Hardware Upgrade

[3hM2Nwbp]

It's about that time again...and I'm still totally clueless! Can anyone lend some possible build plans?

Approximate Budget: $1,000 US

Requirements (in order of importance):

1) Builds projects in a flash (anything to speed up the development cycle)
2) Able to run multiple IDEs, CPU intensive demo projects, etc and still have enough power to support video conferences.
3) Multiple HDs - one with a Microsoft OS and one of the non-microsoft open-source systems.
4) Must have HDMI output

This system will be used for work related tasks only. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I'll probably be editing this as I find more questions...

Would liquid cooling be recommended, or would fans suffice?

[Albatross]

I think fans might suffice, though I won't claim to be an expert. How about...

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070
Memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148486
High Speed HD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136929
High Capacity HD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136284
Motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157271
PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371020
CPU Cooler: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065
Chasis: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129042
Front Fans: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835228013

That'd come out to about $985.
CPU: $300
Memory: $65
Hard Drive x2: $300
Motherboard: $125
PSU: $100
CPU Cooler: $30
Chasis: $55
Front Fans x2: ~$20

EDIT: I assume you have everything else, like disk drives and thermal compound?

EDIT2: Changed out the slower memory for something faster.

EDIT3: Changed the PSU to something a bit better-rated.

EDIT4: Changed the motherboard to something a lot better-rated.

-Albatross

[3hM2Nwbp]

Thanks for the input, I was feeling a bit overwhelmed by all of the different hardware lingo. Maybe that's why I'm so attracted to C++...not having to relearn a new standard every 6-8 weeks. What would you recommend graphics-wise that shouldn't have issues with both windows and (what's looking like) Ubuntu?

[Albatross]

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily recommend a discrete GPU if you're not going to need the extra processing power for gaming, OpenCL, or anything like that. Are you?

-Albatross

[3hM2Nwbp]

I don't think that I'd need any extraordinary graphics power, but I was asking along the lines of which brand of graphics card. I didn't notice any onboard graphics on the motherboard. Then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about, so I'm probably mistaken just confirmed, I am mistaken.

HDMI was a requirement because I'm using my 47" flatscreen as a monitor in place of multiple displays.

[1yR4jE8b]

Oh boy,

You can run your entire system on air (read: fans) as long as you aren't overclocking -- and even these days you can still overclock and be safe on air -- as long as your case has half-way decent ventilation. The stock CPU cooler is more than enough.

For what you say you want to do with it (ie, not a gaming machine), going to Future Shop/Best Buy and buying the most expensive computer you can afford ($1000 ?) will be fine.

These days, onboard graphics is going to be on the CPU (well, with Intel anyway haven't used AMD for years so I wouldn't know) -- that's why you don't see anything about graphics on motherboard specs.

If you want a graphics chip that's going to work well with Ubuntu, either stick with the integrated graphics on the Intel Sandybridge chip -- performance will be shit, but the driver is stable and open-source -- or buy whatever Nvidia card you can afford and use the proprietary driver -- Nouveau is still garbage. Stay faaaaaar away from ATI, the official driver is shit and the opensource driver has lots of issues.

Stay away from automatic graphics switching, it is not well supported in Linux *at all*.

The size of your display is irrelevant, it's the resolution. 1080p is the same amount of pixels no matter what size your display is.

Most graphics outputs have at least DVI nowadays, so all you need is an HDMI to DVI cable and you'll be fine. HDMI and DVI are the same for video, so there won't be quality loss but you'll just need a separate output for audio -- most motherboards have audio built-in nowadays anyway.

[Albatross]

I specifically checked to make sure the motherboard had an HDMI out port. :)

And what darkestfright said about graphics. If you need higher performance graphics than what Intel can offer (which is not that much but it'll suffice for *most* tasks), go with Nvidia and take the proprietary driver.

-Albatross

[NGen]

2) Able to run multiple IDEs, CPU intensive demo projects, etc and still have enough power to support video conferences.

