Monitor and Last Minute Questions

[Khapheen]

Hi Everyone,

getting all set to order everything this week, and have a couple of quick questions. I'll mostly be using my PC for InDesign text layout, voice to text software, web, and maybe some light photoshop.Is a Dell that much better than this Samsung I saw on newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001273&cm_sp=DailyDeal-_-24-001-273-_-Homepage

I don't mind spending a little more if it's worth it for the 20" Dell Ultrasharp, but it's hard for me to figure out the difference.

Also, it looks like there's a 512 mb version of the same video card recommended on the home page. Other than the price bump, any reason not to go with it?

And finally, am I correct in understanding that it's still a good idea to wait on Vista?

Sorry for all the questions (new to this,) and thanks for all the great info in these forums. I'ts been a huge help. Thanks!

[zburns]

For detailed monitor comments from myself, go to my recent post in the MySuperPC forum -- where you are right now. Section: Build Your Own Computer; thread, Build for Web Designer (MakinItMine), page 2 by zburns.

There are a number of considerations on Monitor choice, depends on what you really consider important. I am going to throw out a few technical points which are easy for the lay person, if you give it a chance. The dot pitch on the 22" monitor your link points to, is 0.282 mm; this is the distance between pixels and the space between them. The dot pitch on the 20" Dell Ultrasharp is 0.258 mm. . The resolution on the two monitors is the same 1650 x 1080. The pixels have to be larger on the 22" monitor than on the 20" monitor.

In photo terms, this means that for a given high detail, complex color photograph, the 20" monitor will display the photo image with greater clarity (sharpness, detail) and better contrast than the 22" monitor. The difference may be small in detail and contrast, but it is there and it should be viewable.
The reason is that the dots (pixels) that make up the image are smaller on the 20" (also on a 24"monitor) monitor than a 22" monitor.

If you routinely work on a lot of images in Photoshop, the above comment applies to every image you process. In my first para, I give you a link to a Samsung very expensive 24" color monitor -- the description revolves around very high quality color processing in a monitor and what is required. To find these qualities in a low cost color monitor may be difficult; however, the NTSC color gamut standard seems to be the important specification and one of the Dell 20" monitors (the Ultrasharp) claims to meet 102% of the NTSC standard.

The reason to use the NTSC color gamut standard, is that it relates to the accuracy of the colors your monitor reproduces; remember your monitor is "in between" your "source" meaning input photo and your final (maybe altered) output photo. If your monitor is not accurate, the end result will be affected.

Others on this forum highly recommend the Samsung 22" monitor ( I have the next Samsung up, the 24" 245BW). Color images are great for my use, etc. -- home and business and my own photos if I ever mess with them.

I would imagine most users would vote for a 22" color monitor over a 20" because of the larger size; this is why I got the 24" size. For routine use, I am sure an advocate of the 22" monitor is well justified in his or her recommendation -- the color images look great. Photoshop and graphic arts monitor use is just another whole area of stepped up technical requirements and, therefore, quality.

Final point, the Dell 24" Ultrasharp has a higher color gamut rating than the Dell 20" I mention above. None of the Dell 22" monitor specifications mention "NTSC color gamut" rating; none of the Samsung 22" and 24" lower cost, TN screens (what we are talking about) mention color gamut.

With respect to what color gamut means, a portion of it is the number of colors (color variations) that your monitor works with. I do not know the exact numbers so I will approximate; the lower cost monitors with TN screens work with color numbers in the "hundreds of thousands" whereas the Dell 20" and Dell 24" work with about 16 million. I have not used a Dell Ultrasharp but have read wonderful comments about them; I would have jumped to the Dell 24" Ultrasharp myself but for the extra $ 300 more than my Samsung 245 BW.

zburns

[zburns]

Vista Ultimate is what I have; I have had no real problems, like it a lot. I jumped all the way from Windows 98 so I am really not the one to ask as my comparative experience is very limited. Several others on the forum have Vista. Wise Monkey has 64 bit Vista; again, others should comment.

