[Beskargam]

So building a computer for the first time to replace the families 2005 windows xp comp.I kinda know what I am doing, but probably not really. I was wondering if anybody could take a look to make sure the parts would work together and/or if they're an improvement over what we previously had (Though I am pretty sure everything is). This wouldn't be a gaming PC, and wouldn't be used for anything more intensive than watching videos or anything. aiming for a low to mid range pc, and trying to keep cost under 450$.

What we had
Gateway GT5056
1. AMD Athlon 64 x2 Processor 3800+
2. Graphics card was upgraded to ATI Radeon HD 4300/4500 (I plan on reusing this. the part hasn't been in use  for very long)
3. 250 gb internal hardrive
4. 1024 mb DDR dual channel memory

What I am looking to get to put together
1.Intel Celeron G555 Sandy Bridge 2.7 GHz LGA 1155 Dual core processor 56.99$
2. Re purposing above graphics card
3. Western Digital WD AV-GA wb3200AVVS 320 GB SATA 3.0 Gb/s 77.99$
4. RAM = ??? (still looking)
5. motherboard = ??? (still looking)
6. PSU = ??? (need to get other parts first)
7. sound card. will I need one in a rig like this? if so ASUS X GNAR
8. Disk drive = HP BLACK 16x dvd -ROM 34.79$
9. Fan = ???
10. case = ???
11. windows 7 20$ (through college)

At the moment I kinda don't know what to look for for motherboards so any advice or guidance there would be helpful. I know I need one compatible with an intel processor and is LGA 1155. And I know I need at least one PCI slot for the video card, 2 if I use the sound card.

[Klaustrophobia]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo celerons!  AAHHHH!!!

ok, it's not all that, but non-****ty processors aren't that expensive anymore.  also, that hard drive isn't exactly a great deal.  you should be able to get up to 1 TB for that price.  if you don't need more storage space and aren't reusing the old computer, you can just keep the old drive and save a little bit of money.  otherwise i'd either look for a better deal or up the size significantly.
i like gskill ram, but honestly it's pretty much all the same.  just don't go for the 'value ram' stuff, it's only a couple bucks less than the "gamer/performace" ones with the fancy looking heat spreaders.  you don't need a sound card, no.  i don't recommend extra case fans.  more noise, and you won't need the cooling.  the DVD drive sounds a tad expensive too, but not too bad.  when i looked about a year ago, $20 seemed to be the going price for dvd drives. 

of course i'm talking US prices through all of this, i don't know where you live/are buying.

[rev_posix]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo celerons!  AAHHHH!!!

ok, it's not all that, but non-****ty processors aren't that expensive anymore.  also, that hard drive isn't exactly a great deal.  you should be able to get up to 1 TB for that price.  if you don't need more storage space and aren't reusing the old computer, you can just keep the old drive and save a little bit of money.  otherwise i'd either look for a better deal or up the size significantly.
i like gskill ram, but honestly it's pretty much all the same.  just don't go for the 'value ram' stuff, it's only a couple bucks less than the "gamer/performace" ones with the fancy looking heat spreaders.  you don't need a sound card, no.  i don't recommend extra case fans.  more noise, and you won't need the cooling.  the DVD drive sounds a tad expensive too, but not too bad.  when i looked about a year ago, $20 seemed to be the going price for dvd drives. 

of course i'm talking US prices through all of this, i don't know where you live/are buying.

A few things...

The Sandy Bridge based Celeron's are actually pretty good, and if they are on that tight of a budget, they could do worse (current as of 12/18/12 4PM PST, Newegg prices in USD are 56.99 for the Celery and 119.99 for the lowest i3).  I'd not go for anything lower than an i3 myself, but as mentioned, if the budget is that tight...

Somewhat agree on the drive.  TB drives tend to run around 90 to 100 USD.  Again, depends on the budget and if they can reuse it.  That GW box might be using a PATA drive, and boards that still have that bus are dwindling.  My gamer dork machine doesn't have them, it's SATA only.

