Ideal components for a webmaster's PC?

B

btvbill

New Member
I need to upgrade my PC so I'm thinking about building one myself or going with a Systemax PC from TigerDirect. I don't do any gaming but I work with a lot of high-end web development programs such as the Adobe, Macromedia suites and need to install Visual Studio.NET 2003. Lots of multi-tasking going on at times.

TigerDirect said that Athlon is the way to go because I work with graphics but after reading some posts in this forum, it sounds like Pentium is recommended.
In either case, can someone tell me what processor speed I should be considering (and probably dual core?) so that the PC will run fast and not become obsolete anytime soon? Also, read on this forum that XP 64 bit should be avoided for now but I should probably invest in a 64 bit processor for later on when the bugs are worked out. Will probably run XP Pro 32 bit for now, so I don't want to invest a lot of extra $$$ in a processor and mobo that don't perform that great until I install XP 64 bit.

I'm assuming I'll need at least 1 gig of ram (dual channel or non-ECC?) and should probably go with the SATA hard drives?

Man, these days there are so darn many choices, it gets confusing! Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! :)
 
btvbill said:
I need to upgrade my PC so I'm thinking about building one myself or going with a Systemax PC from TigerDirect. I don't do any gaming but I work with a lot of high-end web development programs such as the Adobe, Macromedia suites and need to install Visual Studio.NET 2003. Lots of multi-tasking going on at times.

TigerDirect said that Athlon is the way to go because I work with graphics but after reading some posts in this forum, it sounds like Pentium is recommended.
In either case, can someone tell me what processor speed I should be considering (and probably dual core?) so that the PC will run fast and not become obsolete anytime soon? Also, read on this forum that XP 64 bit should be avoided for now but I should probably invest in a 64 bit processor for later on when the bugs are worked out. Will probably run XP Pro 32 bit for now, so I don't want to invest a lot of extra $$$ in a processor and mobo that don't perform that great until I install XP 64 bit.

I'm assuming I'll need at least 1 gig of ram (dual channel or non-ECC?) and should probably go with the SATA hard drives?

Man, these days there are so darn many choices, it gets confusing! Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! :)
Click to expand...

for multi tasking i would say go with a pentium. the pentium-d 820 is actually not that expensive. since you dont need a higher end graphics card you can probably go even higher on the processor.
 
> AMD X2 3800+ is better than a pentium D 820.

So an AMD 3800 would be sufficient enough? I was looking at a 4500 but it's a lot more money. Any significant advantages in going with the 4000 range processors? Thanks.
 
TigerDirect said that Athlon is the way to go because I work with graphics but after reading some posts in this forum, it sounds like Pentium is recommended.
Click to expand...
Whats the budget? If you can do it... an Athlon64 X2 system will fit your bill perfectly :)

Will probably run XP Pro 32 bit for now, so I don't want to invest a lot of extra $$$ in a processor and mobo that don't perform that great until I install XP 64 bit.
Click to expand...
Well damn near everything is a 64bit processor now. Really, the only processors that are still active that are 32bit are the Pentium4 5x0s and the PentiumMs (and I think the 5x0s have been superceded by the 5x1s) so 64bit shouldnt be a source of complaint

AMD X2 3800+ is better than a pentium D 820.
Click to expand...
Obviously but it also costs significantly more -- especially when you know its priced to go against the PentiumD 830 (and even then is usually a bit more expensive)

So an AMD 3800 would be sufficient enough? I was looking at a 4500 but it's a lot more money. Any significant advantages in going with the 4000 range processors? Thanks.
Click to expand...
1. There is no 4500.
2. The 4400 and 4200 are naturally more expensive than the X2-3800 ... hence my questioon about your budget
3. The 4000 is a single core chip and really the chips in question are all dualcore

the pentium D 830 is still almost 70$ cheaper than the amd 3800+ X2. and neither is better
Click to expand...
For damn near everything the avg user will do, the X2 is a superior chip. Even from your link,
I would only like to say that according to the benchmark results, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ appeared a faster processor than its competitor from Intel, the Pentium D 830.
Click to expand...
And as little faith as i put in benchmark specifics, the general idea is conveyed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top