Are you following Robs recommendations; I do not know what your whole system consists of ? zburns

[RickyTick]

There are several versions of the 8800GTS.

8800GTS 512mb is the new G92 architecture and has 128 stream processors, whereas the 8800GTS 320mb and 640mb only have 96 stream processors.

Big performance difference. Don't make that mistake like many others have.

[RickyTick]

Oh, and yes I use Vista Home Premium 64 bit. Since Vista Service Pack 1, my system runs flawlessly.

[zburns]

Khapheen, Ricky's comments are right on!! But I repeat, what is the rest of your system. I assume it is high powered, but Vista requires speed and lots of memory. zburns

[Khapheen]

Thanks for all the great help and input so far. At this point, I was thinking of building exactly to the specs on Rob's page (with the AMD 6400,) since I'm new at this and wanted to be sure everything is compatible. I don't necessarily need the wireless on the motherboard, and might opt for a bigger hard drive, but those are the only changes I've really thought through at the moment. I wouldn't mind finding another case that didn't have a front door, either.

Budget-wise, I could spend a little more, but want to be sure that I'm not just burning money for the sake of something that won't make too much of a difference. I'm always open to suggestions, though, if anybody thinks a couple hundred extra dollars will be worth it a year or so down the road.

Most of my work will be with InDesign, so I'm not sure if that really requires any overwhelming power. My current laptop (a couple of years old) will runb it, but it practically moans and groans. I'm not really a gamer, although I do like Flight Simulator. (As a side note - with this kind of build, does anyone know if FS X will run well, or should I stick with the 2004 version?)

[zburns]

The following is why I mentioned that you must have a high powered system. I have Vista 32 bit. Four 1 gig sticks of Crucial Ballistix RAM, PC 8500.

My system performance data reads out as follows: Installed RAM 4 Gig. Total Physical Memory 3.5 Gig (this means usable memory from the beginning and the "lost" 0.5 Gig is never usable). Available Physical Memory 2.51 Gig. (what I have available right now as I write this).

Another point is that I am on this forum right now, on the Internet, etc., no other "Windows" opened. Available mem is 2.51 Gig. right now.

If I close the forum, close Google and with nothing else open but my background (wallpaper) screen, my Available Physical Memory is 2.67 Gig. . Means 160 Meg of memory goes to the Internet and the forum. Any other running applications would drop it even further. Vista is a memory "hog" to some extent. 830 meg goes to Vista right off the bat!! I am not complaining; I like what I am looking at.

Wise Monkey, Jamie Nix and Ricky Tick use Vista 64 bit (some other forum regulars also); they can comment on the plus and minus of going this way!! Ricky has Quad core, not sure about WM. I will consider 64 bit and Quad core after I digest what I have now, but that will take months. My point is that I will plan to update in approx a year, but that will depend on what all the experts say and the technology improvements. In my case I jumped from Win 98 to Vista Ultimate, so I really have a lot of homework before I make changes. zburns

[zburns]

The following is why I mentioned that you must have a high powered system. I have Vista 32 bit. Four 1 gig sticks of Crucial Ballistix RAM, PC 8500.

My system performance data reads out as follows: Installed RAM 4 Gig. Total Physical Memory 3.5 Gig (this means usable memory from the beginning and the "lost" 0.5 Gig is never usable). Available Physical Memory 2.51 Gig. (what I have available right now as I write this).

Another point is that I am on this forum right now, on the Internet, etc., no other "Windows" opened. Available mem is 2.51 Gig. right now.

If I close the forum and nothing else open but my background (wallpaper) screen, my Available Physical Memory is 2.67 Gig. . Means 160 Meg of memory goes to the Internet and the forum. Any other running applications would drop it even further. Vista is a memory "hog" to some extent. 830 meg goes to Vista right off the bat!! I am not complaining; I like what I am looking at.

