# Computer Build!



## r0ckstarr

Personally, I would upgrade to Win7 Pro and get 16gb of memory.

Have you compared prices to Newegg.com?


----------



## Bob Sanders

It's pretty easy. Actually you don't really "build" anything. You simply buy the parts and plug them in.

Not sure you need the cooler. Your cpu should come with a fan and the stock one works fine. I use a stock fan on my i7 with no issues at all.

If you can afford it you should consider an 80 or 100 gig SSD drive as your main c drive and then use that 500 gig HDD for data. The SSD's speed things up like crazy

Just finishing a triple monitor build of my own (i7). I went with hot swappable hard drive bays (2 sets of three for 6 drives). First time I've used drive bays. It's really nice! Switch out hard drives fast and easy.


----------



## taylorjm

I've never used a liquid cooler before. Guess I don't understand the point verses a heat sink and fan. Are they somehow cooling the liquid?


----------



## AndyGump

I think you could get a better price on the case, that just seems like too much for just a metal box.

Now I really like the AMD processors, they are NOT as good as the Intel CPUs now for sure, but depending on what it is used for I like the price of AMD and that I can get 6 or 8 cores for less than the Intel 4 cores.

I use that Invidia video and like it.



Andy.


----------



## ddawg16

taylorjm said:


> I've never used a liquid cooler before. Guess I don't understand the point verses a heat sink and fan. Are they somehow cooling the liquid?


The liquid does a better job of pulling heat off the CPU. How much better? I'd be inclined to think using a good thermal compound between the CPU and heat sink would insure it stays cool.



AndyGump said:


> I think you could get a better price on the case, that just seems like too much for just a metal box.
> 
> Now I really like the AMD processors, they are NOT as good as the Intel CPUs now for sure, but depending on what it is used for I like the price of AMD and that I can get 6 or 8 cores for less than the Intel 4 cores.
> 
> I use that Invidia video and like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy.


There is a lot of talk about which one is better. Gamer's say the Intel is better. If your not doing gaming, the the AMD with the right board with integrated video is a really cost effective solution. 

Me? I'm running a quad core with the AMD in my HTPC. Works great.

Now....if I could make some suggestions......

Install a SSD...120G is plenty....then up the HD to 1TB. 

You install the OS on the SSD but use the mechanical HD for all your data. That is basically how my HTPC is setup. My boot up time in Win7 is about 8 seconds after the POST.


----------



## TheEplumber

You need to add a bunch of lights inside so it glows real pretty :jester:


----------



## iamrfixit

Liquid coolers are fine, right up til they leak and destroy your processor and board, I wouldn't have one in my system. No real need for it unless you plan to overclock, the processor will come with a heatsink and fan that's plenty adequate. Of course more cooling is better, there are lots of performance cooling options that use air. I have the Noctua D14 on mine, its big, well huge, but runs almost silent and works extremely well.

Definitely get the SSD, at least big enough to install the OS and apps, it is worth it for the performance. Start-up time is ridiculous fast. I have an i7 at 3.5, with 16 gigs of ram, a couple 256 crucial ssd, and 3 WD black drives in mine. Set up to boot Mac OS 10.9, .8, .7 and Win 7 and Win 8.1 pro. It was my first build from scratch, very fast and very stable.


----------



## r0ckstarr

ddawg16 said:


> There is a lot of talk about which one is better. Gamer's say the Intel is better. If your not doing gaming, the the AMD with the right board with integrated video is a really cost effective solution.


I've had bad luck with Intel in the past and changed to AMD. Currently, im running the AMD Bulldozer and Asus mobo with a Radeon 7k series graphics card and an IPS panel for a monitor. No complaints. :thumbsup:


----------



## PaulBob

kwikfishron said:


> My first attempt at one actually. Here's a link to my parts list as of now. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/JpWkWZ
> 
> Am I on the right track here? Any advice before I screw this all up? I'm defiantly out of my comfort zone with this project. :turned:


What do you use your computer for? Unless you're playing games or have some other specialized requirement, you're about to waste a ton of money on something that you don't need.

I make my living on my computer.. I am a power user who will have six to ten browser tabs open, photoshop, autocad, excel, visio, and a few other programs running all at the same time. While I will admit to several large hard drives (p0rn takes a lot of space you know :laughing, I am running a simple Intel Pentium D (dual core) processor clocking at around 2.6 or something like that. Plenty enough power for this power user.

When it is time for a faster computer, I will simply purchase a two or three year old motherboard/processor combo on ebay for about $75 to $100 shipped to my door. 

Don't waste your cash on a top of the line computer with all the latest stuff... Buy new parts that are a few years old... You'll have fewer software conflicts, fewer incompatibilities, easier to find drivers, and all the bugs have been worked out.


----------



## kwikfishron

PaulBob said:


> What do you use your computer for? Unless you're playing games or have some other specialized requirement, you're about to waste a ton of money on something that you don't need.
> 
> I make my living on my computer.. I am a power user who will have six to ten browser tabs open, photoshop, autocad, excel, visio, and a few other programs running all at the same time. While I will admit to several large hard drives (p0rn takes a lot of space you know :laughing, I am running a simple Intel Pentium D (dual core) processor clocking at around 2.6 or something like that. Plenty enough power for this power user.
> 
> When it is time for a faster computer, I will simply purchase a two or three year old motherboard/processor combo on ebay for about $75 to $100 shipped to my door.
> 
> Don't waste your cash on a top of the line computer with all the latest stuff... Buy new parts that are a few years old... You'll have fewer software conflicts, fewer incompatibilities, easier to find drivers, and all the bugs have been worked out.


