recommendations for study & work PC

[jiewmeng]

i am considering getting a PC for mainly study and work use.

- web design - photoshop, illustrator

- web development - still considering ide, but i guess visual studio will be the biggest resource intensive that i may use. asp.net mvc 2 and silverlight seems pretty capable for me, used php/zend framework b4

- software development - .NET, visual studio 2010

- 3d - maya

- some games - c&c4, team fortress 2

features i am looking at

- performance (not too focused on games, i guess maya, illustrator and photoshop will be my concerns)

- power efficiency

- value for money, relative future-proof, upgradeable (i am intending to use an existing SATA2 HDD untill SATA3 becomes cheaper, good idea?)

i guess these are my main uses. i'll like a computer that is fast, not so much very good graphics as i dont play too much, mainly for work. i am actually intending to get just the parts i need. say i can get a discrete GPU later, SATA3 HDD (only AMD has SATA3 for now? i guess AMD is value for money now too, AMD Fusion seems good for me, but it may be some time more?) too.

AMD Athlon II X4 630 2.8GHz (dont really want to take the risk with overclocking anyway)

AMD 880G Chipset

ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3

4GB DDR3 1333 SDRAM (maybe kingston)

* HDD using current Seagate 500GB SATA2 (upgrade to SATA3 HDD later)

* integrated AMD 880G Chipset Graphics (update to dedicated GPU later preferably DX11)

samsung XL2370 LED Screen

creative T20 Speakers (space saving, i think ok sounds too? not too different in specs compared to T40?)

OCZ Z Series 550W (i am guessing i dont need too much power and Z Series seems like the quite power efficient? 88%)

cooler master centurion 5 II (quite cheap and i guess not bad case?)

i am looking for a ergonomic keyboard and mouse i think only microsoft has it but i prefer wired i find it troublesome to need to change battery every once in a while?

what do you think? anything i can take out to cut costs? maybe i shld wait a while longer for need hardware etc?

Edited May 7, 2010 by jiewmeng

[CoffeeFiend]

SATA3 HDD (only AMD has SATA3 for now?

Intel based systems also has SATA3 ports. But SATA3 is mainly pointless for HDDs, it's meant for much faster devices like SSDs.

AMD Phenom II X4 945 3 GHz

Not realy a bad pick, but I'd sooner pick a cheaper Athlon II X4 630. The extra 50% the Phenom II X4 945 costs brings you about 10% more speeed. If the Athlon II X4 630 isn't fast enough, then you probably want to look at something like the X6 instead (not a whole lot more expensive than the Phenom II X4 anyway) but then again for the kids of tasks you listed a plain old dual core would more than suffice.

Nice motherboard & PSU choice for sure

[jiewmeng]

hmm i think like u said X4 630 seems like a much better choice than phenom x4 945 and intel i5 661 too, except 661 has a lower TDP

[CoffeeFiend]

except 661 has a lower TDP

But the 661's main point is that it has onboard video (you need a chipset/motherboard that supports it too) which is normally chosen for cost reasons, and here it's very much negated by going for a >$200 i5 anyways -- doubly so since it's only a dual core (and slower than the X4 630 which costs less than half).

I mean, one could get a X4 630 and a Radeon HD 4850 together for the price of the i5 661 (the CPU by itself)... Not that the i5 661 is bad, it's just overpriced for what it is.

TDP-wise, it's not really impressive for a dual core. I mean, most of AMD's dual cores are 65W, some reaching as low as 45W.

[jiewmeng]

except 661 has a lower TDP

But the 661's main point is that it has onboard video (you need a chipset/motherboard that supports it too) which is normally chosen for cost reasons, and here it's very much negated by going for a >$200 i5 anyways -- doubly so since it's only a dual core (and slower than the X4 630 which costs less than half).

I mean, one could get a X4 630 and a Radeon HD 4850 together for the price of the i5 661 (the CPU by itself)... Not that the i5 661 is bad, it's just overpriced for what it is.

TDP-wise, it's not really impressive for a dual core. I mean, most of AMD's dual cores are 65W, some reaching as low as 45W.

hmm ya true, didnt think abt that, the number of cores, i was thinking abt the relative performance