Wise Monkey and Ricky Tick use Vista 64 bit; they can comment on the plus and minus of going this way!! Ricky has Quad core, not sure about WM. I will consider 64 bit and Quad core after I digest what I have now, but that will take months. My point is that I will plan to update in approx a year, but that will depend on what all the experts say and the technology improvements. In my case I jumped from Win 98 to Vista Ultimate, so I really have a lot of homework before I make changes. zburns

[Khapheen]

That's a good point you make. In the past couple of days, I've been thinking that maybe going a bit 'bigger' might be a good idea. It will cost a bit more upfront, but might keep me satisfied a bit longer. I've noticed that newegg is selling the Q9450 Quad for $329, and the AMD 9950 for $235 (both run at 2.6).

Maybe I'd be better off springing for the 4 gigs of ram, the 9800 512 video card, a 24" Dell monitor and the dual HD (raptor/WD) that WiseMonkey recommends. By shelling out the extra bucks and going with Vista, I might put myself just ahead of the curve for a bit. Probably overkill for anything I'll use right now, but I wouldn't mind something that runs fast and lets me keep a lot of windows open.

Any thoughts on this? Also, much thanks again for the help/explanations re: the monitor. Whether it's at 20" or 24", you convinced me that the better colors probably do matter for me, since the little bit of layout and design that I do will end up in print.

[zburns]

I think your choice to go 24" monitor is best. Just make sure that whatever you buy meets the NTSC color gamut standard meaning the monitor specifications clearly state the % of NTSC color gamut that it meets; viewing angle is important too, but "color purity reigns". I am pretty sure the Dell 24" Ultrasharp is less money today than six months ago.

Wise Monkey, Ricky Tick, Jamie Nix (also Vista, I think) are Vista 64 bit users; Ricky has Quad Core, the others I am not so sure about quad vs dual. And there may be other forum users with quad and vista 64bit; I just do not know.

I will provide some other comments later today; want to think it thru some more. zburns

[RickyTick]

Maybe I'd be better off springing for the 4 gigs of ram, the 9800 512 video card, a 24" Dell monitor and the dual HD (raptor/WD) that WiseMonkey recommends..

WM recommended dual Raptors? :confused: I missed that one.

[Khapheen]

I was looking in the sticky under top-notch suggestions, but it's entirely possible I missed the point.

[Khapheen]

Sorry, I meant one raptor and one bigger storage drive

[The Wise Monkey]

Because HDs are so cheap nowadays, you are better off having two standard drives in Raid 0 as opposed to having a 10k rpm drive for the OS.

[Khapheen]

Sorry for the millions of questions, but I ust want to be sure I understand: the raptor drive isn't worth it? I was looking at a second WD 1TB with 32 mb cache to go with it.

Also, does anybody have an opinion on the AMD Quad 2.6 chips vs. the Intel. I ask because the Phenom is about $100 cheaper.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103273

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115042

Thanks again for all the help everybody's given so far. It seems like in all of this, the hardest part is deciding where to draw the line. I was all set to order my stuff based on the specs on Rob's home page, but it seemed like the bigger monitor actually might make sense. Then I started thinking, "If I'm going to spend a bit more for the monitor, why not go for a quad, etc..."

It's tough to figure out what to spend now, vs. to just upgrade later, or what's too much overkill.

[The Wise Monkey]

Well, you can get two WD 80GB drives for $78:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822135106

for a total of 160GB for the OS. Put these in a RAID 0 striped array, and this will be a lot faster than a Raptor, which costs twice as much.

If you have enough space, getting two HDs and a storage drive will give better performance.

[Khapheen]

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but why are they faster @7200 than one drive @10k?

Re: the space, I was originally thinking of going with the Antec Sonata III, but am now leaning towards Antec 900, so I'm assuming I could fit them in.

[RickyTick]

Re: the space, I was originally thinking of going with the Antec Sonata III, but am now leaning towards Antec 900, so I'm assuming I could fit them in.

Yes

[The Wise Monkey]

The disk spin speed is fairly important, but a RAID 0 array means that data is written across both disks at the same time - this leads to about a 25% increase in read/write speeds. However, a 10k speed doesn't offer such a large increase. Plus it is more expensive. :)

[Khapheen]

Ok, I think I understand now. So if I were really trying to burn things up, I'd go for 2 10k drives? That would be massive overkill for me, just as a quad processor and a RAID setup might be anyway. Thanks!