I'm not sure what part of this that you feel is “top of the line” or the “latest stuff”,a thousand dollar build is far from that. And yes I do plan on overclocking this thus the need for the cooler. The reason for this is simple, FSX. I've occasionally played with flight simulators off and on for years and never been satisfied with the performance. 

I have an I3-2370m supposedly running at 2.4 GHz. I should easily be able to get 4.4 out of this. My current computer is getting increasingly buggy and I'd be surprised if I get another year out of it so I plan to build this “before” the other one crashes for good this time. I've hated windows 8 since the day I got it and can't wait to downgrade to 7.

I simply have just never built a computer before and have no idea if this is compatible with that or if I'd be better off saving a few bucks here and put those dollars toward upgrading some other part of the build.


----------



## kwikfishron

Bob Sanders said:


> If you can afford it you should consider an 80 or 100 gig SSD drive as your main c drive and


I've been considering that. Now I'm trying to figure out how much space I really need. The laptop I've been running for the last year and a half with win 8.1 is only using 68 GB of space. I read that win 7 with all of the updates only uses 20 GB. 

I don't download music, videos or games and I don't see those habits changing anytime soon. FSX once and awhile is my only vice. :wink:



AndyGump said:


> I think you could get a better price on the case, that just seems like too much for just a metal box.


 I agree, I'd like to cut that price in half. Any suggestions?

I like Bob Sanders approach to no case, I've been staring at the wall next to me ever since I saw that pic.


----------



## PaulBob

kwikfishron said:


> I've occasionally played with flight simulators off and on for years and never been satisfied with the performance.


That explains it... I used to play F16 Falcon back in the old days.. I had a Saitek stick and rudder and 2 Monster video cards installed to handle the graphics. I had even purchased an air combat book to learn all the moves real fighters make and it paid off.. I got so good, people were accusing me of cheating when I was fighting in their online arena.

Do they have anymore fighter type flight games like that these days? 



> I simply have just never built a computer before and have no idea if this is compatible with that or if I'd be better off saving a few bucks here and put those dollars toward upgrading some other part of the build.


Well.. to be honest, unless you have some kind of real-estate problem in your current system, I would just upgrade your motherboard and processor... Once you do that, you can add other upgrades as you think you need them.. But I think you're going to find that with the exception of the video cards and graphic intensive games, you won't need much upgrading of the other stuff.. A power supply is a power supply so long as it is big enough... As for hard drives, unless you need more space, most games that I'm familiar with are not real heavy on hard drive use once they load.

Hope that helps,


----------



## ddawg16

An important point about SSD drives....they doint have the infinite write capability that traditional HD's do. Reading, no problem. But if you start writing to one on a constant basis, such as recording movies, you are going to shorten it's life. So instead of 6-8 years, you might get 2-4 years of use. 

The key to taking advantage of an SSD is to use it for programs (like the OS) and keep all data on an mechanical HD. 

Now, if your just doing flight sim...SSD is great. You install the program once, then after that, your only reading except for the occasional write to save settings. 

Additionally, an SSD life is proved if you have lots of memory. When you get low on physical memory, the OS starts swapping to disk parts of your memory to make room for new stuff (now you know what that "Page Swap" file is.


----------



## kwikfishron

ddawg16 said:


> The key to taking advantage of an SSD is to use it for programs (like the OS) and keep all data on an mechanical HD.


So how much ssd do I really need if win 7 only uses 20GB? And being that I now am only using 70GB after almost two years why would I even need a 500GB HD. It seems like 250 would be more than enough. Other than a screaming CPU and a mid-range GPU I don't want to over spend on stuff I don't need.

Do I really need a 750 watt PS? Are there equal or better and less expensive choices for the MB, cooler and case. I have no problem spending where I need to but equally don't want more than I need. 

This is where I'm having a problem, I don't know what's good or not. Just go to a site like newegg, there's hundreds of choices for every item. I just makes my head spin. 




PaulBob said:


> Do they have anymore fighter type flight games like that these days?


I don't know, I'm not into the shoot-em up fighter thing. 



PaulBob said:


> Well.. to be honest, unless you have some kind of real-estate problem in your current system, I would just upgrade your motherboard and processor...


Not much real estate in a laptop.


----------



## kwikfishron

AndyGump said:


> I think you could get a better price on the case, that just seems like too much for just a metal box.


 Looking at them closer it appears that the less expensive boxes only allow for the smaller video cards w/o fans.


----------



## Bob Sanders

kwikfishron said:


> So how much ssd do I really need if win 7 only uses 20GB? And being that I now am only using 70GB after almost two years why would I even need a 500GB HD. It seems like 250 would be more than enough. Other than a screaming CPU and a mid-range GPU I don't want to over spend on stuff I don't need.


My system ssd is 128gig, and it's far too big for a system drive. I have a lot of big video editing and sound programs and I've used a total of 50gig

Now my data drives are a bit different. My system runs as a server for the house which contains movies, pictures, as well as music so I'm running a total of 18 TB worth of data drives

But yes... if you got a say.... 100gig ssd, that would probably do ya for now and you could pick up a normal HDD and add it on at any time in the future should you start running short.



> Do I really need a 750 watt PS?


On a 650 watt supply I'm running:
6 HDD's,
1 ssd
1 blu ray burner
2 Video cards, (gtx 285, gtx 650) 
1 sound card
1 i7
16gig mem
So I would say no.


----------



## kwikfishron

I found a PS calculator at newegg and came up with 473 watts.


----------



## r0ckstarr

kwikfishron said:


> Looking at them closer it appears that the less expensive boxes only allow for the smaller video cards w/o fans.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=rosewill_challenger-_-11-147-153-_-Product


----------



## taylorjm

PaulBob said:


> What do you use your computer for? Unless you're playing games or have some other specialized requirement, you're about to waste a ton of money on something that you don't need.
> 
> I make my living on my computer.. I am a power user who will have six to ten browser tabs open, photoshop, autocad, excel, visio, and a few other programs running all at the same time. While I will admit to several large hard drives (p0rn takes a lot of space you know :laughing, I am running a simple Intel Pentium D (dual core) processor clocking at around 2.6 or something like that. Plenty enough power for this power user.
> 
> When it is time for a faster computer, I will simply purchase a two or three year old motherboard/processor combo on ebay for about $75 to $100 shipped to my door.
> 
> Don't waste your cash on a top of the line computer with all the latest stuff... Buy new parts that are a few years old... You'll have fewer software conflicts, fewer incompatibilities, easier to find drivers, and all the bugs have been worked out.



Finally some common sense. I just love hearing people wanting to build this big system with multiple processor cores, and huge graphic cards, all to play a game, and they think they are going to use all that processing power. Well guess what, there are so many other bottlenecks in the system, whether it's ram speed or the bus speed, or disk access, or your OS, you can't get the data to the processors fast enough to even touch half of the processing power that you are buying. So yeah, you can get a fast processor, but don't worry about multiple cores because they aren't going to make a bit of difference. 

I'm sure some of the young "geeks" are going to try and tear this apart and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but after 20+ years setting up and maintaining hundreds of servers, the load my users put on their systems far exceeds anything you are going to put on your system with your games. Plus, Windows OS is just junk and won't use all the processors or even all the ram you put in the system anyway.


----------



## r0ckstarr

Post edited. Nevermind. Not worth arguing.


----------



## ddawg16

taylorjm said:


> Finally some common sense. I just love hearing people wanting to build this big system with multiple processor cores, and huge graphic cards, all to play a game, and they think they are going to use all that processing power. Well guess what, there are so many other bottlenecks in the system, whether it's ram speed or the bus speed, or disk access, or your OS, you can't get the data to the processors fast enough to even touch half of the processing power that you are buying. So yeah, you can get a fast processor, but don't worry about multiple cores because they aren't going to make a bit of difference.
> 
> I'm sure some of the young "geeks" are going to try and tear this apart and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but after 20+ years setting up and maintaining hundreds of servers, the load my users put on their systems far exceeds anything you are going to put on your system with your games. Plus, Windows OS is just junk and won't use all the processors or even all the ram you put in the system anyway.


Well now....that was a useful post. I can see why you're in IT and not doing real computer work.


----------



## PaulBob

Lets keep this nice folks... I was offering honest advice with little knowledge of the original posters requirements.. 

Everyone runs things a bit differently.. 

To the OP.. 

Desktop Case: Making a long story short, I had to upgrade my wife's computer and basically start from scratch.. I bought a case through Amazon that was designed by NZXT ( NZXT.com ) and I love this case even more than my own.. It has enough room inside to almost put a second computer in there!! Its quite flashy and sleek looking, has plenty of fan mounts, easy to access, lots of drive bays (internal and external), quick release drive mounts, and a nice front door if you're into that.. Shop around Ebay and Amazon for your best deal but I will most certainly purchase another NZXT for sure.

Processor:
Stick with Intel.... Find a processor / motherboard configuration that is a few years old and you'll save lots of money and you won't notice a bit of speed difference.

Processor Cooling:
Liquid cooling is nice, efficient, and flashy.. but by no means required unless you live in a very hot location. Kansas? Not so much a hot place..
With that said, if you have pets in your home or other sources of high volume floating dust, than liquid cooling could eliminate the need for you to clean your air-cooled heat exchanger every six to eight months. Lets face it, cleaning those buggers is a pain in the rear end.. 
Remember one golden rule though.. the more complicated you make something, the more chances you have of a malfunction... Liquid cooling systems add a significant level of complexity.. There is nothing wrong with fans!


Hard Drive:
Western Digital all the way... I prefer the Caviar Blue's myself because of their reliability vs. cost.. If you get something with more zip than a blue, make sure you bolt on a hard drive cooling fan or you'll shorten the life of it... Going Black? Definitely get a fan..

RAM: 
Start small.. it takes less than 60 seconds to add more ram later if you need it.

Video Card:
I got nothing here.. I'm all business and haven't played any games on the computer for a very long time.. They make something called a "Play Station" for that now.. Its a black box that hooks to your TV and you can purchase games for it.

Power Supply:
I can not imagine pushing more than 400 watts through a desktop computer.. That would be very similar to setting a space heater down next to yourself.. All that energy is going straight into your home.. In fact, my wifes computer and mine, both desktops, are in the same 12 x 12 office and this room is always several degrees warmer than the rest of the house when both computers are running.. Yes, its that significant.. 

