Planning to build a new computer? Read Here first! (Page 1 of 4)

I came up with these. Yeah I'm that bored. =P

The 4870 x2 has put ATi back on top of the Graphics World. The drivers are still a bit immature but after a few months they should make the 4870 x2 the undisputed champ.
http://hothardware.com/articles/ATI-Radeon-HD-4870-X2--AMD-Back-On-Top/

Also the specific one I posted is a factory overclocked one for the same price.

Remember that these are just blueprints feel free to mix and match with parts from companies you prefer.

A few things regarding the list:

1) Why go with Intel Atom in small forms PC? Intel Atom is designed for UMPC or smaller devices. Any mATX board with a current generation CPU will perform several folds better than the Atom. Just because it's small and draws little power, it doesn't mean it's ideal.

2) I want to make a point that small forms PC isn't equal to HTPC. You may use it for HTPC purpose, but the limitation of small forms isn't criterion for going with IGP. You may very well be gaming with a small forms PC; in fact, you may even use it as a mobile LAN machine. Either the category needs refinement and narrowing down, or the list needs to change.

3) I feel that there's quite a bit of overlap between the "mainstream" machine and the "midrange" machine. First of all, the word "mainstream" typically means "entry" or "budget" level, not midrange. While we're on the topic of categories, let me give you my perceived segments of the market, and some descriptions of each:

*Special Purpose - ($?) This large category can include HTPC, small forms, or machines that are designed to fit a particular need in the house, instead of a general purpose gaming/work machine.
*Entry Level - ($500~$1000) This machine can play most non-demanding games on the market flawlessly on a regular 19"/20" screen, provides great performance for the investment, and is considered "mainstream" since it appeals to the majority of the PC market.
*Mid-range - ($1000-$1500) This machine can play almost all the games on the market flawlessly on a 24" screen, and will be able to satisfy a heavy multi-tasker in demanding applications, while not breaking your bank.
*High-end - ($2000+) This machine will play Crysis on a large screen. Price isn't the object, and you can brag about your rig in your signature on your favorite forums.
*Enthusiast - ($?) This is its own category because it will use the most overclock-friendly components, and aims to bring performance level unachievable anywhere else. You will want liquid-nitrogen cooling. Your PSU will be 1000W+ and your CPU will have an unlocked multiplier. This PC will have the latest and greatest hardware in every slot and will give you a 3Dmarks score that can best those screenshotted on a hardware review site. Note that you can also have a budget-enthusiast category that is similar to this one except it uses the low end parts in each slot with the highest OC potential.

When you categorize things like this, you will know exactly what parts you need in each PC. For instance, a Zalman9700 isn't nearly enough for the top two categories, as it is not anywhere close to the top performer nowadays. Also, if we want to keep this as a buying guide, it should not link every component to a newegg sales item. It gives the illusion that you're restricted to newegg (which isn't the cheapest source of hardware). The components only need to be listed with name and model, and an estimated market price at the end. If a reader finds a deal somewhere that beats the listed price by a big margin, he can then make his own choice and the guide will serve him exactly as what it is, a guide.

There are many AMD solutions at the small forms level that will do the job. An Athlon 64 bundled with any cheap mATX board can be had for less than $100 nowadays.

I don't know why you want a mini-ITX. A mini-ITX comes to 170x170 (mm), while a small micro-ATX comes to 171x171. With micro-ATX you can have essentially a machine that is capable of handling a game like WoW, whereas with a mini-ITX you're pretty much limited to using word and browsing websites.

Like I've said in my earlier lengthy post, I don't think the category is proper. You don't make a small form GP machine, you make it with a specific goal in mind, and what kind of parts you choose will greatly depend on that goal. And if you ARE to make a GP small forms machine, I'd still recommend going with micro-ATX as opposed to mini-ITX, since you can then do a lot more with it.

ATI has had competitive cards in all segments of the market for over a year. Their 3800 series were very much competitive to the 8800's. There was a 6 month down for ATI when the 8800's were first introduced, but that was the only time ATI wasn't competitive, and it was mostly due to the merger. As of now, ATI has the superior product in every price point except for $400+, where the recent Nvidia price drops helped them take back the performance/price lead.

As for physics enabling patch, it might sound extremely appealing to someone like you who isn't informed with the technologies or the market. Without going much into details (and there's actually quite a bit of details), let me clear out some bullet points for you in regard to that:

1) Physics support isn't equivalent to performance increase. Sometimes enabling physics actually hurts performance.
2) Physics support is mostly politics - a PR spin, if you will, that Nvidia uses to compete in the market. ATI cards have been proven to support physics calculation with unauthorized hacks.
3) ATI has its own plan for physics support, and Nvidia merely took the first shot.
4) Physics support isn't a pure hardware issue. In fact, it is correct to say that it isn't a hardware issue at all (read point 2) with modern GPU architectures, and much of what can be done is left to software and game programmers (who have yet to take much advantage of it).

If you want me to elaborate on the bullet points, I can. But I recommend you take up some reading on the whole deal somewhere else, as it's been talked about extensively on most hardware sites. It is correct to say that Nvidia has a major edge in this whole competition - it has a lot more support from game developers than ATI. But also beware that ATI has teamed up with MS and recently with Blizzard on future technology endeavors, too, and Nvidia has been on the bad side of Intel. Once again let me remind you of the incredible power of the PR team from Nvidia in bringing (largely distorted) perceptions to the market. If you value your money, however, you'd do your own critical reading and thinking yourself.

Physics support means you use part of the GPU processing power to process physics calculation and offload that from the CPU, that's correct. But it also means that you are essentially handicapping your GPU, and possibly hurting the performance even more in a game that is bottlenecked at the GPU, instead of CPU (which actually accounts for the majority of the games today). What makes the Nvidia approach desirable is not so much what a single GPU can do with the patch, but rather the potential of having an outdated and old GPU work as a dedicated physics processor (basically replacing the late PhysX card). In order to do this however, you need to have 1) a dual PCIe mobo (although SLI is not required), and 2) games that actually support physics calculation through Ageia's implementation. The former might be quite the reality if you already have the dual PCIe mobo and wish for a cheaper solution than crossfire in certain titles, that is, if you value the boost in those limited few titles. As of now, physics calculation isn't a standard, and it isn't supported by the majority of the demanding titles (read: I emphasize demanding since most games are likely to run just fine on any modern graphics card without the need of any additional boost). Further complicating the issue is the MS/ATI support for havok.

As I see it, the whole physics on GPU is really just a small step in the overall evolution of GPU into GPGPU and the convergence of GPU and CPU. What Intel is doing with Larrabee is infinitely more revolutionary and interesting, and it's no surprise to see Nvidia spending so much effort promoting the physics package. It's been too long since Nvidia felt any pinch in its own market.

I don't know if you can find a 780G board that's 171x171, but the integrated HD 3200 is enough to run UT3 at medium settings at 1024x768 at 24FPS, and I'd imagine it'd run WoW just fine. And if you must, you can always just get one with a PCIe slot; it's not like it'll make it that much bigger if you don't install a lot of components in there.

Well, the point is not exactly that. The point is that building a small forms PC limits your options to what you can do, and you should have something specific in mind. I don't know how much someone would value the size difference between a mini-ITX to say a uATX, or that between two different sized uATX, or if that person values the size difference more than the functional difference. It's all a matter of your need, hence the recommendation to either narrow down the category or change it completely.