Pre-built system recommendations?

J

JYeager11

Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
563
It's been 4 years, so I'm once again due for a new computer that will be deducted as a company expense. In other words, money isn't really a concern.

About a year ago, I came to these forums inquiring about a pre-built Q9300 made by Acer (I forget which exact model, but I think it might have been this one). Came with Vista 64 installed (though the CDs were Vista 32).

It was the first pre-built I ever tried, and it was awesome. Not a single complaint about it. I decided right then and there that my next HOME computer would be pre-built.

So here we are, a year later, and I'm wondering... what's the best *and* most reliable thing out there right now? What is today's equivalent to what the Q9300 was back then? Intel only.

I would be doing everything EXCEPT gaming with it. Extra-high resolution Photoshop work, and very complex DAW (music) editing that always maxes out my resources no matter how much I have. I will be using Windows 7 64-bit.

Anyone have a pre-built to recommend? I'd ber comfortable with HP, Acer, Dell... ie, any of the known brands.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
If your apps take advantage of multi-core CPUs, or you do a lot of crazy multi-tasking, then an Intel Core i7 would be your best choice (Hyper-Threading support). If you need around 8GB max (for now, until 4GB sticks become common), then LGA1156 (dual channel) should suffice (i7.860 or Xeon X3440/P55). If you need around 12GB max (again, until higher density sticks are cheap), then go with LGA1366, since it's triple channel (i7.920/X58).
 
How well does your current machine (the Q9300 you linked) handle the work you do - it it seriously lagging or you'd lust like a little bit more oomph? You could really go to town and get an expensive dual-processor workstation, or if it's the latter then you'd only be looking at an i7.

And could you put even a round-about figure on the budget?
 
The Q9300 I'm referring to is a work computer I was using a year ago. Loved it, but no longer work there. Was thinking of buying the same thing for home, at the time, but put off the purchase for a year. So here we are, a year later, and I figured that for the same price the Q9300 went for a year ago, I could get better today. That's essentially what my question was, regarding "equivalence".

Regarding what use I will make of it... the two programs of choice will be Photoshop CS4 64-bit, and Cakewalk Sonar 8. How these programs are coded, however, is a mystery to me. But given how frequently they are updated, and that I keep my computers for 4-5 years before upgrading, even if they DON'T use multi-core CPUs, I wouldn't bet against them using them in an upcoming revision.

As far as what my budget is, well... the Q9300-powered Acer Aspire we bought for work a year ago went for $1300, so that's what I was looking at. I'd start with 8GB ram, but I'd probably be looking to expand eventually.

A year ago, the Q6600 was considered the best bang for your buck, with the Q9300 a close second. There were more powerful CPUs out there, but the "price step" to get them was infinitely wider. That's what made the Q6600 and Q9300 great investments.

So I'm asking what their equivalent today would be, in terms of the best CPU I can get before the price step to the next more performing model becomes too wide. I don't know if I'm expressing myself correctly. Am I?

From everything I've read in these forums, the Intel i7 860 is today's equivalent to the Q6600, and the Intel i7 920 is today's equivalent to the Q9300 (a year ago). In other words, most people are buying 860's, and only those with a few extra bucks to spend for slightly better performance are getting the 920. Anything above those two is too price prohibitive still.

Is that roughly correct?
 
Here's what I'm considering <- right this moment.

In a nutshell, I took a pre-built i7 920-based HP Pavillion Elite and made the following changes to its config :

- Upgraded it to 2 x 1TB SATA drives.
- Upgraded by adding a TV tuner.
- Upgraded video card from Radeon to nVidia (I'm an nVidia fan)
- Upgraded from Windows 7 Home to Professional
- The upgrade from 8GB ram to 9GB ram was free / included already (but does this screw up my slot distribution?)

How's it look to you guys? The one thing I hesitated about was getting the blu-ray player. Especially since I'm getting the TV tuner. But ended up passing on that.
 
JYeager said:
From everything I've read in these forums, the Intel i7 860 is today's equivalent to the Q6600, and the Intel i7 920 is today's equivalent to the Q9300 (a year ago). In other words, most people are buying 860's, and only those with a few extra bucks to spend for slightly better performance are getting the 920. Anything above those two is too price prohibitive still.