Good luck!! Hope that helps..


----------



## ddawg16

PaulBob....I disagree on several points....

Lets take my setups as an example....

My first Win7 setup was a packaged deal Gateway...intel Quad 4...4G Ram...580G HD

Over Xmas I built up a HTPC...AMD A8 Trinity processor, built in Direct X11 Video mated to an MSI mother board with both USB 2 and 3...HDMI...SATA 6....SSD...8G ram...and Win7

Both PC's same OS....my HTPC walks all over the Gateway....and it's not just the boot up time....7 sec vs 45 sec.

I can watch a program recorded on the HTPC...while recording another one off the internet or ATA...and surf the internet....oh....and while burning a DVD.

The HTPC is using the AMD integrated video...the Gateway is onboard video...the AMD smokes it.

Gateway is SATA 3...HTPC SATA 6

I think you would be hard pressed to find an 'older' Intel with SATA 6 or USB 3.

A few other cool things about my HTPC....we use it as a DVR....with with MS MediaCenter as the program. Set up a recording schedule...put the PC to sleep....at the designated time, it wakes up, records program, goes back to sleep....unless my kids feel like watching 'Stampi' on the web


----------



## Bob Sanders

PaulBob said:


> Video Card:
> I got nothing here.. I'm all business and haven't played any games on the computer for a very long time.. They make something called a "Play Station" for that now.. Its a black box that hooks to your TV and you can purchase games for it.


Video cards are more than just games. I do a lot of video editing which requires more and more GPU processing power these days. Video editing USED to be all cpu but its shifting fast. GPU processing power vastly speeds up graphics work in editing programs. Editing programs like Avid MC, Adobe Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas (all of which I have) require (and use) some pretty serious video cards.


----------



## Bob Sanders

ddawg16 said:


> Gateway is SATA 3...HTPC SATA 6
> 
> I think you would be hard pressed to find an 'older' Intel with SATA 6 or USB 3.


Agreed.
SATA6 and usb3 make a *HUGE* difference. I work with big files and transferring a 20 gig video file over usb2 to external drive takes FOREVER. It's not even worth the time. Uncompressed video which can be into the gigabytes for a few minutes worth is just impossible to work with on older, slower equipment.

If you do word processing, (simple) CAD, some accounting... etc, then an older slower board will do ya fine, but anything specialized.... forget it. You need more power and the newer boards offer sata6, usb3 and thunderbolt


----------



## PaulBob

Both of our computers have USB 3.0 in our "older" motherboards. 

It's a $25 add on that slides into the front 5.25 inch slot and hooks to a sata slot just like a hard drive. 

It provides 3 extra front panel usb ports, flash card slot, all the sd card slots (mini, micro, etc), and a few slots I don't recognize. USB 3 is fast!!! I was amazed when I transferred a movie through it.

It would seem that every "toy" we have takes a different memory card so the front panel addition was good for us.

My wife has the same video card and motherboard that I do and she does all the graphics for our website as well as photo restoration for others.. 
She also uses all the adobe photoshop stuff and it seems pretty fast.. 

Not sure what kind of graphics you're into or how it affects your speed but we don't experience any significant wait times for anything except loading and saving files.. (our caviar blue drives are not Ferrari's )..

As for my CAD.. I'm not sure how the computer handles that information and I don't know what you mean by "simple cad".. My drawings are done in 3D space and rendered to surface textures... There are more detailed and better drawings but my application doesn't require them.. I know one thing is for sure, even since the old days when I had to install a "Math co-processor" in a 386 system, there are certain commands within cad that will severely tax your processor and make it work for all its worth... Even today with my pentium D, when I render a large drawing with lots of detail, it can take 20 minutes to finish it.
Are you suggesting that a video card would speed that up??

Below are some simple drawings I make.. Each is just a screen grab.. All drawing are accurate in 3d space to within real life tolerances. I do play with some of the colors for display purposes...


----------



## Bob Sanders

PaulBob said:


> My wife has the same video card and motherboard that I do and she does all the graphics for our website as well as photo restoration for others..
> She also uses all the adobe photoshop stuff and it seems pretty fast..
> 
> Not sure what kind of graphics you're into or how it affects your speed but we don't experience any significant wait times for anything except loading and saving files.. (our caviar blue drives are not Ferrari's )..


Graphics is not the same as video by a long shot. Graphics and cad is not that demanding.

The requirments for Avid MC:


> *Computer:* Avid-qualified Windows-based computer
> *OS:*Windows 7 Professional SP1 (64-bit), Windows 8 Professional or Enterprise (64-bit)
> *Processor:* Intel Quad Core i7 or Quad Core Xeon processor
> *Memory:*
> 4 GB RAM minimum (6+ GB recommended)
> 8 GB RAM minimum required to support Media Composer | Cloud (formerly Interplay Sphere)1, background transcoding, and Dynamic Media Folders
> 16+ GB RAM recommended to support full-frame stereoscopic 3D, simultaneous background transcoding, Dynamic Media Folders, FrameFlex 4K workflows, Raw format AMA plug-ins, Long GOP media editing, and other high-performance workflows
> 
> *Graphics card:* NVIDIA Quadro family2 (Q600 or higher recommended), Intel HD4000
> *Internal hard drive:* Minimum 250 GB 7200 rpm SATA drive, 128 GB SSD




