Partial computer, need fillers.

[bcohen4]

My mom's computer is dying. I have some spare parts, but I need suggestions on what to finish it off with.

This is what I have:

Corsair (1 x 2gb) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)

PC Power & Cooling 610W PSU

Motherboard ASUS P5B-VM SE LGA 775

DVD RW IDE Drive

What I need suggestions about:

Processor... I really want to get a Quad so she can be confident that it is somewhat future proof, so more than likely Q6600

Hard Drive... Low price is key here. We need something that is quality, but it doesn't need much capacity.

OS... I might just give her my copy of Vista

Enclosure... I have an Antec 900 but I think that might be a little too "hip" for her (although if someone can explain how to remove the blue LED lights from the fans I'll use this case).

She uses the computer for basic internet surfing, some photo browsing (no editing), and some school work. Any suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks.

 

[kookooshortman55]

If the computer is not for gaming, 610W is really overkill. I game all the time and all I have is a 450W. A quality 350W-400W should be good. The Q6600 is a good processor but personally I would go for the Q9550 because of the 12MB L2 cache. I'm not sure if it's worth the increase in price for you though. For the hard drive:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148335

32MB cache will make it very fast and it's only $5 more than the 250GB model. As for the case, I don't own a 900 but you might be able to replace the fans with regular 120mm fans. You might want to bring this up as a new topic in the computer cases section.

 

[kookooshortman55]

Q9450 is also a cheaper alternative to the Q9550, it's clocked a bit lower.

 

[bcohen4]

If the computer is not for gaming, 610W is really overkill. I game all the time and all I have is a 450W. A quality 350W-400W should be good. The Q6600 is a good processor but personally I would go for the Q9550 because of the 12MB L2 cache. I'm not sure if it's worth the increase in price for you though. For the hard drive:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148335

32MB cache will make it very fast and it's only $5 more than the 250GB model. As for the case, I don't own a 900 but you might be able to replace the fans with regular 120mm fans. You might want to bring this up as a new topic in the computer cases section.

Anything more than a Q6600 is overkill. I already have the spare 610 watt psu so I don't want to buy another one.

 

[gamerman4]

A quad core CPU is not useful in many situations. a cheaper, faster dual core would benefit her more in normal use.

 

[kookooshortman55]

Actually I would think the opposite, depending on how much multitasking she is doing. In a gaming system you want each processor to be clocked high because games can only utilize a certain number of cores. In this case a faster dual or quad core would be good for gaming. If a game could only utilize one core, a dual 3.0 would be better than a quad 2.4, for the most part. For everyday use, like in this case, a lower clocked quad or dual would be good (depending on how much multitasking you do) because you would have many programs per core. In this case the clock speed wouldn't necessarily be the bottleneck. The Q6600 is probably good, I just mentioned the Q9450 because of the 12MB L2 cache, which would just make the computer faster.

 

[gamerman4]

Actually I would think the opposite, depending on how much multitasking she is doing. In a gaming system you want each processor to be clocked high because games can only utilize a certain number of cores. In this case a faster dual or quad core would be good for gaming. If a game could only utilize one core, a dual 3.0 would be better than a quad 2.4, for the most part. For everyday use, like in this case, a lower clocked quad or dual would be good (depending on how much multitasking you do) because you would have many programs per core. In this case the clock speed wouldn't necessarily be the bottleneck. The Q6600 is probably good, I just mentioned the Q9450 because of the 12MB L2 cache, which would just make the computer faster.

I was under the impression this computer was for him mom and her computer activities include "basic internet surfing, some photo browsing (no editing), and some school work." So no, she does not need a quad core. A faster dual core would save money and will give better performance for her uses.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Just get an E8500 processor. Quad is ridiculous for a regular user let alone a normal user. Nothing uses multiple cores NOTHING!!! actually all it does is screw up older games and software.

 

[kookooshortman55]

Okay but what I said is still true. I said depending on how much multitasking you do. Considering it's not a whole lot, you don't need a higher clocked dual or quad core. And the Q6600 he is looking at (or not) is only $10 more than a dual at 3.0.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

The Q6600 is 190$ 2.4 ghz

The E8500 185$ 3.16 ghz

It's actually only 5 dollars more but like you said the average user won't see the increase BUT the average user will see an increase in ghz before he see's an increase in cores. WHAT the HELL is an average user going to use that's going to use 4 cores more efficiently then it would just a higher clocked processor? Hell if all there gonna be using is surfing the web why not just get a decent single core...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116027

 

[Nums]

The Q6600 is 190$ 2.4 ghz

The E8500 185$ 3.16 ghz

It's actually only 5 dollars more but like you said the average user won't see the increase BUT the average user will see an increase in ghz before he see's an increase in cores. WHAT the HELL is an average user going to use that's going to use 4 cores more efficiently then it would just a higher clocked processor?

