Help an ignoramus out? xD (pc on a budget)

[joeyjojo]

do I need to be worried about compatibility much or is it not a huge issue? If I'm looking at swapping out some components I mean.

Nope that's pretty much all there is to it. The CPU needs to fit in the mobo (same socket) as well as the cooler. The memory needs to match too (but it's all DDR3). Power supplies usually have connectors that snap together/apart depending on the mobo requirements. Drives are almost exclusively SATA (which are all backwards compatible anyway). Expansion cards are usually PCI Express of some flavour (mobos have a few of each).

I think all the builds so far look fine in terms of compatibility. I'm not really too wellversed in terms of amd builds but faster ram is a midst have on those with built in graphics

The integrated GPU in AMD APUs doesn't have any cache, so the link to the system memory is a huge bottleck, so fast memory (2400) gives big FPS improvements. This will probably be the same when HSA applications start appearing, so fast memory is essential in APU builds IMO.

 

[CompuChump]

Ok that makes sense. Does that apply just to the AMD CPU or to the Intel as well, as both were using integrated graphics and I was leaning more toward the Intel as it was slightly cheaper? Though I'm not sure if the performance would be much worse than the AMD?

I'm asking because the price jumps a lot from that 1333MHz to the 1600 and 2400MHz, and by the sound of it it would be a good idea to at least go for the 1600MHz.
Also, how important are the CAS timings? Do I want 'no lower than 11' or 'no lower than 9' etc. As far as I understand it the MHz number is the more important one.

And... this
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-002-AR&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1387
There are different speeds listed in various places, 9-9-9-24 1333MHz and 10-12-12-31 2400MHz are both on there. Are these representative of different things or is this the result of a template being used and artefacts left on the page.

I know it's a lot of questions so sorry about that, I'm just trying to make my pennies count at this moment in time. >,<

And thanks for all your help!
I'm not quite there yet but I feel far less ignoramus-ey now.


edit: Another question, sorry. >.<
The graphics card for the AMD build is called Radeon HD, I thought HD meant integrated but then how come it's a separate card? Does it borrow it's 1GB memory from the RAM and not actually have its own? Or do I just have the nomenclature wrong?
As the main thing I'll be running is an animation/graphics program also, which has to draw a lot of vectors quickly, would I be better off taking a slight hit on other aspects of the system like the processor to get a dedicated graphics card instead of integrated? I hope that sentence makes sense. >.<

 

[RJC]

The AMD cpu in my build above does not contain a integrated GPU so a external card is needed, this uses its own memory.

The CPU which others have talking about is the AMD APU which is a cpu and a better gaming GPU built into it (better than Intel in some cases) , this is where the higher speed ram comes into play, if you were looking at a budget system for gaming then I would look at this route, but ad you need the processing power rather than the graphics side the 2 builds above will be fine.

Memory side of things the in the builds are fine, I don't think neither can run higher speed than 1600mhz.

 

[CompuChump]

Ok, cheers for clearing that up.
So AMD - CPU, seperate graphics | APU, itegrated graphics
Intel - no set naming, so you need to Google it every time :/
And Integrated means you don't need a seperate graphics card, but isn't as good.

I'm really starting to wish both companies would sack their entire marketing teams and just name things clearly. Seriously, the naming conventions suck. >.<
Ah, well.

Just thinking ahead, if you have integrated graphics and a dedicated graphics chip do you benefit from both or does it just use one and the other is wasted? Just in case I get integrated graphics and then want to upgrade the graphics later on, when I've got a bit more cash in my pocket.

In other news, I've dug out an old Dell from the back of a cupboard and I'm hoping I can use some parts from that - DVD drive, maybe case, PSU and fans. So hurray for that! Just need to measure the case and figure out what it can hold.


And thanks again for all your help, btw.
I know I could just go with your build and move on but I like understanding things and everyone here has been really helpful.

 

[joeyjojo]

Just thinking ahead, if you have integrated graphics and a dedicated graphics chip do you benefit from both or does it just use one and the other is wasted? Just in case I get integrated graphics and then want to upgrade the graphics later on, when I've got a bit more cash in my pocket.

Currently, most software just runs on the CPU. However, AMD have been pushing HSA, which is a different approach where CPU and GPU work together.

HSA apps should really get off the ground this year, but AMD's newest APU release (Kaveri) already destroys Intel in many existing HSA benchmarks: AMD Kaveri Review : Focused on HSA Features

So it's a hard choice, depending on which way you think the wind will blow on HSA.

I know I could just go with your build and move on but I like understanding things and everyone here has been really helpful.

Good attitude!

 

[CompuChump]

Oh right, so as it is now if I have an APU or an intel CPU with integrated graphics, even if I do plug a GPU into it only the CPU will be used? Doesn't sound too future proof/ upgradable if that's the case. :s
And even having read that article I'm afraid I'm not informed enough about the industry to be calling predictions on it. Haha.

Oh and, the old Dell. I did some research and turns out it's useless as they use so many proprietary parts. :/ Still, I took it apart anyway and nearly died from dust-lung, but now know what the inside of a computer looks like, so that's a pro if I'm going to be building one I suppose.

 

[joeyjojo]

Oh right, so as it is now if I have an APU or an intel CPU with integrated graphics, even if I do plug a GPU into it only the CPU will be used? Doesn't sound too future proof/ upgradable if that's the case. :s

Not quite. In general, the CPU does most of the work, with certain tasks offloaded to the GPU (processing and displaying the desktop environment, and rendering graphics in games).

I suspect Toon Boom Animate Pro 3 doesn't have "recommended" specs because it will run well on pretty much anything - the CPU requirement is a 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, which is a CPU from 6 years ago! CPUs today are WAY more powerful. So you can pretty much take your pick.

As gaming GPUs are very powerful at certain tasks - far more so than any CPU - some softwares in recent years have been moving some work onto the GPU (video encoding, 3-D rendering, some computations). AMD are pioneering this, and one line of their systems (the APUs) integrates CPU and GPU on a single chip. They're also pretty cheap, which makes them great all-rounders with future potential.

However, if you're after something really cheap then this is what I did a few weeks ago when I needed to put together an office PC: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18579521

 

[CompuChump]

I suspect Toon Boom Animate Pro 3 doesn't have "recommended" specs because it will run well on pretty much anything - the CPU requirement is a 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, which is a CPU from 6 years ago! CPUs today are WAY more powerful. So you can pretty much take your pick.

I wish I could agree but I think it depends what you're doing in the software - I used it at uni running on Mac Pros (quad-core I think, not sure on anything else) and it chugged from time to time. Also video encoding is one of the things the software does - I'll be encoding at 1080p or 4KUHD fairly often too.

Your build there looks good though - I was a little surprised at the price tag at first when you described it as 'really cheap' but then I realised £100 of it was MS Office and then obviously the £80 for the OS. I'll be getting the OS for it but I can migrate Office from another computer... maybe I'll do a similar build and add a graphics card instead of Office... hm...

edit: I'm thinking maybe I should say more about what the software does, especially as the link is a bit burried now.
It's primarily 2d animation software (with limited 3d support), largely does vector graphics but also works with bitmaps. It does similar things to photoshop so I guess computationally it's similar, but also has to play audio, draw vectors at (usually) 24fps and encode video in Full HD and 4K.

I'm thinking this all sounds like I'm going to need to get a dedicated graphics card, am I right? or is it still mainly processor I need to worry about?