Requirments for Premiere Pro:




> Intel Core2 Duo or AMD Phenom II processor with 64-bit support
> Microsoft Windows 7 with Service Pack 1 (64 bit) or Windows 8 (64 bit)
> 4 GB of RAM (8 GB recommended)
> 4 GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on removable flash storage devices)
> Additional disk space required for preview files and other working files (10 GB recommended)
> 1280 x 800 display
> 7200 RPM or faster hard drive (multiple fast disk drives configured for RAID 0 recommended)
> Sound card compatible with ASIO protocol or Microsoft Windows Driver Model
> QuickTime 7.6.6 software required for QuickTime features
> Optional: Adobe-certifi ed GPU card for GPU-accelerated performance
> Internet connection and registration are necessary for required software activation, validation of subscriptions, and access to online services.*




requirments for Sony Vegas:


> Windows® 7, 8, or 8.1 operating system (64-bit)
> 2 GHz processor (multicore or multiprocessor CPU recommended for HD or stereoscopic 3D; 8 cores recommended for 4K)
> 1 GB drive space for program installation
> SSD or high-speed multi-disk RAID for 4K media
> 4 GB RAM (8 GB recommended; 16 GB recommended for 4K)
> OHCI-compatible IEEE-1394DV card (for DV and HDV capture and print-to-tape)
> USB 2.0 connection (for importing from AVCHD, XDCAM EX, NXCAM, or DVD camcorders)
> Windows-compatible sound card
> DVD-ROM drive (for installation from a DVD only)
> Supported CD-recordable drive (for CD burning only)
> Supported DVD-recordable drive (for DVD burning only)
> Supported BD-R/-RE drive (for Blu-ray Disc™ burning only)
> GPU-accelerated video processing and rendering requires an OpenCL™-supported NVIDIA®, AMD/ATI™, or Intel® GPU with 512MB memory; 1GB for 4K.
> Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0
> Apple® QuickTime® 7.1.6 or later for reading and writing QuickTime files
> Internet Connection (for Gracenote MusicID Service)




Now Adobe does list a video card as an option and you can get along without it in a pinch, but anybody who is seriously into video editing doesn't because it is so much faster and smoother.


As for HTPC's...
A reasonable video card is needed because it includes (among better video performance) an HDMI output which includes sound. This is connected to your reciever so that the HTPC can bit stream DTS, dolby true hd, and DTS HD MA.


----------



## r0ckstarr

Poor kwikfishron... He had a pretty big setup going. Now he has no clue what to use. 

I have a suggestion. You tell us what your intended purpose for the computer is, and budget, and we will try to put together a build that suits your needs and let you go from there. Then maybe, we can get this thread back on track and make some progress.


----------



## ddawg16

r0ckstarr said:


> Poor kwikfishron... He had a pretty big setup going. Now he has no clue what to use.
> 
> I have a suggestion. You tell us what your intended purpose for the computer is, and budget, and we will try to put together a build that suits your needs and let you go from there. Then maybe, we can get this thread back on track and make some progress.


You forget....we are spending someone else's money......it's so much more fun


----------



## r0ckstarr

Which is why I mentioned budget as well.


----------



## kwikfishron

r0ckstarr said:


> Poor kwikfishron... He had a pretty big setup going. Now he has no clue what to use.
> 
> I have a suggestion. You tell us what your intended purpose for the computer is, and budget, and we will try to put together a build that suits your needs and let you go from there. Then maybe, we can get this thread back on track and make some progress.


I do have a clue (barely) and the intended use in my first post would have helped (although I did mention it later).

My mission is pretty simple. My current less that two year old Dell laptop crashes about every other day and I pretty sure that soon enough it will be a crash and burn for the last time. I know you can get more bang for the buck putting together your own so here I am.

I've always enjoyed flight simulators but even with my I3 processor in this dell the sim is clunky. If you turn all of the scenery settings to low it fly’s ok. Max out the scenery settings then your down to only a few frames a second.

If you look at some simulator videos on You Tube some of them are just mind blowing on how detailed and realistic they are. I want the same detail and realism here (or as close to it as I can get).

From everything I've read on the sim forums over the years is that FSX relies on about 80% CPU and the rest on the GPU. As of now it seams that overclocking an I5-4690K is the way to go with a mid-range GPU. X-Plane on the other hand is more GPU dependent.

That said and knowing a new computer will be needed soon and that I decided build the next one I also decided to spend the extra bucks and hopefully get the sim close to the levels that I see people showing off in the videos and being able to run some of the add-ons that are helping them get there. After 20 years of playing the clunky version it's my turn now.

I've already have ordered most of it and probably will with the rest this afternoon. There's a few changes I made to the list I posted. I'm ditching the water cooled, I'm going to get a SSD for the OS only, The sim geeks didn't like my GPU so I upgraded that a notch. And thanks r0ckstar for the link, I think that case will work out just fine for less than half the price. I had a grand in the budget for this and it looks like I'll end up at about 1,100 which is fine. 

I hope to get this thing put together by next weekend with the help of This Guy. We'll see how it goes but I'm sure I'll be back with some stupid question. I'd have no problems if this was all made of wood and steel.


----------



## Bob Sanders

I have FSX.

It's a pretty universal program which will run on simple systems to complex ones. Although if you want to run smoothly and with good detail you do need at least an i5 with a reasonable vid card. A good programmable joystick makes it a lot more fun too. Get one with multiple programmable buttons so that you can run flaps, speed brakes, landing gear, throttles... etc, directly from the stick. It feels a bit more realistic with a stick. 

It's a pretty big program and there are lots of add ons so what I did was set up the main program on my C drive and all of its data on a separate data drive.

Multiple monitors is always nice too. You can keep an eye on your plane with one monitor and the altimeter/gauges with another. Of course you don't need to get into that right away. Most vid cards have a minimum of 2 outputs so you can start with one monitor and add another later.


----------



## kwikfishron

Bob Sanders said:


> I have FSX.
> 
> It's a pretty universal program which will run on simple systems to complex ones. Although if you want to run smoothly and with good detail you do need at least an i5 with a reasonable vid card. A good programmable joystick makes it a lot more fun too. Get one with multiple programmable buttons so that you can run flaps, speed brakes, landing gear, throttles... etc, directly from the stick. It feels a bit more realistic with a stick.
> 
> It's a pretty big program and there are lots of add ons so what I did was set up the main program on my C drive and all of its data on a separate data drive.
> 
> Multiple monitors is always nice too. You can keep an eye on your plane with one monitor and the altimeter/gauges with another. Of course you don't need to get into that right away. Most vid cards have a minimum of 2 outputs so you can start with one monitor and add another later.


I've got the stick and two monitors anyway. Win8 is a big problem with add-ons and I'm sick of it. I've been tinkering with this game off and on for years. More on the off side because I've never really been satisfied. Now with the faster speeds and what I've seen others achieve I'm ready to try again. I've never really been a gamer (much past pac-man) but I do enjoy this or at least I might if I can take it to the next level.


----------



## taylorjm

Did you see how microsoft announced a few months ago that support will end for Windows 7 at the end of this year? That is, unless you are a business, and pay for business support, then you can continue to get updates, but the consumers will not be getting any security updates or patches after this year. They are trying to force everyone to windows 8 now. Pretty typical, once something seems to be working and is stable, they will no longer support it.


----------



## ddawg16

Windows 8 is pretty much Windows 7 but with support for a touchscreen and tablet.

Sounds like a pretty smart decision....why support 2 when you can support one

Not a big deal for me....I use a 3rd party browser....MSE is free...and Outlook is by far the best email program.

I don't have issues with my computers....


----------



## Bob Sanders

kwikfishron said:


> . I've never really been a gamer (much past pac-man) but I do enjoy this or at least I might if I can take it to the next level.


I'm not at all a gamer either. FSX (and chess) are the only games I play, and FSX is more a realistic challenge than a game. I've owned a PS3 for about 4 or 5 years now and I still don't own a single game (bought it because at the time it was the best Blu Ray player available).


----------



## Bob Sanders

taylorjm said:


> They are trying to force everyone to windows 8 now. Pretty typical, once something seems to be working and is stable, they will no longer support it.


No different from Apple or Android. Upgrades are being forced more for reasons of fragmentation though. It's hard for software manufacturers to keep their software in tune with multiple versions of operating systems. It amounts to lost time, money and a program that could have been better if it hadn't had to be backwards compatible to other system versions.


----------



## ddawg16

Bob Sanders said:


> No different from Apple or Android. Upgrades are being forced more for reasons of fragmentation though. It's hard for software manufacturers to keep their software in tune with multiple versions of operating systems. It amounts to lost time, money and a program that could have been better if it hadn't had to be backwards compatible to other system versions.


Very true....one of the reasons for .NET....

JAVA was intended to be the program to end all hardware dependency issues....you write a JAVA app and it has not direct connection to the hardware...same JAVA app works on a smart phone, Windows or MAC....as long as you have the JAVA plug in for your specific computer....

But yet, I'm asked 3-4 times a month to update my JAVA....I'm sure the Apple guys have the same issue.


----------



## kwikfishron

Bob Sanders said:


> FSX is more a realistic challenge than a game.
> 
> I will agree with that. There are no points or high scores. The satisfaction (for me anyway) is knowing that I made it from point A to B without killing all of my imaginary passengers. :laughing:


----------



## r0ckstarr

ddawg16 said:


> why support 2 when you can support one


Cause that's how they've always done it with overlapping support for 2.




taylorjm said:


> Did you see how microsoft announced a few months ago that support will end for Windows 7 at the end of this year? That is, unless you are a business, and pay for business support, then you can continue to get updates, but the consumers will not be getting any security updates or patches after this year. They are trying to force everyone to windows 8 now. Pretty typical, once something seems to be working and is stable, they will no longer support it.


Dangit! I recently ordered 2 copies of Win7 Pro. One of which, I am building today. Wish I would have known sooner. Oh well.. 



kwikfishron said:


> I hope to get this thing put together by next weekend with the help of This Guy. We'll see how it goes but I'm sure I'll be back with some stupid question. I'd have no problems if this was all made of wood and steel.


That video plus the instructions that come with everything and you'll be good to go. Any questions you have, ask away. There are no stupid questions.


----------



## r0ckstarr

kwikfishron said:


> And thanks r0ckstar for the link, I think that case will work out just fine for less than half the price.


I have the same case (2 of them actually). Here's the inside of mine showing the amount of space for the video card.


----------



## kwikfishron

Any recommendations on a SSD for under $100 that will only be running win7?