[The Wise Monkey]

If you were really really trying to burn things up, you could go for 4 15krpm drives in RAID 0... :D

But that is insanely expensive. :/

[zburns]

Khapheen: I have some more comments for you. First of all, things seem to be getting complicated because changes are contemplated, ie hard drives, 64 bit and / or quad processors, etc..

Here are a couple of points that may help. You mentioned running a lot of Windows at the same time. Today I opened up 25 windows, 15 of them individual color photos from a web site I work with; all jpeg images, hence, not a lot of mb (about 26meg) to the images; I also opened up about 10 web sites including the major network websites of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. At this point I opened up this forum once more and then checked my system for available RAM. It was now 2.13RAM[B][U], about 0.5 gig drop from my earlier figures.

My system speed did not appear to be affected at all. Even if you ran some pages (windows) with full non-compressed images of 10 to 15 megs, I don't think it would have a noticeable effect on speed.

Here may be the most important consideration. If you Google "In Design 32 bit or 64 bit", you will see a lot of web comments about "recent introduction of CS3 in 64 bit version". My impression is that Adobe has just recently introduced CS3 in 64 bit around April of this year.

If this is the case, you know there will be a time period for shakedown, corrections, updates etc.. I would not touch any new 64 bit software for some months, maybe 6 to 12, maybe longer.

You may be better off sticking with 32 bit Vista (a premium version) and a dual core processor for now. Just wait out the new technology for the time being; start looking to upgrade in a year or so based on some solid proof that what you upgrade to is [B][U]rock hard solid product.

On the web pages I mention above, it seems that 64 bit CS3 is not being released in a Apple OS-X version right now, either (waiting on a new Apple product).

For the In Design work you presently do, do you know the page file sizes in mega byte (mb) that you presently "output" for print? I can take a typical file size and confirm my earlier comments about extra Windows and speed.

Hope all this helps. By the way "Rob's 6 month delayed acquisition rule" seems to make good sense in this case.

zburns

[Khapheen]

thank you for all the thought and attention, zburns. Your note made me think - maybe I'm asking the wrong kinds of questions. Originally, I had been planning to build to Rob's specs (as a side note, does anyone know what happened to AMD 6400?), but along the way, I started to wonder if I wouldn't be better off going 'bigger.'

That being said, my main needs are to be able to use the CS3 apps - InDesign, Photoshop (although somewhat sparingly,) and Dreamweaver - sometimes simultaneously, and have them not crush the system. I also do a lot of voice to text (Dragon Naturally Speaking) which absolutely flattens my current laptop.

I don't do any gaming, although I'd love to be able to rock out on Flight Simulator. I do a bit of print design work in InDesign (average file 10-20 mb or so, just book covers and interior text pages,) and occasionally tweak photos for my own use or magazine publication. All in all, I wouldn't really consider myself a power user by any stretch, although I'm not averse to paying a couple hundred dollars more if it gets me a lot in terms of performance, or going a bit longer without an upgrade.

So, I guess that being new to all of this, I'm kind of wondering where the price/performance point should be.

[RickyTick]

Next to Crysis, Flight Sim X is one of the most demanding programs out there.

[Khapheen]

I still have a copy of FS '04, maybe I should just hang on to that if it's my only bottleneck.

[RickyTick]

I still have a copy of FS '04, maybe I should just hang on to that if it's my only bottleneck.


I say try it anyway.

[zburns]

In any complicated decision making process, hopefully one specific thing will rise to the top and make the job easier. In your case, application software is the main topic to help decide things.

64 bit Vista is probably a good way to go; I have read WM's and Ricky's comments about 64 bit Vista for some time now. Jamie Nix another forum contributor also has 64 bit Vista (I think). They all recommend Vista and 64 bit. Next, while they do not say it directly, 64 bit sort of leads you to Quad.

However, if Adobe has just introduced 64bit CS3 and Apple's version is delayed due to new product intro, I maintain this is the topic that becomes important. I assume 32 bit CS3 is well debugged by now for Vista 32 bit. Your application software, ie CS3, etc. is why you want a new computer.