Motherboard, 'prolly something MATX.  Personally, I wouldn't buy anything that didn't have at least four memory slots, but I try to over specify a bit to get the longest life out of it before having to look at upgrading.  Asus, Gigabyte, ASRock, those tend to be the boards I look at for desktop machines.

Soundcard, I doubt that you will need to add one.  Motherboard audio chips have improved massively since that Gateway box was assembled.

Power supply,  do not cheap out on this.  Every other part depends on that one component functioning.  Antec, Silverstone, Seasonic, Corsair, around 500 watts for plenty of headroom.

Memory, the more the better.  I'd go no slower than 1333 as that's the bus speed for the current i5/i7 chips (if you happen to upgrade it down the road).

Agreed on the DVD drive, that does seem on the high side.  I've seen good Lite-On DVD burners go for less.

Case, if you like the way it looks, if it will hold all the parts, and if it has a 120mm fan, go for it.  Nice things to have are front mounted USB ports and intake filters.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

Will reiterate last poster's advice about getting a good power supply. Keep in mind that if you get a bad one, it can potentially fry everything else in your case. It's a worst-case scenario, but getting a better PSU is like insurance.

Definitely don't pay more than 20 bucks for a DVD anything. I got my Samsung burner for $16.

Honestly, if you're not gonna use it for anything more than multimedia, go AMD. The motherboards and CPUs are less expensive. Just from a quick jaunt to NewEgg, I could find you a case, mobo, CPU (unlocked, extra bang for your buck if you'd like), aftermarket heatsink (I don't trust stock heatsinks >.>), a power supply, RAM, DVD burner, and a decent HDD, and I still came in $60 under your budget.

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, quad-core, 3.4 GHz
Motherboard: Biostar A960A3+, AM3+ socket
Heatsink: Cooler Master Hyper 212+
RAM: 4GB G.skill Ripjaws @1600MHz
HDD: WD Blue 500GB 7200RPM
Case: Cooler Master Elite 311 mid tower
PSU: Corsair Builder series 430W
Lite-on DVD burner

Under budget and some will probably say that is massive overkill for what your intended use is, but it's got upgradability going for it for sure. You can overclock the ever-loving crap out of the Phenom Black Eds., and if you feel like upgrading later, the AM3+ socket is here to stay, or so AMD says. I've always found mATX mobos and micro cases to be a bit claustrophobic, but that's sorta a matter of taste. More room will give you less hassle with cables and better cooling, though. There will be a million suggestions and everyone here knows what they're doing, so take this with a whole shaker of salt.

Subtotal: $387.92, everything has free shipping.

In short, it's never been a better time to homebuild, TBH.

[Klaustrophobia]

i hesitate to recommend aftermarket heatsinks to people who won't be overclocking.  stock heatsinks get a lot of grief, but if they didn't work for running the CPU at stock speeds, they wouldn't ship with them.  aftermarket are usually louder and more difficult to install.   and that one in particular is HUGE, having the potential problems of blocking ram slots (mine just BARELY squeaks in, the heat spreader is ever so slightly touching the edge of the fan) or just plain not fitting in the case.  i wouldn't be sure of a fit in anything smaller than my HAF 912, which is the biggest mid tower i've ever personally seen.  i've even had good experience overclocking on a stock amd heatsink.  i got my old athlon 5600+ from 2.8 to 3.3 ghz on the stock heatsink. 

[Nuke]

i hesitate to recommend aftermarket heatsinks to people who won't be overclocking.  stock heatsinks get a lot of grief, but if they didn't work for running the CPU at stock speeds, they wouldn't ship with them.  aftermarket are usually louder and more difficult to install.   and that one in particular is HUGE, having the potential problems of blocking ram slots (mine just BARELY squeaks in, the heat spreader is ever so slightly touching the edge of the fan) or just plain not fitting in the case.  i wouldn't be sure of a fit in anything smaller than my HAF 912, which is the biggest mid tower i've ever personally seen.  i've even had good experience overclocking on a stock amd heatsink.  i got my old athlon 5600+ from 2.8 to 3.3 ghz on the stock heatsink. 

i haven't liked stock intel heat sinks since the p4 era. the mounting seems flimsy to me, and the cooling is just barely enough to keep the chip cold (i like to blame the mounting hardware on this). thats one of the few cases an aftermarket heatsink is acceptable. though ive gotten by on them thus far. i was really disapointed with my 2nd gen i5 heatsink. i had to disable turbo boost to keep the chip from nuking itself. my latest processor is a 22nm chip and the reduced heat and power consumption kinda made the heat sink design more acceptable, though i still despise the mounting hardware. i even prefer the hard to install spring of death you get with amd chips.

