Spec for an Internet/Photo PC

A friend at work is after a PC for using the Internet and copying photos over from camera (via usb doesn't seem fussed about a card reader), the local computer shop has quoted £320 for an AMD X2 5000 system so I offered to build her a system.

I've come up with the following, do you think it looks ok? - (NSK3480 isn't available on scan, so prices are from ebuyer) - case has to be a midi tower and black to go with the existing keyboard and mouse, owner already has a monitor.

CPU: Athlon X2 4850E £46.95
Heatsink: Scythe Ninja Mini £28.91
Motherboard: Abit 780G mATX £48.36
Case + PSU: NSK3480 mATX + 380W PSU £53.16
HDD: WD 320GB AAKS £36.99
Memory: OCZ CL4 2GB DDR2 6400 £29.99
DVD RW: LG GH20NS15 20X SATA DVDRW £14.55

Total: £258.91

Done your homework :)

Looks perfect matey.

A standard ninja will fit that case of course, but isn't necessary.

You might want to take a read of this thread in Current Bargains.

It's a £299 Dell PCfrom /Tesco, with Intel Q6600 Quad-core CPU, 2GB RAM, 320GB HD, Vista Premium, etc, and :-

- it's ready-built, so no mucking about
- it's got Tesco behind it as well as Dell

great thanks :) I wasn't sure if the scythe was overkill, I just like a quiet pc will see if she's bothered :)

:o will take a look, thanks Saracen

The ninja will run it passive I think :) The fan on the full size is quieter than the tri-cools on low. Not sure about the 80mm on the mini but it should be quiet and they don't need much airflow at all so passive is almost certainly enough given how close together the fans are.

Even though the price is really good, you know that your build will be quiet (damn near silent), low power, have fantastic onboard graphics (more than enough for blu ray and light gaming, if she likes the SIMs like most girls lol), and longer warranties on everyting you put inside it.

As good of a deal as the dell is I would do the custom build, unless of course you need to buy an O/S. Then you might as well have the dell as you will be saving money, otherwise I wouldn't spend the extra on a quad that won't be utilised, probably for years to come.

In my assessment, there's good and bad both ways, Mike, and not just about cost.

Building the PC probably won't save money but it certainly allows you to fine tune component selection and cherry-pick both on quality of component and suitability for purpose. On the other hand, buying ready-built saves the mucking about of building, and possibly of the inconvenience of couriers, if you pick up at your local store, and can also have advantages if you have problems later on, because it was bought as a unit, not as a collection of components.

Different approaches will suit different types of user.

Couldn't agree more :)

I just know what I would do, for the reasons above. There are advantages to the dell that is plain to see, especially if you build her a PC and then it breaks and she nags you to fix it etc.. but that will probably happen with the dell anyway :laugh:

I faced the same dilema when I decided to get my gf a machine last xmas. I decided that since I was going to have to fix whatever broke anyway that I would, as you say, cherry pick the components I feel are most likely to A) work best together and B) be most reliable.

I came up with a build not to disimilar to yours edp33. Just using the parts available at the time (690G, brisbane 5000+ etc.. :))

She is upgrading from an older pc so will be putting Windows XP on it, I will let her know about the Tescos offer

She has decided to go for the Antec Sonata case instead of the NSK as she prefers the all black finish, will the Abit uATX motherboard be ok in there, or should I get an ATX motherboard?

Is she just putting her photo's on the computer or is she going to do something with them like photoshop etc. If she is it may be worth getting a quad core cpu other than that looks fine as does the pc on offer from tesco.

Poo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poo417

Is she just putting her photo's on the computer or is she going to do something with them like photoshop etc. If she is it may be worth getting a quad core cpu other than that looks fine as does the pc on offer from tesco.

Poo

---

Quad core is complete overkill for photo editing. RAM and hard disk space are more important factors.

The uATX board is fine in that case :)

I've got nothing against the sonata is's a good case but it does look a bit cheap in the flesh, but if she's ok with that then go for it.

There is always this case, it has space (but doesn't come with) 2x 92mm fan's in the front and has a 120mm at the back. Very similar to the NSK3480 but full ATX and black :)
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/145090

A cheaper version
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/130948

Only draw back is the single 80mm fan at the front :( but given the low power/heat components you are using the 120mm extractor is probably more than enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Quad core is complete overkill for photo editing. RAM and hard disk space are more important factors.

---

Oh well I stand corrected then it just made such a large difference to my wifes computer when she was using cs3 when applying layers or what ever she does. :O_o1: Moving up from a cdc 6600 toa q6600 seemed to be much quicker. I did add another 2 gig of ram as well (well another 1.25 as it's 32 bit )

Poo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poo417

Oh well I stand corrected then it just made such a large difference to my wifes computer when she was using cs3 when applying layers or what ever she does. :O_o1: Moving up from a cdc 6600 toa q6600 seemed to be much quicker. I did add another 2 gig of ram as well (well another 1.25 as it's 32 bit )

Poo

---

Maybe CS3 is particularly slow then - I just use free tools like Raw Therapee and The GIMP, and all of their processing already flies on a simple X2. Maybe Quad would make some difference, but going from 1 second to 0.5 isn't worth spending money on IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Maybe CS3 is particularly slow then - I just use free tools like Raw Therapee and The GIMP, and all of their processing already flies on a simple X2. Maybe Quad would make some difference, but going from 1 second to 0.5 isn't worth spending money on IMHO.

---

Agreed. And quite honestly it doesn't sound as if she is doing anything like this..

The small amount of photoshop work I did, it was always on a 1.6 centrino with 512mb of ram and while it wasn't exactly a speed demon at rendering any changes, but I could live with it.

Wrote my own program to manipulate Raw :laugh: .. Fun week *shoots one's self in the head*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by staffsMike

Wrote my own program to manipulate Raw :laugh: .. Fun week *shoots one's self in the head*

---

Ouch I can imagine :angst:

She will just use the PC for transferring photos from the camera, no sophisticated photo editing etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Quad core is complete overkill for photo editing. RAM and hard disk space are more important factors.

---

Well, yes and no.

Currently, the biggest single performance limiter for heavy Photoshop use is memory bandwidth. Unfortunately, that's hard as hell to add. :(

But yes, up to a point, RAM and disk space are important but, up to a point, so is processor power, and cores. The biggest relevance of cores is not so much in using Photoshop per se, but in workflow. A quad core can have a significant effect if you're trying to use Photoshop while you've got something processor intensive going on in the background, such as Bridge processing RAW files in the background. But, even then, you still hit the memory bandwidth issue in many situations.

In terms of tuning for Photoshop, I'd say there are several things to aim for :-

- a 64-bit chip ..... though just about any new chip will be
- Vista 64-bit
- a true 64-bit mobo, with support for 8GB of RAM or more
- given the above, 6GB or 8GB or RAM
- minimum two, preferably three HDs (one dedicated to Photoshop scratch disk use
- careful setup and configuration.

BUT if your editing BIG images, the above will pay off far more than if you're doing simple operations to small shots from a typical point-and-shoot.

So while the above sort of focus is worth it for a heavy Photoshop user, it isn't (IMHO) worth it if it's just a PC the average home user edits a few snapshots on .... not that the typical snapshot-editing home user would have (or want) Photoshop anyway.

Photoshop is not especially processor intensive in most of it's operations. Mostly, you're moving big files around, hence the importance of memory bandwidth, but most Photoshop operations perform relatively little mathematical operations on them. And yes, I agree, if looking for somewhere to spend money on a Photoshop PC, look after RAM (3GB on a 32-bit OS, probably 6GB on a 64-bit system) and several disk drives. They'll do more good, most of the time, than a Quad will over a Dual.

Ok, here's the latest spec - a few of the products are on Scan's today only - does this seem like a bargain ? :D

Ebuyer Antec NSK4480 51.73
Scan 4850e 39.94
Scan WD 320GB AAKS 37.58
Scan Asus M3A78 45.53
Scan Corsair CL5 2GB 30.13
Scan Samsung DVDRW 12.91

Total: £217.82 !!

CL4 Ram is only £32 is there a 'notable' difference from CL5?

It's worth it for AM2's yeah :)