If you made this PC..

By Trillionsin ยท 7 replies
Mar 3, 2010
  1. ...or if you bought this PC what do you think the retail price should be/what would you pay for it?

    1. GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 785G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard
    2. Antec EarthWatts Green EA-380D Green 380W Continuous power ATX12V v2.3 / EPS12V 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Power
    3. AMD Phenom II X2 545 Callisto 3.0GHz Socket AM3 80W Dual-Core Processor Model HDX545WFGIBOX
    4. Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Desktop Memory Model 996777
    5. SAPPHIRE 100253HDMI Radeon HD 4650 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Low Profile Ready
    6. Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive

    You should be able to find all these items on Newegg. www.newegg.com

    EDIT: Sorry, I just noticed the sticky post about future builds and asking opinions. Do I need to move this post? I will know better for future reference.
  2. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 13,036   +2,558

    The trouble with providing an accurate answer to this question is that manufacturers get a better price on both OS and components than you possibly can.

    If it was just a question of adding the markup, I'd say, "add together the component prices, and multiply by 1.33 to arrive at a reasonable estimate of selling price. But I suspect that if you were to do this, you'd quickly find that a prebuilt with the same hardware would be a fair amount cheaper.

    I suppose that the moral of the story is, that you should build so that you can get exactly what you want, and learn something in the process, but not because you think you'll save money.

    This differs somewhat in the very high end of prebuilt and custom machines, as the price markup is higher at those price points. Meaning that you could likely build a high end machine at or below what it would cost to buy assembled, but not a low to mid priced machine.
  3. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    $634.00 + tax and shipping

    hey, i took a shot
  4. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 13,036   +2,558

    I'm going to wait until it's a "Shell Shocker" deal. With an Intel CPU, that is.
  5. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    yes, but then you would have to change the motherboard and then....it wouldn't....OH DAMN you! :p:haha:
  6. Trillionsin

    Trillionsin TS Evangelist Topic Starter Posts: 1,596   +257

    Okay, so why use Intel? Just because it is more popular? I thought AMD chips handled graphics better. I dont know, so this is why I am asking!
  7. Ritwik7

    Ritwik7 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,672   +9

    There's no such thing. It's all a matter of personal preference and budget. :)

    Intel and AMD both do what thery are supposed to well enough.
  8. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 13,036   +2,558

    Actually, the very highest performing CPUs (currently) are built by Intel. In the middle and lower echelons of available CPUs, Intel and AMD trade places as to whose chip is better at different price points. This also seems to be based on what test, benchmark, or game is being measured. Intel's CPUs across the board are more energy efficient. So i suppose if you're paying the electric bill, this might matter. If you're not, then I suppose you can work on your "justification" for the enhanced charges, for the benefit of whoever is. Intel's resurgence as the premier CPU manufacturer has led AMD to lower its prices, and in some cases this has led to AMD being the better value.

    With respect to gaming, most of the performance issue is with graphics. So, you can get by with less CPU (irregardless of brand) if you have a great video card.

    Intel's graphics are all "integrated" (onboard) graphics, which are at most aimed at home theater applications, NOT gaming. The same can be said for ATI chipset boards with integrated graphics. IMO, since Intel has put a great deal of effort into onboard video solutions, with the release of their Core i-3 & i5 CPUs, IMO they are the better way to go for good home theater and business purposes.

    This excludes gaming, since whomever is providing the onboard graphics, they're not up to the task. At that point the issue, (read "argument"), shifts to ATI versus Nvidia. I frankly and patently don't care about this, and further don't wish to get involved. Accordingly, you'll have to find someone else to tell you what to think, feel, believe, or ultimately buy with respect to an add-in video card. (note 1)

    (Note 1); The last paragraph is what one should come to expect, when a question is phrased in the form of an argument.

    Because I'm a "nice guy", I'll answer this question yet again;
    A computer is a commodity. So, if you're going to keep it, and save for its utility as a computer, the value would be zero. Ditto most likely as collateral for a loan. If you wanted to sell it at a later date, then the depreciation on a computer, (and most electronics), is quite severe. This because, the evolution of modern electronics is so rapid, the the performance of even equipment less than a year old is quite compromised, compared with a release of today.
    As a commodity, a computer only has value if you sell it. So therefore, if I were going to sell it, I would add up the parts prices, then multiply that figure by 1.33 and see if it would float with the buyer.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...