Home grown PC's vs. Mainstream PC's

TinyTim · Post by **TinyTim** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:04 pm

Do you think mainstream pc's such as dell/HP are more "stable" then home grown pc's?

I ask because I have built a few p.c.'s and almost everyone becomes plagued with blue screens or application errors (i.e. photoshop errors out); however on the few Dell p.c.'s that I own, they seem to run a lot more stable (minimal blue screens, if ever, applications don't seem to error out, etc).

Just a though - the wife is really really frusterated with the p.c.'s she is using and wanted to research our next steps carefully (fix what we have, purchase OEM pc, move to Apple products)

I know this is a tough question to ask/answer as there are many variables - just wanted some general thoughts on the subject

Thoughts?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:19 pm

In my opinion..chances are much higher for "home grown cloners" to have problems. Over time in building many PCs..a person learns which brands tend to be more stable, and which components tend to work better "together".

IMO too many people go for the cheaper "motherboard of the month club" parts.

I tend to stick with the more trusted mainstream chipsets, and brands. I love building my own PCs...my primary gaming rigs are rock stable, usually running 24x7 for a couple of years straight til replaced.

Comparing against business grade PCs like Dell Optiplexes or HP Business Desktops, tier-1s are generally very solid rigs, because they stick with mainstream tried and true components. They also do research and put parts together which are all compatible with each others, with BIOS on each component flashed to levels which also increase compatibility with the parts together.

"home grade" PCs from those vendors..I'll leave out. Always go towards the business level workstations..cost more, less "fluff" 'n bells 'n whistles, but individual components are superior, the overall package is superior.

People building home grown computers..how many test components with each other to strive for maximum compatibility? I have seen situations where say, a SCSI controller card had an issue running some motherboard if you had a particular network card installed.

This is one of the reasons I cringe big time when I walk into a possible new client..and they have cloner workstations 'n servers. I almost want to turn and run...too much of a headache.

IMO this is also what contributes to Windows PC having a reliability issue, versus Apples. Too many "cheaper" vendors out here, and cloner boxes. Apple gets to pretty much control the quality and component selection of their hardware.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:21 pm

I've had minimal errors myself, I haven't really used an OEM PC except in school or when my sister had her Compaq

Storm90 · Post by **Storm90** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:23 pm

Most any pc home built by you or bought can be come plagued with errors or a blue screen. If not kept up on. Such as cleaning out junk files, spyware and such.I have two home built pc and one store bought. They run fine as long as I keep up on there general cleaning and defraging.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:32 pm

All depends on what you need in a PC. You will get more bang for your buck if you build your own, but you need to make sure you do your research in the process.

TinyTim · Post by **TinyTim** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:32 pm

Thanks Brian - that makes sense. Don't get me wrong, the p.c.'s I built worked great - but over time they just seem to have chronic issues. Overall, it seems I may have select from the "component of the month" club for the motherboards and RAM to save some dough so I could obtain a higher end processor which may have contributed to the downfall.

Storm90 - I understand there are other variables that can affect performance (i.e. spyware, fragmentation, etc), I was after the opinions of all system builders and support people as to which p.c.'s, in their opinions, seem more stable. I could research for hours and hours trying to find compatible components, but in the end is it just easier to purchase Dell/HP/Sony as they have done the research?

It seems like I am throwing money into the home built p.c.'s every few months to fix issues and it is becoming tiresome - the wife is learning, but does not have the knowledge or patience to deal with the issues and I am short on spare time to deal with them.

I would like a more stable system - so I am leaning towards just purchasing a business grade pc for her to do her photoshop work on - then she can just call the help desk when there is an issue.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:39 pm

TinyTim wrote: I would like a more stable system - so I am leaning towards just purchasing a business grade pc for her to do her photoshop work on - then she can just call the help desk when there is an issue.

For graphic arts...I highly recommend stepping above even a business grade PC..and going up into the "Professional Workstation" class.

Example..Dells Precision workstation.

They tend to run on super stable workstation grade motherboards/chipsets...higher end and higher performance than even regular business class workstations. Higher power/more stable power supplies, faster hard drives with larger back cache with higher life expectancy, etc.

They can be optioned out to the hilt...you don't need a Xeon processor or a higher end graphics card that can add several thousand dollars to the price. Stick with a Core2Duo or higher, 4 gigs of RAM (or higher if 64bit..go for 8 gigs), get an nVidia Quadro graphics card, or an ATI Fire card. Get a pair of hard drives..move the pagefile/workspace to the 2nd hard drive.

TinyTim · Post by **TinyTim** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:46 pm

I know we are moving more towards a thread that belongs in the "hardware" section - but would a Quad core processor be a worthy upgrade for Photoshop CS3 as I believe it may only use two threads/cpu's?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:59 pm

A quick search on that shows differing opinions on that subject. Seems some mention some program updates which do add greater support for quad core, and I found reference to a benchmark of CS3 in which performance was improved by 30% in some functions.