Once you are done with this process, you want "flawless" operation (flawless is a descriptive that Ricky and I use to describe our Vista experience so far).
So you have to determine if you will use 32 bit Vista or 64 bit Vista but whether you use CS3 32 or 64 bit determines that as I see it.

Just because Vista 64 bit gets rave or good reviews is no reason to jump into CS3 "brand new" 64 bit and roll the dice (my opinion only). I would wait it out until there were enough reviews that it too was "flawless". But get other opinions. Your main concern right now with CS3 is to avoid day to day disruptions, updates, confusion due to using "a new 64 bit version".

The hardware technology will always advance. Presently AMD claims the only true quad core, Phenom having four separate cores; Intel will have new models later this year. By waiting out new products to avoid being plagued by "bugs", you will always "miss out" on the latest tech stuff available!!

Readjust your thinking starting with which version of CS3, then go to the CPU based on that. zburns

[The Wise Monkey]

I don't run Vista 64 - I have used Vista 32 in the past, but I am currently using XP... :D

We only really suggest Vista 64 because it is the most future proof option - 64-bit means that you can add as much RAM as you like, and Vista is the better supported OS at the moment.

[RickyTick]

My thought process went something like this.

The next Microsoft Operating System is called Windows 7. It was originally planned to be created and released in 64 bit only. They later decided to offer both 32 and 64 like Vista. So in my untrained mind, if MS has intentions of making 64bit mainstream, then everyone else will be forced to follow. So I was just getting a head start, plus it helps "future-proof" my system if 64 bit turns out to be mainstream afterall (and I still believe it will).

The 4gb of ram was an added bonus and helped my epeen bragging rights. :D

[Khapheen]

From the look of things, I don't need the 64 bit Vista / Quad (CS3 uses 32 bit, don't know about the next version out in a few months,) but it might not be a bad idea to skip ahead. I think I might just go ahead and do it - I don't want to throw away money, but I don't mind burning the extra few hundred dollars if it's where I'm going to end up in year or so anyway.

Anybody have a strong opinion on the AMD Phenom 9950 vs. the Intel 9450? Both look to be quads of about the same speed, although I don't see consistently good reviews (some people say one is great, others that it's garbage) for a motherboard that matches up with either of them.

[RickyTick]

Wow, a 4 page thread. We haven't had one of these in a while. :D

[Khapheen]

Wow, a 4 page thread. We haven't had one of these in a while. :D

Hey, what can I say? I need a lot of help.

[Khapheen]

Wow, a 4 page thread. We haven't had one of these in a while. :D

Hey, what can I say? I really am new to all of this. Every question seems to lead to more questions. Once I figure out the processor/motherboard, though, I think it's time to just order the stuff.

[The Wise Monkey]

Don't worry man, it wasn't a slight at you at all - just an observation that this thread has generated a lot of discussion. :)

As for the 9950 vs 9450, check out this review:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/735/1/

It puts the 9950 on a par with the Q6600, which is a relatively old CPU now, but still one of the best.

[Khapheen]

Well, I really do appreciate all the help and feedback I've gotten here. Without it, I wouldn't have even tried this.

That being said, I've put my final list together to order today. I had to scale back the monitor and case (realized at the last minute that I have space - actual, physical space - issues to work around. So, here's what I've got:

Case: Antec Sonata III w/500 watt PSU

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129024&Tpk=antec%2bsonata%2bIII

Processor: AMD Phenom 9950 BLACK EDITION 2.6GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 2MB L3 Cache Socket AM2+ 140W Quad-Core Processor

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103273

Motherboard: ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi AM2+/AM2 AMD 790FX ATX AMD
(little nervous about this one since the newegg reviews seem to suggest a lot of failures, but it was recommended by AMD.)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131224

RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145197

Video Card: EVGA 512-P3-N841-AR GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130325

Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3500320AS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288

DVD: Sony DRU840A

Monitor: Dell 20" Ultrasharp

OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit

Would love to know if anything in here looks terrible/incompatible, but otherwise just want to say thanks again and I'll post an update in a few days (hopefully) when everything is up and running.