[zookeeper]

If you ask me, overclocking is for those who already know they're going to overclock. If you're not interested in doing so, I really wouldn't suggest making it a consideration.

As for the CPU, I've seen a lot of praise for the G5** Celerons. Dirt cheap, and apparently they're more than enough for basic desktop use or even light gaming. However, I think they can't utilize RAM faster than 1066MHz. Faster sticks will work, but at that speed. Future-proofing for a faster CPU by buying faster sticks than what you can utilize right now doesn't really sound worth it, either.

I definitely wouldn't suggest going with aftermarket coolers unless you want to overclock (which you can't do with that CPU anyway) or you want a more silent system. And I think that unless you want a particularly silent machine, the noise of the stock CPU fan is probably not a problem at least if the case fan(s) you pick are silent.

[LHN91]

Nothing wrong with the Sandy Bridge based Celerons. I see them rather frequently recommended for budget gaming builds.

If you're looking at newegg, though this is on the Canadian site I imagine they would be available in the US: Rosewill CHALLENGER - this looks like a fairly good case with a full complement of fans included at a very reasonable price.

As for memory: G-Skill 1333 set
Hard Drive: WD Black 500gb
Power Supply - This will be all you need considering the draw of your hardware, and this is a solid PSU: Antec EarthWatts 380W
The CPU you were looking at already,
This motherboard: ASUS P8H61-M LX3
And this burner: LITE-ON DVD durner

No real need for a sound card, and as long as that graphics card is PCI-e it should just drop on.
345.93 CDN before taxes, and then just tack on the 20 for Windows 7. Ends up a very similar build, price/performance-wise as TwentyPercentCooler, but his does have a potentially longer upgrade path and an extra pair of cores (which might be nice for video encoding and such)

I can't imagine the prices would be any higher in the US, if anything they'd be lower.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

I really only suggest considering overclocking because of how incredibly simple it is these days. The Phenom II X4 (the 125W Black Edition version IS unlocked, btw) will probably easily hit 3.9-4.0Ghz on stock voltage, so it would require changing 2 settings in the BIOS, and that's it.

But, I can understand a lack of interest in it all the same. In which case, I would still recommend the same CPU and socket; just save $30 by dropping the Hyper 212+ cooler. I know the Sandy Bridge Celerons are okay, but there are certain things even in home use where you may notice a difference between a dual-core and a quad-core, and in CPU cache sizes. Having such fast CPUs available for low prices is making devs lazier about optimization. 

[LHN91]

The only other consideration between a Phenom II X4 and the Celeron is power consumption. The Celeron uses significantly less power. I guess personally, if I was planning on gaming or video conversion I would go with the Phenom, and for an office/general-usage computer such as this would be I would go for the Celeron, primarily based on that metric.

[Klaustrophobia]

yeah overclocking is easy nowadays, but IMO it's still something that shouldn't be done unless you need to and you either know what you're doing already or spend a few days reading about it on teh interwebs.  you don't need to void your warranty and run the risk of damaging something if you're not going to get meaningful performance gains from it anyway.  not everyone gets a chip that can take a 50% overclock without burning up.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

yeah overclocking is easy nowadays, but IMO it's still something that shouldn't be done unless you need to and you either know what you're doing already or spend a few days reading about it on teh interwebs.  you don't need to void your warranty and run the risk of damaging something if you're not going to get meaningful performance gains from it anyway.  not everyone gets a chip that can take a 50% overclock without burning up.

Well, these days especially, after hitting a soft limit on practical clock speeds, the manufacturers have been going in the direction of MOAR COORS! The software side of things is lagging way behind at utilizing them, though - so the clock speed is still important, or at least it has been in my experience. Really, I recommend the Phenom because it's a great CPU for the price - $35 more than the Celeron mentioned and it pretty handily curbstomps it right out of the box. Add in the fact that the LGA1155 mobos are generally more than AM3+s, and the fact that AMD has said the AM3+ will be around for a while, well, that's like 95% of the basis of my recommendation.

[KyadCK]

yeah overclocking is easy nowadays, but IMO it's still something that shouldn't be done unless you need to and you either know what you're doing already or spend a few days reading about it on teh interwebs.  you don't need to void your warranty and run the risk of damaging something if you're not going to get meaningful performance gains from it anyway.  not everyone gets a chip that can take a 50% overclock without burning up.

To be frank, no one is going to hit a 50% OC on anything short of Phase cooling these days. Sandy and Ivy K chips and Bulldozer/Piledriver can all hit 4.6Ghz or better on good cooling with ease, but this is not budget builds. I guess the FX-4*** series could count as budget, but even they won't go over ~4.4 on a budget cooler like a 212+, and they start clocked high anyway.

And ya, I'm kinda edgy when someone takes to overclocking without getting help first. I mean, it's not particularly dangerous... It takes a lot of volts to kill something, and both AMD and Intel have kill switches at certain temps, and errors will be far more common then damage. But some things, like Motherboard voltage... The NorthBridge and stuff do not have any kind of protection at all, and if something on the board burns out...

It's all about knowing limits, and someone who never asked for help or researched doesn't know them, simple as that.

I really only suggest considering overclocking because of how incredibly simple it is these days. The Phenom II X4 (the 125W Black Edition version IS unlocked, btw) will probably easily hit 3.9-4.0Ghz on stock voltage, so it would require changing 2 settings in the BIOS, and that's it.

But, I can understand a lack of interest in it all the same. In which case, I would still recommend the same CPU and socket; just save $30 by dropping the Hyper 212+ cooler. I know the Sandy Bridge Celerons are okay, but there are certain things even in home use where you may notice a difference between a dual-core and a quad-core, and in CPU cache sizes. Having such fast CPUs available for low prices is making devs lazier about optimization. 

Bahahahahahaha. 

No.

You can expect 4.0 on a Ph II at around 1.4-1.45v, stock VID is around 1.35v. That's a lot more heat to get rid of, and you're going to have to pay up ~$50 for a cooler that can handle it.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

It's really gonna depend on your mobo and how willing you are to push it - I actually know someone who's in love with the Phenom II chips and has a 965 undervolted and still running at 3.8-ish. Also, 4.0 with the Hyper 212+ is totally feasible, although I'm not sure I'd do it. Being an aspiring nuclear engineer, I really like cooling. I've never actually had one of these, though. Building a new computer and went straight to the Bulldozer chips (FX-8150+water cooler for $189.99, wat). Looking forward to seeing what it can do.

[Klaustrophobia]

My 2600k is running at 4.6 with a 212+.  it can do 4.8 easily, and i suspect even further, but 4.8 is the furthest my motherboard's "auto" overclock went and i was too lazy to do it manually, especially not knowing much about intels at the time.  didn't need any higher than 4.6 anyway.

[LHN91]

I could make a comment about how this has turned into a e-peen competition, but I'm trying not to be cranky. 

That said, the OP denoted specifically a low to mid-end computer, not to be used for gaming, intended for general purpose internet/video watching duties, which implies something that stays on a fair amount, and will seldom break a sweat or peak over 50% CPU usage.

Given those metrics, debating the merits of overclocking and the comparative overclocking abilities of different processors is nigh-on useless. TwentyPercentCooler, I'm not saying your build is poor. If I was building for my own personal desktop on a shoestring budget (like I almost always am), yours is what I would build.

That said (again), in my opinion, in the case of a general purpose internet/video box (as opposed to a tech guys' personal/gaming system) what is needed is reliability and low power usage. In this case, the Celeron will provide adequate horsepower, and use well less than half the power of the Phenom. I am a bit of an AMD fanboy myself, to be honest, and even I admit that in this situation the Phenom is not the ideal solution. The Celeron suits this particular situation better.

[Klaustrophobia]

high-def video viewing actually can be a quite intensive task.  youtube videos stutter and drop framerate something terrible when viewed in 1080p on my laptop in low-power mode.  and as for power usage, TDP isn't a fair shake.  you'll want to take a look at idle power to get a better view of what it will actually be drawing most of the time.  i don't know these numbers, but i'm bound to assume they are extremely close.  in which case, my personal preference would be to have the extra power of the phenom available should i end up wanting it ever.

[LHN91]

I'm seeing, albeit it's kind of difficult finding direct comparisons given the widely differing target audiences for the processors on their respective launches, but I'm seeing system idle numbers of just shy of 40W for a couple of Sandy Bridge Celeron systems, and just over 70w on the same system under load. Compare that to, even on the C3 stepping, with similar system setups I'm seeing idle of just shy of 90w on the Phenom systems and 175w under load.

For another comparison, I've pulled up a similar Pentium (G620) and the 965 BE on Anandtech's bench. Unfortunately that's about as close a comparison as I can pull up from their offerings, but it is Sandy Bridge and of a similar clock speed (and the Pentium is supposedly the higher grade SKU). Even here, the Phenom gets thoroughly trounced on both idle and especially load power consumption. And to put things into perspective, on single threaded tasks the Phenom gets at least matched, nearly every single time. The only big wins for the Phenom are on heavily threaded tasks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=406

Edit: I'd also like to add that even on my Athlon II x4 620, a 2.6 Ghz quad that gets trounced by that Pentium even more thoroughly, that 1080p Youtube is flawless, and the only issues I have with HD video playback are with 10bit, 720p/1080p anime episodes and movies with over-the-top subtitles, and even then playback is flawless if the (horribly single-threaded default) subtitle renderer isn't enabled.

[KyadCK]

high-def video viewing actually can be a quite intensive task.  youtube videos stutter and drop framerate something terrible when viewed in 1080p on my laptop in low-power mode.  and as for power usage, TDP isn't a fair shake.  you'll want to take a look at idle power to get a better view of what it will actually be drawing most of the time.  i don't know these numbers, but i'm bound to assume they are extremely close.  in which case, my personal preference would be to have the extra power of the phenom available should i end up wanting it ever.

In this kind of computer, you're looking at Llano or Trinity from AMD's side of the fence anyway, not Phenom IIs. At which pooint, yes, idle is pretty close.

Heck, if you get down to it, if 1080p video is the most it's going to do, even AMD's Bobcat APUs can do it with ease, and those can even be passively cooled. Not that it would be smart to use it, but that's the level of necessity we're talking about here.

Any Celeron, Pentium, Llano or Trinity chip will do "normal usage" fine.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

I really wasn't trying to e-peen with the whole overclocking thing - like I mentioned, it's just that a lot of programs still REALLY suck at utilizing multiple cores and I feel that spending a fairly inconsequential 30 bucks on a fantastic air cooler and overclocking a bit is a cost-effective and, these days, a very simple way to avoid that problem (as I said, I'd recommend the Phenom anyway, even without the whole debate about overclocking - the 965 is a really good CPU by all accounts).

As far as the power consumption goes, it's pretty inconsequential for a desktop PC. In a power supply these days, at least before you get to ridiculous wattages for high-end systems, you'll be paying for quality and efficiency instead of max power output, and I think we all agree that getting a very good power supply is worth the premium. But the difference in price between a 300W and a 450-480W power supply is fairly negligible, especially if you absolutely must buy things only when they're on sale because you're poor and/or cheap, like me. The difference in price between the 430W Corsair PSU I recommended and a 300W Seasonic is only $6 and the extra breathing room is something I'd pay for, although again, it's just one suggestion among many. Who knows how many powered USB devices, extra PCI cards (wireless card, maybe a sound card if OP doesn't like the onboard), extra storage, etc., could wind up being plugged in?