----------



## ddawg16

kwikfishron said:


> Any recommendations on a SSD for under $100 that will only be running win7?


Look here

http://www.newegg.com/Internal-SSDs/SubCategory/ID-636


----------



## taylorjm

The idea of using the SSD drives is very interesting. I might have to give it a test try and see what it can do. The only thing I wonder about is the failure rate and reliability. The reviews are all over the board, some say it's great, some say garbage and it died, but the same seems to happen with hard drives these days. The last time I bought 5 drives, 2 were doa.


----------



## kwikfishron

I just received a shipping conformation on one item I ordered. An anti static wrist strap, price...$1.84 with free shipping. 

The seller is located in Hong Kong, the item is being shipped via Hong Kong Post and will arrive between 8/25 and 9/12. 

How can anyone make any money on that? :laughing:


----------



## ddawg16

For those wanting to know about SSD's vs HD's.....here is a pretty good write up..

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404259,00.asp

Tidbit of note worthy mention...



> As far as longevity goes, while it is true that SSDs wear out over time (each cell in a *flash memory bank has a limited number of times it can be written and erased)*, thanks to TRIM technology built into SSDs that dynamically optimizes these read/write cycles, you're more likely to discard the system for obsolescence before you start running into read/write errors. The possible exceptions are high-end multimedia users like video editors who read and write data constantly, but those users will need the larger capacities of hard drives anyway. Hard drives will eventually wear out from constant use as well, since they use physical recording methods. Longevity is a wash when it's separated from travel and ruggedness concerns.


So.....This is why you want to use an HD for heavy data storage and the SSD for the OS and programs.


----------



## taylorjm

Yeah, but the OS is constantly swapping to and from disks, mainly with page files or temp files, so that's why I wondered about longevity.


----------



## ddawg16

taylorjm said:


> Yeah, but the OS is constantly swapping to and from disks, mainly with page files or temp files, so that's why I wondered about longevity.


That is why you want a lot of memory. It reduces/eliminates the page file swaps.

At 8G, the page file swap pretty much goes away unless you have a crap load of applications open at the same time.


----------



## taylorjm

You still have to get the data from the drive to that 8gb of ram, which requires read/write requests, then the os will try and predict what files you are going to use and swap them to ram to increase speed, but it has to do that constantly. So the read/write requests are the same, but it seems faster since you aren't waiting for the data from the drive and taking it from ram instead.


----------



## ddawg16

taylorjm said:


> You still have to get the data from the drive to that 8gb of ram, which requires read/write requests, then the os will try and predict what files you are going to use and swap them to ram to increase speed, but it has to do that constantly. So the read/write requests are the same, but it seems faster since you aren't waiting for the data from the drive and taking it from ram instead.


You didn't read the info right....

You can read from SSD all you want without decreasing life.....it's the 'writes' that shorten the life.

If you have plenty of RAM...you're not swapping to disk (SSD)....so...life is good...


----------



## taylorjm

"If you have plenty of RAM...you're not swapping to disk (SSD)....so...life is good..."

I will agree to disagree on this point.


----------



## Bob Sanders

taylorjm said:


> Yeah, but the OS is constantly swapping to and from disks, mainly with page files or temp files, so that's why I wondered about longevity.


Page files can be moved to other drives. (In fact I don't even run with a page file anymore) All temp data files can be moved to other drives... mail... internet cache... etc, if you have a concern.


----------



## r0ckstarr

Bob Sanders said:


> Page files can be moved to other drives. (In fact I don't even run with a page file anymore) All temp data files can be moved to other drives... mail... internet cache... etc, if you have a concern.


Yep. Just do a search on how to set up a scratch disk.




taylorjm said:


> The idea of using the SSD drives is very interesting. I might have to give it a test try and see what it can do. The only thing I wonder about is the failure rate and reliability. The reviews are all over the board, some say it's great, some say garbage and it died, but the same seems to happen with hard drives these days. The last time I bought 5 drives, 2 were doa.


Ive had a SSD in both of my computers for 2yrs now. One is used for office things. The other is for everything else (photography, digital design, games, etc..).. So far, no problems on either.


----------



## kwikfishron

*Computer Build (part 2)*

So I got everything together and it booted right up. Loaded win7 on the ssd but I can't connect to the internet to load all of the updates.

I have it plugged in directly to the router, it ask for a username and password then it comes back with an error.

The diagnostics says "Install a driver for your network adapter" and "windows did not detect a properly installed network adapter. If you have a network adapter, you will need to re-install the driver."

Where do I get this driver?


----------



## jimn

From another computer that has Internet connectivity search on the brand name of your network adapter and windows 7. Although most network adapters today are pretty generic except in high multi-port adapters. Trust the Microsoft site or manufactures site before third parties.


----------



## kwikfishron

jimn01 said:


> From another computer that has Internet connectivity search on the brand name of your network adapter and windows 7. Although most network adapters today are pretty generic except in high multi-port adapters. Trust the Microsoft site or manufactures site before third parties.


I got it working now, thanks.


----------



## kwikfishron

Next question.............I have the OS installed on a SSD. I have another HD I want to install everything else on but I am not showing that the second HD is even there looking in "computer". It only shows the SSD and the DVD.

When I re-boot and go into the bios it does show that the extra drive is there.


----------



## kwikfishron

It also shows the extra HD in device manager but not in "My Computer".

