Whenever someone asks me for an opinion on some computer he or she wants to build or buy, I am sighing and laughing at the same time. I have rarely seen any configuration or offer that was not against the laws of common sense to use for the intended purpose. If that was the case, though, the system was often dimensioned too big or too small.
My absolute favorite are systems intended for what I call general bullshit. The things normal people do with their computers, mostly running some browser, running an office suite and installing some software for this and that, like their camera or cell phone. Not that a camera should need software, but the too small and light kind of camera often comes with it and people open their disc tray faster than their mind, so...
Usually some co-worker or not too close acquaintance comes up with some current leaflet of the next best electronics discount and asks me if some of the crap in there would be a good deal. After the usual interview (what'cha gonna torture it with, how long should it be usable for the intended purpose and got money?) I usually reply with "nobody can really tell you". The baffled look usually turns into a disappointed one when I go with something like "there's no real information about the hardware, so how could I tell you more than maybe?".
The problem with almost all the discount offers is that they are horribly misconfigured for almost all customers, but at least sometimes equally for all of them. Since the Intel GMA HD nobody who does not distinctively run 3D crap needs discrete graphics. They just cost money and use power for no good reason. I agree, for some HTPC or an older box some used low end card off ebay might make a good addition to accelerate video stuff, but buying that after two years is a guaranteed money saver for the not wasted power alone.
What in almost all cases is the best part relative to what's available is the CPU. But have you ever really monitored your system for bottlenecks in the situations where you feel them? If yes, you likely do not want to exchange your CPU. And almost all the preconfigured systems would benefit if you'd take a slightly cheaper CPU and put the saved money into a better disk. Or more memory.
There is a couple of weird motherboards for special purposes that eat the expensive mobile CPUs and use mobile chipsets. So you have all the limits and the price tag of a laptop without the mobility. But if you take such a thing with one of the last Pentium M CPUs and attach some good disk, I had a SpinPoint F1 at hand, go for 3GB or more memory and try to use it, you will be amazed how usable such a thing can actually be. Of course, compiling code is as bad an idea as playing 3D games, but for the usual web browsing and office work the difference to a quad core with way faster memory and eight times the GFlops is not too big. If you put the old 250GB IDE disk into the powerhouse you might even see it lose against what is basically an old laptop with a good disk.
The price range of 1TB 3.5" disks is basically 50 to 120 bucks at the moment. The really expensive ones are with longer warranty and capable of running non stop for this time. If you see some system with an expensive CPU and a low price tag, expect that everything else is as cheap as possible. Better add another 25 bucks to get a decent disk.
What else could be cheap?
Sure, the PSU will be. And if you really use your rig, you will pay for that. Let's say the box sucks down a 100W while running in average. With a 65% efficiency this means you suck a 154W out of the outlet. With an 85% efficiency this lowers to 118W. You might say the relative efficiency I quote is too bad even for cheap PSUs, but go measure yourself. And take into account that they most often are not dimensioned accordingly to the used components. And those 36W of difference mean one kWh every 30 hours of use. Yes, this might seem like not much and it is not, but proper PSUs can be gotten for less than 40 bucks with proper efficiency and you get the usually way better quality of the brand stuff for free.
The memory will likely also be. Either you get all slots full with small modules and will have to ditch them once you wanna upgrade or the only good thing about the memory will be the size, while the timings are ass. Yeah, sure, you now say a difference in memory speed does not make too much of a difference, but if you consciously choose a slower CPU and think about the fact that the older the system gets, the more CPU bound it will be in most cases, the five bucks more to get memory with good timings you spent will have been worth it.
Something you almost never can tell from some newspaper ad and in most cases not even at the store is the mainboard, especially the chipset. While this is a completely different case in the AMD world, in Intel's domain you do not want anything else than an Intel chipset as a generic user. Not only because they usually perform faster but cause less trouble. Whether the low end chipset line is enough or if you should add some bucks to get something more mid end has changed relatively often from generation to generation. Just making sure the brand is not something you would mistake for an STD. My personal experience is that Asrock often delivers something well worth your money but your mileage may vary.
For the Core 2 line I have never seen current or better chipsets in seemingly cheap offers. At the time the 965 Express long had found successors it was put into a lot of the discounters' systems, simply just because it was old and this is always very bad for computer stuff. That you would never be able to experience the benefits of a newer CPU (FSB!), certain memory modules or nice and fast PCIe 2.0 lanes is not their problem.
If you really want to have a snappy and responsive system it might be worth thinking about getting an SSD as the primary disk for the OS and software. The 64GB models suffice for that easily and are nearing the 100 bucks rapidly.
The most important focus, though, is to put the focus on the area causing the most annoying delays for what you really do with your system. The exchange server with a quadcore but only two disks is a bright example of something gone horribly wrong, but that's stuff for another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment