It would have been so easy to spam about something topical too, but no.
Regarding the BIOS business, Azrodal is right. Nothing much needs to be fussed over, but it doesn't hurt to have a look at the settings to see what options are there. If you don't know what a given setting does, don't mess with it, but knowing about it means you can look it up later. Things like ram timings can be nice to see so you know if the ram is running to the specifications it should be running. I know a little program that can tell you that from windows though.
Okay, so after understanding all of this a bit more, I have a question.
At work (I work at Staples now, bleh), there's an HP desktop for 800 dollars. It has a 1.5 TB hard drive, 8 GB of memory, and a six-core processor.
I just put together a relatively cheap (I think) machine on Newegg. 1 TB hard drive, 8GB of memory, quad-core processor. Also this one has a dedicated graphics card and a much nicer case. That came out at $886 so far including the OS. Is it still worth it for a gamer with limited technical knowledge to build their own computer if they don't really care about bleeding edge? It seems like the computer I put together isn't even as good as the one they have at Staples.
Interesting question I'd say. I think the biggest downfall of building your own is that you have to be your own support. When you have problems you have to fix it yourself. Any warranties you might have are for individual parts and you have to keep track of all that yourself.
I generally don't consider it a way to save money. It's just an option that gives a person more control. You get to choose your parts and spend the money where you feel it's worthwhile. You get the computer you want and not a mere approximation.
With the HP desktop you no doubt have a sort of neat looking case that is actually kind of flimsy and cheap and god only knows how the air goes through it. The power supply is probably quite cheap as well, but maybe sufficient. The heat sink on the processor is unlikely to be particularly good, so overclocking would be a disappointing endeavor not that an HP would even let you try. The hard drive is a 1.5 TB, but they won't say what model it is or who manufactured it. The fans will be cheap and basic; not necessarily quiet except by happenstance. The motherboard, they'll tell you what ports are on the back, and they might tell you some minimal information about the chipset (though you often have to look at features and guess). They won't tell you anything about the power circuitry or the capacitors on the motherboard. They won't let you know what the arrangement of add-in ports is, they won't tell you anything about the bios on it.
They don't say this because the common person doesn't understand these things anyway and so they will go cheap on those things. They will get the bare minimum that can do the job.
This is what you accept when you buy a Dell or an HP, or an Acer, etc. You let them make a lot of these little decisions for you and trust that while they may choose cheap options they will at least make sure they work.
If you try to build your own to save money, it'll be an uphill battle. Those companies work at huge volumes and can get custom parts that are cheaper than what you can get. If you DO save money you might well find yourself paying for it in the long run.
If you don't mind, I'll probably come here and ask if we can go over some parts I pick out for a computer in a few years. I tried Magicka and... well, my computer can't really run it adequately. Once I get into a group of goblins, I have to rapidly press the spell buttons to get anything to happen, and it makes accurate combos difficult. It's a sad day when I can't even run an indie game right. I need a full-time teaching job.
My computer is quite old. I've updated most everything except the hard drive and the processor. My processor runs at (puts out? what's the correct verb here?) 2.4 Ghz. Now, yesterday, I talked to a guy who had just hand-built a powerful comp. 4x my memory, probably 20x my hard drive space, much more powerful graphics card... and he has a quad-core that he said is a 3.2 Ghz processor.
So does that mean that that processor runs at a TOTAL of 3.2 Ghz, or does each core run that fast? Does this guy have a total of 12.8 Ghz of processing power?
Well, technically each core has 3.2Ghz processing power each, but it's not much use if your operating system isn't designed to harvest the power of these separate cores. Say, for example, you're encoding a video, a quite processor intensive task. If your operating system (and the app you're using) handles multiple cores well, then it will shunt that load into its own core and leave the rest free for other stuff, so your PC doesn't slow down.
As far as I can tell, however, Windows 7 doesn't have the best multi-core functionality built in...
Yes they all can run at 3.2Ghz, though rated speeds like that are shiftier these days. The newer stuff, especially from intel will have "turbo" speed ratings in addition to normal speed ratings. When fewer cores are active, the remaining active cores will actually speed up. It's a power usage thing. With fewer cores active there's more energy to devote to the active cores to reach higher speeds. Individual cores can run at different speeds and the rating you see marketed is usually the peak sustained speed with all cores active.
Anyway these speeds also aren't equal across different processor architectures either. It's a little like comparing a temperature in Celsius and Fahrenheit. Scales are a bit different.
Also there are cases where you get virtual cores through things like Intel's hyperthreading to muddy core counts a bit, and AMD has a new architecture coming out in a few months that'll make one start to question what constitutes a core, but that's a bit of a different topic.
Also also, what Bruce said is maybe a bit off. If a processor intensive task like video encoding is to be done well, the application will try to use ALL the cores to do the job faster. If it sticks to one core then the application is actually pretty crummy for encoding. Some things just can't split up and use very many cores, but encoding is not one of those things. And Windows 7 is perfectly up to the task of handling multiple cores, as are all current OS's. That's not even worth arguing over anymore outside of extreme conditions in server environments with heavy database duties and such if you ask me. The bigger question for most people is whether a given application can fully split up and utilize multiple cores.
I know, right? Like that dumpster they were advertising the other day! It's one of those things that, once you have it, you can't imagine life without it!
Note that the Dumpster spambot said that "Particles" are bad. Better cleanse all the particles from the town... anyone got an atom smasher I can borrow?
Maybe there's one included in those Dumpsters, might have to check those out.
Occasionally I see people claiming that "you can build a decent gaming computer for $500." Some have even claimed as low as $250. That sounds like bullshit to me. Bullshit?
$250 is bullshit. $500 really depends on what you call decent and how much you include in costs. If you are just talking a tower with no monitor/keyboard/mouse/speakers or anything and don't include an OS, you could probably make something good for older games and passable for more modern games for $500. Personally I wouldn't call it decent, but to each there own.
Comments
Yeeeeeeah. Teen sex and computer building.....
Regarding the BIOS business, Azrodal is right. Nothing much needs to be fussed over, but it doesn't hurt to have a look at the settings to see what options are there. If you don't know what a given setting does, don't mess with it, but knowing about it means you can look it up later. Things like ram timings can be nice to see so you know if the ram is running to the specifications it should be running. I know a little program that can tell you that from windows though.
At work (I work at Staples now, bleh), there's an HP desktop for 800 dollars. It has a 1.5 TB hard drive, 8 GB of memory, and a six-core processor.
I just put together a relatively cheap (I think) machine on Newegg. 1 TB hard drive, 8GB of memory, quad-core processor. Also this one has a dedicated graphics card and a much nicer case. That came out at $886 so far including the OS. Is it still worth it for a gamer with limited technical knowledge to build their own computer if they don't really care about bleeding edge? It seems like the computer I put together isn't even as good as the one they have at Staples.
I generally don't consider it a way to save money. It's just an option that gives a person more control. You get to choose your parts and spend the money where you feel it's worthwhile. You get the computer you want and not a mere approximation.
With the HP desktop you no doubt have a sort of neat looking case that is actually kind of flimsy and cheap and god only knows how the air goes through it. The power supply is probably quite cheap as well, but maybe sufficient. The heat sink on the processor is unlikely to be particularly good, so overclocking would be a disappointing endeavor not that an HP would even let you try. The hard drive is a 1.5 TB, but they won't say what model it is or who manufactured it. The fans will be cheap and basic; not necessarily quiet except by happenstance. The motherboard, they'll tell you what ports are on the back, and they might tell you some minimal information about the chipset (though you often have to look at features and guess). They won't tell you anything about the power circuitry or the capacitors on the motherboard. They won't let you know what the arrangement of add-in ports is, they won't tell you anything about the bios on it.
They don't say this because the common person doesn't understand these things anyway and so they will go cheap on those things. They will get the bare minimum that can do the job.
This is what you accept when you buy a Dell or an HP, or an Acer, etc. You let them make a lot of these little decisions for you and trust that while they may choose cheap options they will at least make sure they work.
If you try to build your own to save money, it'll be an uphill battle. Those companies work at huge volumes and can get custom parts that are cheaper than what you can get. If you DO save money you might well find yourself paying for it in the long run.
If you don't mind, I'll probably come here and ask if we can go over some parts I pick out for a computer in a few years. I tried Magicka and... well, my computer can't really run it adequately. Once I get into a group of goblins, I have to rapidly press the spell buttons to get anything to happen, and it makes accurate combos difficult. It's a sad day when I can't even run an indie game right. I need a full-time teaching job.
My computer is quite old. I've updated most everything except the hard drive and the processor. My processor runs at (puts out? what's the correct verb here?) 2.4 Ghz. Now, yesterday, I talked to a guy who had just hand-built a powerful comp. 4x my memory, probably 20x my hard drive space, much more powerful graphics card... and he has a quad-core that he said is a 3.2 Ghz processor.
So does that mean that that processor runs at a TOTAL of 3.2 Ghz, or does each core run that fast? Does this guy have a total of 12.8 Ghz of processing power?
As far as I can tell, however, Windows 7 doesn't have the best multi-core functionality built in...
Anyway these speeds also aren't equal across different processor architectures either. It's a little like comparing a temperature in Celsius and Fahrenheit. Scales are a bit different.
Also there are cases where you get virtual cores through things like Intel's hyperthreading to muddy core counts a bit, and AMD has a new architecture coming out in a few months that'll make one start to question what constitutes a core, but that's a bit of a different topic.
Also also, what Bruce said is maybe a bit off. If a processor intensive task like video encoding is to be done well, the application will try to use ALL the cores to do the job faster. If it sticks to one core then the application is actually pretty crummy for encoding. Some things just can't split up and use very many cores, but encoding is not one of those things. And Windows 7 is perfectly up to the task of handling multiple cores, as are all current OS's. That's not even worth arguing over anymore outside of extreme conditions in server environments with heavy database duties and such if you ask me. The bigger question for most people is whether a given application can fully split up and utilize multiple cores.
Maybe there's one included in those Dumpsters, might have to check those out.
Occasionally I see people claiming that "you can build a decent gaming computer for $500." Some have even claimed as low as $250. That sounds like bullshit to me. Bullshit?
EDIT: This may be a relevant link