Is that roughly correct?
Click to expand...
Not really. It's significantly more complicated than that. Here's a simple rundown: If you haven't noticied already, the i7 860 is for the LGA 1156 socket/P55 chipset while the Core i7 920 is for the LGA 1366 socket/X58 chipset. The P55 chipset is suppose to be tha mainstream and relatively affordable chipset while the X58 chipset is the more high-end chipset.

Most people are buying the Core i7 920 for the following reasons:
- Significantly more RAM available (max of 24GB using 6 slots)
- Higher potential of the motherboards supporting Intel's six-core Core i9/Gulftown CPUs
- Supposedly a more mature chipset.
- You can get it for $200 if you live near a Microcenter

Most people are buying the Core i7 860 for the following reasons:
- Slightly lower power usage
- Slightly faster
- Cheaper motherboards (Though there are those cases where some oddball wants to spend $250 on a P55 motherboard, the same costs as a X58 motherboard)
- Have no real need for more than 8GB of RAM.

So it's a matter of potential CPU upgrade paths, amount of RAM support, platform costs, availability, etc.

JYeager said:
Here's what I'm considering <- right this moment.

In a nutshell, I took a pre-built i7 920-based HP Pavillion Elite and made the following changes to its config :

- Upgraded it to 2 x 1TB SATA drives.
- Upgraded by adding a TV tuner.
- Upgraded video card from Radeon to nVidia (I'm an nVidia fan)
- Upgraded from Windows 7 Home to Professional
- The upgrade from 8GB ram to 9GB ram was free / included already (but does this screw up my slot distribution?)

How's it look to you guys? The one thing I hesitated about was getting the blu-ray player. Especially since I'm getting the TV tuner. But ended up passing on that.
Click to expand...

Will you actually use most of the features of Windows 7 Pro? The 9GB RAM upgrade won't screw up anything in terms of slot distribution.
 
If you plan on using Windows XP mode, which is more of an emulator than a true VM, and remote desktop features, then Windows 7 Pro is a worthwhile "upgrade." But you could also get Microsoft's Virutal PC 2005 for free, and it works with Windows 7 Home Premium.

ATI currently has the high-end locked up, and its mid-range cards perform just as well as the NVIDIA "equivalents" for less. I'd reconsider that assessment -- it really doesn't pay to be a fan of any particular brand these days.

The Seagate 7200.12 and Samsung SpinPoint F3 1TB HDDs use dual 500GB platters for their drives (compared to the Western Digital Black 1TB HDD, which uses three 333GB platters). Because of the denser drive platters, they're a bit faster.

The Costco setup uses four 2GB sticks and one 1GB stick, leaving one RAM slot open. Since the X58 chipset supports dual-channel and tri-channel RAM configurations (though not simultaneously), you may see some performance slowdown, but YMMV.

But before I digress any further, are you planning a BYO rig or do you prefer a prebuilt system?
 
Danny Bui said:
Will you actually use most of the features of Windows 7 Pro? The 9GB RAM upgrade won't screw up anything in terms of slot distribution.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what the features of Pro are. I just know it shatters the 8GB ram ceiling of the Home Edition (all the way to a whopping 192GB). I like having that room. I may not go to 16GB right away, but I might in 2-3 years.

tiraides said:
But before I digress any further, are you planning a BYO rig or do you prefer a prebuilt system?
Click to expand...
I am not building this time around. I want a pre-built. The advantages have simply begun to outweigh the disadvantages, IMHO.
 
PolygonGTC said:
Just curious, but could you please elaborate on that?
Click to expand...

I should know better than to answer this question, because I'm clearly being baited here ;) but : I built my own systems my whole life, and the components didn't always play well with one another. Various times for various reasons, I've had to return components for different brands/models just to avoid driver conflicts.

With a pre-built, you've got to figure that although every little component might not be EXACTLY what you would've gotten had it been purchased individually, they will at least all play well together.

It's less work, less compatibility-related homework, and runs just as well as anything I'll build myself. Plus, a legit license for the OS is typically included in the package.

I used to be you, and would look down on pre-builts, until I got one for the office last year. I didn't care, wasn't my money, and I wasn't planning on sticking around @ that company anyway. But I'll be damned if it wasn't the best-performing, easiest-running, most conflict-free experience I've ever had with a computer. And it was a monster. It made me change my tune about pre-builts, and decide right then and there that my next machine would be pre-built.
 
Nah, it wasn't baited at all. My first computer was a pre-built. I work for HP servicing pre-builts. I do look down on them though as I feel I can build a far better system than the pre-builts do.

But to each their own. I was simply curious why you thought that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top