« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: help w/ comp building  (Read 9628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spellshaper

  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1690
  • Rating: +0/-0
  • This is me. Or maybe not.
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2007, 06:42:00 am »
If you buy a pre-built comp, the used power supply *should* do the job. I don't have any experience with that though, building yourself is cheaper.

The watts are not the important thing, but the power conversion efficiency. Example:
600W PSU, 60% PCE -> effectively 360W, 240W heat generation
500W PSU, 80% PCE -> effectively 400W, 100W heat generation
see the difference? ^^
I'd rather buy a PSU with lower power input and a high certified PCE, as it will generate less heat, use up less power (the bills!) and generate more output power per input.
Plus, less heat also means your system will be more stable.

add up the estimated power your components will need, and get a PSU which has an output of about 11-120% of your estimated needs. Also make sure the power supply can supply enough power on each seperate power line.

Heh, we just covered power supplies in my computer engineering course. :Dbiggrin.gif
Logged

Offline Zera

  • LV8 Addict (Next: 1000)
  • ********
  • Posts: 737
  • Rating: +82/-7
  • Monochrome Artisan
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2007, 06:44:00 am »
"Before purchasing a new power supply, you must first know the amount of power that each of your computer’s components need. These power requirements can usually be found on the labels of the components themselves. By adding up these figures, you’ll have a good estimate of the power output your new power supply should have.

As a general rule, never buy a power supply with output ratings that are lower than your estimates. Neither should you buy those that have too high a power rating, as most of this power would simply be wasted."

Generally, it just depends on the hardware you're running. You can very well build a "green computer" (one with low power demands) and do heavy amounts of gaming and multi-tasking on it no problem.

EDIT: Spellshaper is right. Most default supplies will work around your needs. If you do get around to figuring up your hardware requirements, though, just keep in mind that you may want to add new hardware later, so don't use an exact figure. Like if you only need 250 W, it may be okay to go up to 300> in case new hardware is added in the future. Some devices can be total power hogs, too. I think DVD burners are one of the biggest offenders.
Logged

Offline dinhotheone

  • LV6 Super Member (Next: 500)
  • ******
  • Posts: 410
  • Rating: +2/-1
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2007, 11:28:00 am »
QuoteBegin-grendel+27 Dec, 2007, 11:24-->
QUOTE (grendel @ 27 Dec, 2007, 11:24)
Probably the service pack. Anything post SP1 seems to cause problems. I never found a way to get Alcohol installed on an SP2 system because of the dreaded "Blue Screen of Death."

When I said stick with XP, I specifically meant SP1. I probably should have elaborated on that.

Personally, *I* would use 2000. I doubt many people are willing to go that far back, but it's the best way to avoid your OS being a complete resource hog. I just want a system that gets the job done. It doesn't have to look like a paragon of aesthetic perfection in the process. ;)wink.gif

 wait what? i have sp2 and i use alchohol all the time, i doubt its your operating system. besides alchohol
Logged

Offline Zera

  • LV8 Addict (Next: 1000)
  • ********
  • Posts: 737
  • Rating: +82/-7
  • Monochrome Artisan
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2007, 12:08:00 pm »
QuoteBegin-dinhotheone+27 Dec, 2007, 17:28-->
QUOTE (dinhotheone @ 27 Dec, 2007, 17:28)
wait what? i have sp2 and i use alchohol all the time, i doubt its your operating system. besides alchohol

This was a couple of years back, so it may only apply to that specific version. They've probably patched it with the newer releases.
Logged

Offline Netham45

  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2103
  • Rating: +213/-4
  • *explodes*
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2007, 12:44:00 pm »
QuoteBegin-Spellshaper+27 Dec, 2007, 10:13-->
QUOTE (Spellshaper @ 27 Dec, 2007, 10:13)
QuoteBegin-Netham45+27 Dec, 2007, 17:16-->
QUOTE (Netham45 @ 27 Dec, 2007, 17:16)
well, on my laptop I have XP SP3, and on my desktop I have Vista. My laptop has a Radeon Mobility, and my desktop has a 7900 GS. On my laptop I notice games randomally quitting(sp3?), on my desktop, the only thing I really notice is long boot times(sometmes upwards 5 minutes) but I have a pretty good desktop.

Well you got to compare Vista and XP performance on equivalent systems, preferably on the same machine with dualboot.

Even on the newer "made for Vista" systems, XP still outranks Vista in terms of application and gaming performance.  

 the only difference I can tell between XP SP2 and Vista(with aero transperancy, etc... on) is vista takes longer to boot.
Logged
Omnimaga Admin

Offline TIfanx1999

  • ಠ_ಠ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  • CoT Emeritus
  • LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
  • *
  • Posts: 6173
  • Rating: +191/-9
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2007, 05:55:00 am »
I have also found that on Vista, alot of stuff seems to have been moved around from XP so sometimes I have a hard time finding things . :(sad.gif
Logged

Offline Spellshaper

  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1690
  • Rating: +0/-0
  • This is me. Or maybe not.
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2007, 06:15:00 am »
I can probably get used to that.
I think what annoys me the most on vista is the UAC.
It's ok for people who don't know what they're working with on their comp, everyone else should just disable it...
That said, I tried Vista, and most definitely don't like it. It may finally become usable (gosh was it buggy at the release date), but I'll stick with XP pro, stable, fast, functional, less bling-bling.
Logged

Offline Netham45

  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2103
  • Rating: +213/-4
  • *explodes*
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2007, 09:29:00 am »
well, I have XP home, and Vista Ultimate... Also, I've been using Vista for so long that I am used to where things are, and UAC was the first thing I slaughtered with a vengence.
Logged
Omnimaga Admin

Offline dinhotheone

  • LV6 Super Member (Next: 500)
  • ******
  • Posts: 410
  • Rating: +2/-1
    • View Profile
help w/ comp building
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2007, 11:28:00 am »
vista takes up more resources, it also changed everything to a more friendly aka harder for me to use style. it also is incompatible with alot or software. its buggy. have you used office 07? think of going from 06-07 is like Xp to vista. they changed everything and often not for the better.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »