Budget build advice

[FiB3R]

It's been a while since I specced out a PC, this one is for a friend of the family.

He does live performances, singing and a bit of comedy, and uses the PC for recording and editing backing tracks, which he creates with a keyboard and software like Ableton Live.

He has zero interest in games so he doesn't need a power house, or any extra gpu performance.

He said he wanted to spend around ?400 to replace his million year old PC, but was willing to go a little higher if needed.

He already has a monitor, speakers, kb/mouse, and hdd's for storage.

I've gone a bit over budget here, so I'd like to know if you guys think it's a good value build, or could I reduce the cost, without effecting the performance/quality toooo much.

Thanks :)

After saving the list, the price has gone up to ?500.27 :/ Fixed. It had removed the case/psu bundle deal. :rolleyes:

Also, sorry for the ****ty pic

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

looks great to me. is he in need of an optical drive though?

[neo1911]

Great build. No need to change anything.

For a price of an iPhone 4S, see what all things we can get :D

[FiB3R]

looks great to me. is he in need of an optical drive though?

Sweet :) Pretty sure his old Dell has a DVD drive, so no worries there.

Great build. No need to change anything.

For a price of an iPhone 4S, see what all things we can get :D

Unexpected, but cool :) Thought I'd have at least 10 people telling me it was crap, and that I am an idiot for one reason or another lol

Yeah, it's amazing what you can get today, compared to 5 years ago. My ?2000+ PC is looking kinda pathetic. :'(

[FiB3R]

Just noticed that the front USB ports ports on the Antec Three Hundred are USB 2, meaning I can't take advantage of the USB 3 headers on the mobo.

The Antec Three Hundred Two has USB 3 ports on the front, but it's ?54.79 compared to ?46.01, and I loose the ?19.20 discount on the PSU deal, but gain an unwanted DVD burner :/

Any ideas? Trying to get the price down a bit, not up lol

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

What about the Corsair Carbide line? i love mine. the 300R is $80 here, which is ?51. the 400R isnt too much more, either. they all have usb3 front headers too

[FiB3R]

Not much difference price wise, like ?1 or ?2 less, and I still lose the case/psu bundle deal.

Wonder if I can get usb 3 header cables that will fit?

[neo1911]

I got NZXT H2 last week when I built my new PC. The case looks sex. I got the black one but there's a white one as well. It's got top USB3 as well as top hard disk hot swap slot. This case if (Version 2) also has internal USB 3 header cable to connect to top USB3 port. But you waste 1 USB 3 port that way. My model has a back USB3 cable which connects to motherboards USB port

http://www.amazon.co.uk/NZXT-Classic-Series-H2-supply/dp/B004ULYPVK

The case is elegant and I chose it because I don't want Paul Walker in my case. Thank you.

[SnoopZ]

I would go for a Kingston 120GB V+200 as you can currently buy it for ?69.99 use 'Rooney' as a code at checkout. http://www.ebuyer.com/341349-kingston-120gb-v-200-ssd-svp200s3-120g

Or for a little more Samsung 128GB 830 Series SATA 6Gb/s 2.5" SSD Laptop Kit + FREE Norton Ghost 15 for ?77.98 http://www.dabs.com/products/samsung-128gb-830-series-sata-6gb-s-2-5--ssd-laptop-kit---free-norton-ghost-15-7SR9.html?ReferrerID=tb&utm_source=td&utm_medium=affiliates&utm_content=TB00

[neo1911]

OR.... You can get any case you want then buy a separate 3.5" front USB3 panel which has header cables attached.

[FiB3R]

I got NZXT H2 last week when I built my new PC. The case looks sex. I got the black one but there's a white one as well. It's got top USB3 as well as top hard disk hot swap slot. This case if (Version 2) also has internal USB 3 header cable to connect to top USB3 port. But you waste 1 USB 3 port that way. My model has a back USB3 cable which connects to motherboards USB port

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/B004ULYPVK

The case is elegant and I chose it because I don't want Paul Walker in my case. Thank you.

Down mate, I want to get the price down. lol

"Paul Walker" meaning you don't want your case looking like something out of The Fast and the Furious? :rofl:

[SnoopZ]

Down mate, I want to get the price down. lol

Those 2 great SSDs i posted will do that for sure mate.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Those 2 great SSDs i posted will do that for sure mate.

The Vertex 4 is better, so he should stick with it.

[SnoopZ]

The Vertex 4 is better, so he should stick with it.

This is a budget build so i disagree and those other SSD's are top drives and the owner of the pc won't notice any difference.

Budget build remember even though they're not budget SSD's, it is all about saving money and ?40 is alot. :)

[FiB3R]

I agree that the owner probably wouldn't notice the difference, and will more than likely be blown away by the speed of his new system, even with one of those "lesser" drives.

I think reliability is more of a concern at this point.

If the build was for myself, I think I'd be sticking with the Vertex 4.

[Wakers]

This is one of the few cases where I would suggest an AMD FX over an i5 - the AMD will do better with multi-threaded operations like audio editing, whereas the single core grunt of the i5 will be somewhat wasted.

[neo1911]

"Paul Walker" meaning you don't want your case looking like something out of The Fast and the Furious? :rofl:

Exactly. It rather be Slow and Serious

[Astra.Xtreme]

This is one of the few cases where I would suggest an AMD FX over an i5 - the AMD will do better with multi-threaded operations like audio editing, whereas the single core grunt of the i5 will be somewhat wasted.

Whoa, where do you get your information from? The i5 is a quad core and puts the FX to shame in every way and form.

[Wakers]

Whoa, where do you get your information from? The i5 is a quad core and puts the FX to shame in every way and form.

AMD FX is best in applications that can use more than 4 cores - audio editing, video editing etc. This is where the platform can outperform Intel.

Yes, if you're only using programs that can't make use of more than 4 cores, there's no point in getting an FX over an i5.

This is why Totalbiscuit, for instance, doesn't have an Intel processor in his rig.

[Astra.Xtreme]

AMD FX is best in applications that can use more than 4 cores - audio editing, video editing etc. This is where the platform can outperform Intel.

Yes, if you're only using programs that can't make use of more than 4 cores, there's no point in getting an FX over an i5.

This is why Totalbiscuit, for instance, doesn't have an Intel processor in his rig.

But this is for a budget build, which we can assume won't be used with expensive multi-threaded software.

The i5 kills the FX is every benchmark except the rare application that will utilize the "extra" 4 cores.

The FX was a huge flop and even the hardcore AMD fans know it. Windows 7 had huge problems with the processor when it first came out, and I'm not so sure those ever got fully resolved. There are tons of discussion threads out there with people asking about the FX vs Intel i5 or i7 and 99% of the people recommend the Intel.

[Wakers]

But this is for a budget build, which we can assume won't be used with expensive multi-threaded software.

The i5 kills the FX is every benchmark except the rare application that will utilize the "extra" 4 cores.

The FX was a huge flop and even the hardcore AMD fans know it. Windows 7 had huge problems with the processor when it first came out, and I'm not so sure those ever got fully resolved. There are tons of discussion threads out there with people asking about the FX vs Intel i5 or i7 and 99% of the people recommend the Intel.

You would be assuming incorrectly then, as it is obvious you haven't read the OP at all. It's in the second line that he uses audio editing software extensively, hence the recommendation of AMD. Stop trying to be SuperIntel Fanboy without reading in context, it makes you look silly.

This is about the only situation I would recommend AMD in, and you've come and plonked your foot squarely in your own mouth with your "99% bla bla bla" - this is the 1%!

[Astra.Xtreme]

You would be assuming incorrectly then, as it is obvious you haven't read the OP at all. It's in the second line that he uses audio editing software extensively, hence the recommendation of AMD. Stop trying to be SuperIntel Fanboy without reading in context, it makes you look silly.

This is about the only situation I would recommend AMD in, and you've come and plonked your foot squarely in your own mouth with your "99% bla bla bla" - this is the 1%!

Please show me a list of apps that would actually use more than 4 cores and have a performance benefit? I'm willing to bet there is very very few of them out there that have been optimized for that purpose, and even more unlikely that this person will be using those said apps. Even so, the difference would be so small, it wouldn't be noticeable. I'll say it again, this is a budget build. He's not looking to break speed records with top-notch components. There's no reason why he should spend likely more money for a CPU that is far superior in every way except for maybe a slight (emphasis on slight) disadvantage because it doesn't have 8 cores. Overall, the i5 is much much better CPU, period.

And enough with the "fanboy" stabs... It makes you look immature. I obviously read the OP, so have some respect...

[Wakers]

Well you didn't, because the audio editing software would actually be one that benefits from having extra physical cores - which you can get at a budget, by the way.

Yes, the i5 is a much better CPU overall - but not in this instance. Again, I emplore you to read the OP and stop being IntelDefender Man.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Well you didn't, because the audio editing software would actually be one that benefits from having extra physical cores - which you can get at a budget, by the way.

Yes, the i5 is a much better CPU overall - but not in this instance. Again, I emplore you to read the OP and stop being IntelDefender Man.

Show some proof... You simply don't understand that programs don't magically utilize cores. They have to be coded and optimized to do so. And very very very few of them even take into consideration 4 cores, much less 8. I'll say it again, the advantage of the extra cores would be slim to none in those applications (if any), so it's not worth it. You're in the extreme minority that believes that CPU is good for anything. Benchmarks and discussions all over the net will prove you otherwise.

[Wakers]

Show some proof... You simply don't understand that programs don't magically utilize cores. They have to be coded and optimized to do so. And very very very few of them even take into consideration 4 cores, much less 8. I'll say it again, the advantage of the extra cores would be slim to none in those applications (if any), so it's not worth it. You're in the extreme minority that believes that CPU is good for anything. Benchmarks and discussions all over the net will prove you otherwise.

Then you're reading some different benchmarks than everyone else.

Try harder. Actually, don't.