WHich way to go?

D

Dog

Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi guys.
I'm looking at a couple of sytems.
No.1,
Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3L motherboard
Nvidia 9800gtx+ graphics
Corsair dominator ddr2 8500 4gig
core 2 duo e8500
500 gig h/d
£590 with XP pro
No.2
MSI P31 NEO2 FR mo/bo
Sparkle 9600GT 512mb graphics
Buffalo ddr2 800 4gig
core 2 duo e8500
500 gig h/d
£545 with Vista Premium

I would welcome your comments on which set up is better.
The hardest work it will need to do is some video editing/rendering.
Many thanks, Dog.
 
Hi,

Both are probably over the top graphics card wise if you just video edit as it only uses the processor & Memory.

But value for money then number 1 is better.

Only a £45 price difference and the 9800GTX is £60 dearer to start with.

The Memory is better on the first as wellm plus the Motherboard on number 1 is a lot better, MSI Neo is a piece of crap, £30 most places.

Go with number 1 or get a quad core system with less graphics if you dont need em..
 
Last edited:
No.1,
Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3L motherboard
Nvidia 9800gtx+ graphics
Corsair dominator ddr2 8500 4gig
core 2 duo e8500
500 gig h/d
£590 with XP pro
No.2
MSI P31 NEO2 FR mo/bo
Sparkle 9600GT 512mb graphics
Buffalo ddr2 800 4gig
core 2 duo e8500
500 gig h/d
£545 with Vista Premium
Click to expand...

Yep this NUMBER :p one :thumb:
 
Last edited:
Now which one was that itsme
laughingsmiley.gif
laughingsmiley.gif
 
The Gigabyte board based system by a country mile...

That's number one, by the way ;)
 
Abarbarian said:
Now which one was that itsme
laughingsmiley.gif
laughingsmiley.gif
Click to expand...

Just because I spell number rather than put 1, so its number ONE man ONE!:lol: :lol: Gigabyte the best IMHO........
 
no. 1
if possible go for a 'less' powerful graphics card, like a 9600 or similar.
 
Last edited:
itsme said:
Just because I spell number rather than put 1, so its number ONE man ONE!:lol: :lol: Gigabyte the best IMHO........
Click to expand...

Think I keep missing out on a lot of subtleties in posts, hmmmmmmmmmmm, mebees I need to cut back on the smokes.
laughingsmiley.gif
 
Thanks for the input guys.
So I don't neccesarily need the higher end graphics then?
That could save me some money.
Apart from video editing my computer will just be doing the usual internet,daughters homework,music player type stuff. Oh, I may install a t.v. card at some stage.
I'm looking to get a new monitor too, a 22 inch LG maybe, the L227WT or W2252TQ.
Should I go for Vista or XP pro? the guy who's building system no.1 wants £90 for XP, £120 for Vista.
Builder of system 2 can supply Vista for £75,XP for £90!!
Maybe I can get builder no.2 to build system no.1!!!
Confused, yes I am!

Many thanks, Dog
 
Hi,

If you live anywhere need birmingham then you buy the bits and i will come and build it, as those prices are robbery.

Get one without Vista and XP and buy it yourself.

OR

Have a look here, they are recommended by most on this site, this PC is what you want,

£480 with Vista, new Quad Core,

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/extras.html?t=pc&c=all&r=RIC&s=PC-1208&v=1

Phone them and tell them you want this PC with 4GB of memory and a bigger Hard Drive, if you think it needs one, 320 is pretty big.

Should run you £550 at most, and its better for you than the other options.
 
Waynos_Face's advice is right on the money :thumb:

One thing though, 320Gb is maybe just a bit small for a machine to be used primarily for video encoding/rendering, I'd say a minimum of 500Gb wouyld be preferable. Captured video files tend to be on the large side.
 
Thanks again for the great advice, I knew I'd come to the right place!

I've looked at Novatech before but only at the dual core machines.
Do you think a quad core is best for me even though it's slower than dual core I was looking at?
I fancied 64 bit Vista,new system- new o/s! I have heard some complaints about it though.
What I'm really after is a good, fairly powerfull,stable machine to last me for a good few years.
The machine I have now is a second hand pentium 4, 1.7ghz,
with 128mb graphics and a 40gb hard drive. It will be nice to have a bit of wow factor!!
 
Hi,

4 cores running at 2.33Ghz will beat 2 at 3.0Ghz or 3.16Ghz when it comes to rendering videos or any sort of encoding, plus its the new 45nm core, which are about 10 - 15 percent faster than the 65nm range (Q6600).

I think that will do you fine.

Good point on the Hard Drive flopps, i forgot how much space they take up.

Still thats the best price i can find for a good PC from a reliable retailer, just phone them and ask about adding a 500gb and 750gb and the 4gb RAM.

Don't tell them your budget to start with, just say i'm looking at this PC with Vista Home Premium 64Bit, which is £480, ideally i need 4gb and a 750GB Hard Drive, how much???
 
Aye, for video rendering you want processing power more than sheer speed and video rendering/encoding is one of the few areas where four cores do get fully utlised.

Looking at your requirements, I'd say give Vista 64 Bit a shot but bear in mind it won't run some older software and also check to make sure Vista 64 Bit drivers are available for all your peripherals, scanners, printers etc.

Another thing to consider is that you envisage a four year life for this machine, halfway through it's life Windows 7 will probably be released. Though this is not a biggie I suppose.
 
itsme said:
http://apcmag.com/10_reasons_not_to_get_vista.htm
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now look, I'm one of Windows' biggest critics and I'm no Microsft fanboy but that article is almost two years old and was written when Vista was first released.

Since then Vista has come on a long way, SP1 has been released and it has support for all modern hardware.

I never thought I'd defend a MS OS but that article is irrelevant and supporters of the ageing XP OS are probably the only ones who will take comfort from it.

All reading that old article will do is plant doubt and fear into any potential Vista purchasers.

I'm still using XP on my media machine and video/audio machine, it suffices.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, there is only one big disadvantage to Vista and it's this:

It is slightly slower on older systems than XP.

And that's it.

On newer systems, which it was designed for, it works well.

It's also stable as hell, most stable OS I've ever used.

Vista is not perfect, it's flawed, but XP is getting long in the tooth now, it's only three years younger than Win 98 when you think about it, time to consign it soon.
 
I'm learning so much here,this is great stuff. I was a bit nervous of changing to Vista because of things I'd heard and I also was thinking about Windows 7 down the line but I think I'll go for it now.
Do you think I should get the Windows cd with my computer? I see Novatech say it comes with Vista pre- installed, I take it that means no cd. I guess I could always buy it with no o/s and purchase Vista from Aria for £75 and have a go at installing it myself.
Thanks for putting me right on the quad core/dual core thing. I've read so many different reviews on computers in the magazines that I got completely confused!
I'll give Novatech a ring and let you know how I get on.
 
Back
Top