[zburns]

Khapheen, In general, it all looks great but I have two comments, one extremely important. First, it is my understanding that 4 sticks of 1 gig RAM is better, performance wise than 2 sticks of 2gig; however, Wise Monkey, Ricky Tick, Jamie Nix and others who have much more building experience than I should tell you. In fact I just read it again in a new mag this weekend.

Second, and the important comment. If you are going with the Dell 20 Ultrasharp, there are two of them. One is the one Rob recommends on the detailed build list on the web site (not the brief summary on the highlights at the beginning. That is a 2001FP and is either a wrong number or discont. number). Under "Cost to build a Computer", Rob recommends the Dell 2007 FP which is an older model with a slower millisec response (16ms) than the newer models but the ratings are excellent. This is not a widescreen model. It measures 17.5" x 14.4". It also does not have the color gamut statement or spec., but you need to ask Dell.

The other monitor is the 2009W Widescreen monitor. It has the color gamut rating of 102%. The first customer review is terrible, calling it garbage and not suitable for graphic arts, etc.. There are 19 total reviews, and you should read them all; some are good, some bad and most of these have a graphic arts direction.

The problem is the monitor screen and the way it is made; it is a TN panel. It has "horrible" viewing angles. I believe I commented to you earlier about this. About 1 to 1/2 years ago, lower cost monitors were made with TFT panels (I think that is the correct term), but they slowly switched over the last year to the TN panel.

Generally, TN panels prob. look great as you view it "head on" meaning looking directly (perpendicular) at the center of the screen; if you tilt your eyes towards the bottom or the sides you can see a difference in contrast, color hue, etc.; depends on the person as to how it is described.

I knew going in with my Samsung 24" 245BW monitor but I got it anyway; I believe I told you I would not use it for photoshop and it is the TN panel reason that I would not.

Anyhow, that is the story!! You can ask Rob how he likes his 20"; I believe one or two forum contributors, Shyster (?) has the 24" Dell.

The Dell customer reviews on the 24" are uniformally good. If you decide to go with the 24", you should ask Dell if it is a TN panel. The viewing angles on the 24" are 178/178 degrees which implies a non TN panel but Dell does not say; I read one 24" Dell customer (July 2008) review which implied it was not a TN panel.

All of the above said, the widescreen Dell 2007FP does meet the NTSC color gamut standard according to them; but I guess you have to view the image mostly in the center portion of the monitor; but there are enough customer reviews to tell you there is something is going on even in light of the color gamut rating.

I apologize for the confusion but believe me the manufacturers and sales people, in my opinion, really avoid this topic.

The older Dell 20" is right at $ 400.00; the Dell 24" widescreen is $600. The Dell 2007FP is under $300.00.

zburns

[zburns]

Khapheen and others: I apologize for the length of the previous post. This one is shorter, I promise.

For a decent explanation on TN panels, viewing angle and TFT panels or technology, go to www.tftcentral.co.uk/. This will get you to the home page. On the home page to the right is "Recent Articles", Dell 2408 WFP, full article dated May 2008 --hooray!!

Also, on the home page, left hand column, first topic, "Buying a TFT, click on Specifications (you will be plesantly surprised on the number of individual topics).

What I mentioned above is what I quickly looked at!! A wealth of good info on monitors!! That's it.

In my longer post I am clearly troubled by the 20" Dell 2009W monitor based on my perception that it is a TN panel, has a number of mediocre reviews, the first one terrible and yet has a specification that it meets a NTSC color gamut standard. Obviously there are other important specs, but all along I was talking about color purity being important for graphic arts and I am just not sure that the 2009W cuts it based on its reviews.

zburns

[RickyTick]

First, it is my understanding that 4 sticks of 1 gig RAM is better, performance wise than 2 sticks of 2gig
zburns

Actually just the opposite. Two sticks of 2gb each is better than four sticks of 1gb each, plus it leaves a much better upgrade path for later on.