If you use MS Visual Studio for development, then going with integrated graphics might not be the best idea. Visual Studio has quite a complex GUI system, which tends to even screw with my dedicated card. Granted, it's a laptop card, but dropping an extra $70 on a card with some nice VRAM (i.e. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102988) would definitely be helpful. Not that card specifically, but you get the idea.

HDMI was a requirement because I'm using my 47" flatscreen as a monitor in place of multiple displays.

I'd personally advise against using a TV as your monitor for development. It might be useful for giving presentations, but in my experience, it's just led to difficulties in seeing what I'm actually doing. I tried working off of our 55", and that didn't go so well. Not really a "don't do it," but more of a "it didn't work out so well for me." Given that,

1080p is the same amount of pixels no matter what size your display is.

^ and that, I'd recommend getting 2 monitors for dedicated use and then adding your TV to the mix, if you really need the screen space. However, at that point it's almost required that you get a dedicated card instead of relying on integrated graphics.

performance will be shit

I've seen some fairly promising things coming out of the Sandy Bridge integrated graphics. Granted, I'd recommend going Ivy Bridge since Sandy Bridge is now outdated, but Sandy Bridge was still impressive. However, at the same time I'm wondering if you were just talking about the Linux drivers for integrated graphics.

In the context of the build proposed by Albatross, I think it looks pretty solid. With the exception of going Sandy Bridge over Ivy Bridge, I do feel that the second 1TB drive could be foregone, since on a 1TB alone you could put an installation of both Windows 7 and Windows 8 on it, as well as 3-4 installations of various Linux distros, and provide a nice chunk of partition space to each OS while still having some space left over. I know multiple hard drives was a specification requested by Luc, but I feel that it's unnecessary when using 1TB drives.

[Albatross]

@NGen
AMD graphics cards are somewhat of a no-go when it comes to using them on Linux as well. I haven't quite seen a $70 Nvidia card, but... I'll keep my eyes open. :)

EDIT: I just found this for $65:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133356

As to the hard drives... well, maybe that is overkill. Actually, that does give me an idea.

@Luc
Would you be alright having one HD for all your OSes that would run at a high speed and one for most of your files that would run at a lower speed but have a higher capacity?

-Albatross

[NGen]

You thinking SSD, or 10k-15kRPM HDD?

[Albatross]

I was thinking 10k RPM HDD. SSDs are still bloody expensive, sadly, and I'm not 100% sure how much storage space Luc will need. Better safe than sorry? :)

The high-speed HDD and the high-capacity HDD cost the same, though, so he can choose the ones that he'll be able to make better use of.

-Albatross

[NGen]

Good idea; this definitely looks promising: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236254

[3hM2Nwbp]

Thanks for the input everyone. I don't really see an advantage to having separate physical HDDs for the different systems now that it has been mentioned. Multiple partitions for the different OSes would definitely be the way to go. Typically I'm storing between 1 and 5 GB between various active projects, plus approximately 3GB of permanent libraries (boost, java, and a whole bunch of others). I store archived projects on an external drive (soon to be 2). My most modern system only has a 300G HD and I haven't ever had less than 200G free space, so capacity isn't really a big issue (yet).

I've read up on solid state drives - would one of those be a good investment right now, or maybe in a few months when the hardware world evolves again? I'll have to crunch some numbers and see if I can cram windows 7 and a few open source distros on a SSD.

I'll probably be ordering the components that Albatross has suggested in a few hours, but I'm still very open to additional components to swap out later on down the road.

Thanks again :)

[NGen]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211588
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233220

When it comes to SSD usage, I'd personally only ever go for it if I had an SSD to boot from and put software on, and then an HDD to store regular files. The issue with that comes from Window initially putting everything it possibly can on the drive that it's installed on. But it doesn't sound like that would be much of an issue given your space usage and the spare 1TB drive. Plus, considering the system you're putting together, I think that the risk is a small price to pay for Windows 7 boot times of under 20 seconds.