they have only “caught upâ€

[m0002a]

not really "recently"; ever since Core 2 chips were launched (Q2 2006), Intel has been ahead in performance per watt. Now all current Intel chips consume the same or less power than AMD equivalent, but with much better performance. for example latest quad-core takes only a handful of watts more than (already very low-consuming) dual-core, E8500.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... 00_13.html

1. You are talking about 2 years since the first core duo, which is fairly recent. That is when they caught up.
2. The link you posted is for the new 45nm CPU's which were released in early 2008 and so are even more "recent."
3. At various times over the past years, either AMD or Intel usually leapfrog one another when they release new products. It does appear that Intel has the lead right now at this moment with 45nm CPU's and AMD will follow later this year with their own 45nm CPU's.

Here are some other views on the subject:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware ... phenom.ars
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2008/08/ser ... _video.php

[peerke]

From what I understand/have read the advantage with Intel CPU's is performance/watt, however their chipsets/motherboard use more power than AMD/Ati.
The advantage with AMD is very low idle power consumption and efficient chipsets/motherboard. AMD can't reach performance levels of Intel so you need to know how much performance you need/want. Also the low idle power consumption doesn't seem to apply to their quadcore/Phenom CPU's. Somehow CnQ doesn't seem to be working properly which for me takes them out of the equation.

So for absolute lowest idle consumption use AMD, for highest performance use Intel. Everything in between stays open for discussion.

For the OP's usage with the heavy Adobe programs I would invest in the latest Intel Quad-core that is the fastest to fit your budget. You can get away with Intel IGP as you say you don't the 3D graphics capabilities of the Ati integrated graphics. If it turns out you do need more 3D performance just add a graphics-card

[m0002a]

Hopefully AMD will release some good 45nm CPU's by the end of the year, so even if people want Intel processors, the price will still be reasonable.

[yamahaSHO]

My latest build may be worth a look for you. It's not the most powerful, but it seems to do very well in everything I've asked of it and runs extremely quiet and cool.

viewtopic.php?t=49550