My thought? The cost of a quad core is not much higher anymore...so if it's an affordable hike...why not. If other components like RAM or a video card have to suffer in order to get a quad core...I'd stick with maxing RAM and getting a graphics grade video card..and remain with a Core 2 Duo.

TinyTim · Post by **TinyTim** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:05 pm

Another question - what is the difference between the XPS line and Precision? Seems like they have similar specs but XPS is mainly for gaming and precision for business - what makes them different

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:15 pm

TinyTim wrote:Another question - what is the difference between the XPS line and Precision? Seems like they have similar specs but XPS is mainly for gaming and precision for business - what makes them different

I have noticed that they often share the same case/chassis. And besides the outside color/paint job..the differences are deeper.

IMO, the internal components of the Precisions are superior. The motherboard will usually be of workstation or entry level server quality, and of a very stable chipset.

The graphics card offered with be those that support professional graphics workstations. Different from typical gaming computer graphics cards. (yes some models share a similarity, but generally they're quite different).

Warranty is probably longer.

"ISV Certification" is something you'll see on the Precision workstations, that separates them from the home grade models. This means that the components have been selected, to work together on a stable platform that is certified to run the list of software it's certified for. This includes drivers.

From experience, I've noticed in the past..engineers and architecs and other graphics design people that try to run their software on plain jane workstations/home grade computers, have weird quirks with their software. Those that use ISV professional graphics workstations..don't.

Gotta boogie for a few hours...hit 2 clients.

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:18 pm

TinyTim wrote:Another question - what is the difference between the XPS line and Precision? Seems like they have similar specs but XPS is mainly for gaming and precision for business - what makes them different

In a nutshell, XPS = best gaming rig Dell offers. Precision = best business-class production workstation available. If you are looking to play games, then XPS all the way.. If you want to design games, or get into production of any sort then Precision will be the best bet.

Going back to the original questions.. I believe in a business environment, tier 1 brand rigs all the way; however I used to be an OEM system builder and I used nothing but top quality parts and I know of at least 5 rigs that I built between '98 - '01 that are STILL in use today, one of which has not had a single part replaced and runs XP beautifully (Grandma's P3 rig). So it IS possible to build a homegrown "tank" of a rig.

Gixxer · Post by **Gixxer** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:21 pm

home made for sure

TinyTim · Post by **TinyTim** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:22 pm

Thanks YoSC and Koldchillah - Think I will go with a Precision workstation then.

YoSC - smack a client for me.

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:44 pm

If you're careful about what you buy and you don't go after the unstable-by-nature top-of-the-line gaming mad systems, you're less likely to come across problems like you describe building your own PC.

I've had a total uptime on my current system of over a year, now. Not since I put in the new motherboard (It's an Intel Reference board - a bit slower, sure, but rock solid and works perfectly with their quad core processor without any funny quirks) and got rid of some hardware I wasn't using. You just have to be careful about what you have in the system, and what you're willing to cut out for stability.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:02 pm

If graphics work and Photoshop are some major selling points for you, I have to say consider Apple. Having used Photoshop on Windows for years before switching to OS X, I was pretty amazed at the difference the environment makes to your productivity level.

If you have an Apple store nearby you might want to drop in and play with Photoshop on OS X a little to see how you like it.

As for the reliability between home built and OEM PCs... I have experienced that my home built machines have been far more reliable than most family/friends OEM machines, simply because I spend far more money on high end core components (motherboard, ram, and PSUs especially) than any OEM offers. They tend to cut some corners that I personally find unacceptable.

CableDude · Post by **CableDude** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:47 pm

I like Dell optiplex and Poweredge servers.

64bit · Post by **64bit** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:27 pm

I think everyone who has built their own for awhile comes to the realization.... convince mom, sister, brother, nephew etc..... to buy a mainstream, and build your own. Saves a whole lot of headaches once that finally kicks in.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:48 pm

I haven't bought a "branded" PC since 1998. I learned one thing instantly. Don't skimp! I only had 1 part in 10+ builds that failed and it was a budget MB. Since then I have not had 1 single part fail. I believe in a stellar case, extremely high quality power supply and then whatever "quality" parts fit your needs from there. I have had 4 different sets of guts in my aluminum Lian Li case already. Runs downright chilly!

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:58 pm

I think you forgo a great advantage, of a desktop, if you don't assemble it yourself. OEM desktops always come with something undesirable. Too much of this or not enough of that. Just do your research and you should be fine. My PC has ran without a hitch for about 3 years. It runs 24/7 and with very little upkeep.

Also you don't need an abundance of technical skills to do the research. Just knowing how to read and work Google can answer many questions. But if you don't want to take to time research then perhaps a OEM PC would be best.

knightmare · Post by **knightmare** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:20 am

I have 2 computers that I built myself in 2004 (thanks in partly from what I have learned here).. A 2.8 P4 system, and a AMD 2500 Barton based system.

Thankfully both are running strong and are still are capable of performing any task I need.

Alot of satisfaction in building your own, but now that computer prices seem to be really down, buying a pre-made isn't too bad a choice either.