How do I set the second drive as the default so the ssd does nothing more than hold the OS?


----------



## jimn

Right click on the drive in device manager. Make sure it indicates it's working correctly. I wouldn't think you would need any special driver. 

As far as redirecting your pictures, documents etc. right click on the library folder and select properties and change the location. Sear Microsoft.com for redirecting libraries widows 7 for more details. 

When install programs, makes 2 directories on the second drive. Call one Program Files and the other Program Files(x86). We installing applications select these directories rather the ones on C:


----------



## r0ckstarr

kwikfishron said:


> So I got everything together and it booted right up. Loaded win7 on the ssd but I can't connect to the internet to load all of the updates.
> 
> I have it plugged in directly to the router, it ask for a username and password then it comes back with an error.
> 
> The diagnostics says "Install a driver for your network adapter" and "windows did not detect a properly installed network adapter. If you have a network adapter, you will need to re-install the driver."
> 
> Where do I get this driver?


That should all be on the disc that came with your motherboard.

Is the extra HD brand new or from a previous computer?


----------



## kwikfishron

jimn01 said:


> When install programs, makes 2 directories on the second drive. Call one Program Files and the other Program Files(x86). We installing applications select these directories rather the ones on C:


I've tried this a few times now. I created the new folders on the second drive(E) and installed a few programs (OpenOffice is one for example) into the Program Files(86) on the second drive. I found the .exe there and installed the program from there just fine. 

BUT... even though I directed everything to the second drive I also see it was installed to the C drive too. I've done this with a few programs now and even though they show that they're in folders on the second drive it does not show that I've used any disk space on drive 2. 



r0ckstarr said:


> That should all be on the disc that came with your motherboard.
> 
> Is the extra HD brand new or from a previous computer?


I did figure that out and yes the HD is new, all of the hardware is new.


----------



## kwikfishron

kwikfishron said:


> it does not show that I've used any disk space on drive 2.


Actually it does show that I've used almost 1GB on the second drive (OpenOffice is part of that). There's still the issue of these programs installing on both drives and using up space on the SSD.


----------



## jimn

In windows some parts of software get installed on the c drive. Any required drivers, registry entries, application data usually find their way to the C drive and the system or user directories. It can't be helped, one of the things I have always hated about windows. There is no clean line between applications and operating system like there is in the various flavors of Unix, Linux and Mac OS X. While you can route most of it to another drive, your SSD will continue to get filled up. Applications use your user data space to store history, backup files etc and the infamous windows registry stores all kinds of stuff. The growth of the Windows,registry is one of the primary causes of Windows slowing down over tie .


----------



## Windows on Wash

If this derails the thread....I am apologizing in advance.

Here is what I need for my office:



Cost effective as I need about 10 work stations
Fast boot up
Minimal capabilities
Most of what we do is accessing the internet where all of our documents and systems are located.
Most are cloud based

Fast boot up
Here is the SSD vs. conventional question

Run two monitors and the ability to have two things going at once and to be able to slide screens over


What do you guys think...?


----------



## Bob Sanders

Definitely do SSD if you're looking for fast boot time. Typical boot time for a SSD is in terms of seconds rather than minutes.

I actually run three monitors on one stand.



















The center monitor doesn't move a lot but the side monitors are on arms which are quite flexable. They will angle all the way around.
The stand was actually pretty cheap ($89 plus shipping). Mine of course was for tri monitors but you can get them for two. Go to www.newegg.com and do a search.


----------



## Windows on Wash

Thanks. Anything I need special with the computer to runt the 3 monitors with the exception of 3 outputs?


----------



## Bob Sanders

Windows on Wash said:


> Thanks. Anything I need special with the computer to runt the 3 monitors with the exception of 3 outputs?


Nope.
It works better however if you use the same video cards. You can use different ones but it's a bit more sluggish. 
There's some third party software out there as well which will add some flexabliity too. I use ACTUAL MULTIPLE MONITORS which does things like add task bars to the other monitors and such


----------



## ddawg16

Windows on Wash said:


> If this derails the thread....I am apologizing in advance.
> 
> Here is what I need for my office:
> 
> 
> 
> Cost effective as I need about 10 work stations
> Fast boot up
> Minimal capabilities
> Most of what we do is accessing the internet where all of our documents and systems are located.
> Most are cloud based
> 
> Fast boot up
> Here is the SSD vs. conventional question
> 
> Run two monitors and the ability to have two things going at once and to be able to slide screens over
> 
> 
> What do you guys think...?


If you put in lots of ram, then you significantly reduce the access of the SSD, hence what you want to do is a perfect application. 

With that said. I would buy all the same systems....SSD with a min of 8G of ram. 

Use a back up HD to make images of the install. That way if one of them crashes, it's easy to restore.

In the application your proposing, about the only things that get written to disk is the registry and browser history. If you turn off history tracking...then very little should be going to SSD.

Install a server for all of the computers with a good size HD and your set (use it as the print server)


----------



## jeffnc

Late to the party, but if you only need 500G, I would definitely get a SSD. If you find you need more after that, you can always add a 2T HD. Like if you need the space for movies or music or whatever. But if you put the system and most important software and files on the SSD, it will be much faster. My machine also comes up in about 10 seconds now. Adobe suite applications start up in 1-2 seconds, as opposed to 15 seconds before. Of course not exactly comparing apples to apples - running Vista before and 8.1 now.


----------