Could have like 20 internet windows, a radio playing, and a few things downloading, like me, although that might only take 3 processors

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Could have like 20 internet windows, a radio playing, and a few things downloading, like me, although that might only take 3 processors

Actually that would only be using ram. The processor is mainly only used during initial loading and compiling things. SO unless your opening all those things at ounce (opening 20 internet windows in 2 seconds?) you won't use it.

 

[Nums]

Actually that would only be using ram. The processor is mainly only used during initial loading and compiling things. SO unless your opening all those things at ounce (opening 20 internet windows in 2 seconds?) you won't use it.

Hm, so that would explain why I need 4GB of RAM on this junk computer..

Makes soo much more sense now -_-

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

Hm, so that would explain why I need 4GB of RAM on this junk computer..

Makes soo much more sense now -_-

4 gigs is plenty I'm using vista on my laptop with 4 gigs and I have no problem opening 20 windows... literally, one day I had 20 internet explorers open at 1920*1200 resolution and I watched 20 youtube videos at ounce just to see how it would look like, it was soo cool. I also had the little media player in the corner playing a movie. No lag at all, and I only have 2.33 ghz core 2 duo overclocked to 2.66ghz. That's why I say the E8500 is more then enough and quad core is just ridiculous.

 

[kookooshortman55]

I was actually looking at the E8400. But yeah, same idea, haha.

I never said anything about her maxing out all 4 cores, but for $10 why not get it? I was just saying that in a situation where a program is very demanding (gaming and editing) you would want a faster clock frequency for each core because most programs can only utilize one core. With this limitation, it would be better to have fewer cores with faster clocks. For multitasking which involves programs that are less demanding it's just the opposite. So I was saying either a dual or a quad with a lower frequency would suffice. A dual would be fine, I only mentioned the Q6600 because it's only $10 more than the E8400 mentioned before.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

I was actually looking at the E8400. But yeah, same idea, haha.

I never said anything about her maxing out all 4 cores, but for $10 why not? I'm not telling this person what to buy. I'm just telling him what I think. I was just saying that in a situation where a program is very demanding (gaming and editing) you would want a faster clock frequency for each core because most programs can only utilize one core. With this limitation, it would be better to have fewer cores with faster clocks. For multitasking which involves programs that are less demanding it's just the opposite. So I was saying either a dual or a quad with a lower frequency would suffice. A dual would be fine, I only mentioned the Q6600 because it's only $10 more than the E8400 mentioned before.

No, I know but for web surfing and normal things nothing uses 4 cores I think the higher clock would just be better screw quad core! Infact I would still get single core if they sold them...
your right when it comes to someone who video edits or something like that but for anyone I just can't see a use in it, even now for video editors because nothing utilizes multiple cores that efficiently yet.

 

[kookooshortman55]

True. Although I believe Photoshop and some higher level games can use 2 cores. And it's also all about the money. That's why they sell quad core extreme haha. You'll probably never use it all, but you'll have the potential, and a lot of bragging rights. In this situation, yes, a 2.2-2.4GHz dual would be good, I was just saying that if you're going for the 3.0, you might as well spend $10 more and get the extra performance.

 

[Nums]

4 gigs is plenty I'm using vista on my laptop with 4 gigs and I have no problem opening 20 windows... literally, one day I had 20 internet explorers open at 1920*1200 resolution and I watched 20 youtube videos at ounce just to see how it would look like, it was soo cool. I also had the little media player in the corner playing a movie. No lag at all, and I only have 2.33 ghz core 2 duo overclocked to 2.66ghz. That's why I say the E8500 is more then enough and quad core is just ridiculous.

My god your laptop is more powerful than my desktop..

Agreed with Auto though, whether it is only 10 more bucks or not, for what she is planning on doing fewer cores and higher ghz would be better.

 

[AUTOBOOT2000]

JUST TO PROVE A POINT! I am going to try to max out my ram and cpu usage running some applications I'm about to take a screenshot. I hear my processor squeeling like a pig...

 

[kookooshortman55]

Hahaha nah don't worry I see your point. It's just a matter of preference. Either a low or high clocked dual core would probably be perfect for her. From my personal perference, I would rather have a quad core for nearly the same price as a high clocked dual. I may not use it all, but I'll be able to. This is just an argument over opinions.