xlazyslothx wrote:You can easily make this game-able with a new psu and a new gfx card. About 175 more? gtx 460 and a sub par psu. Maybe 220 total with a good psu.
Still cheaper then starting from scratch with these specs.

I built my computer for $600 and it will run circles around this thing no matter what you do to it. Mostly because the little motherboard inside there is going to be horribly slow compared to a system running on a full ATX board. For example, my mom's computer benchmarked at 845 points using Passmark; my computer, which has similar specs except for a full ATX motherboard, benchmarked at 3445 points. That's about 4 times faster! There's a reason it's called a MOTHERBOARD, it's kind of a big deal.

jblood wrote:I've had two HP desktops, and never had any overheating problems... I even added a video card to my present one, which I've been using for the last 6 years.

Just my own personal experience, of course.

Other Wooter's personal experience is why I post questions on these message boards. Thanks for sharing yours!

Goosenuts wrote:Keep in mind that the motherboard appears to be some kind of micro-ATX board. Although if you look at it, the thing is completely backwards, so I actually have no idea what standard this motherboard is. However, what I can tell you is that the motherboard is small, and a small motherboard means it will perform extremely poorly for video games, even with a decent video card. If you want to buy a computer for gaming, get something with a full ATX motherboard, you'll be happy you did.

What?!? The size of a motherboard has *NOTHING* to do with it's performance.

Recommendation on Graphics upgrade:

If you are thinking about getting this to add a larger graphics card and PSU don't do it! Yes, it is totally possible to do (I did it) but you will be left with a graphics card that gets hot with no way to cool it. The HP stock cases suck for cooling. They only have one fan port in the back and its for an exhaust fan. You have no way to add intake fans to the system nor can you add liquid cooling. I regret not buying my own case with sufficient cooling terribly bad. I can't even overclock my 9800 GT to half of what is possible due to the lack of cooling in my system. My card reaches near 99 F when playing games.

Goosenuts wrote:Your average computer only uses around 75-150 watts. The upper limit (250W) is only required when the computer is under full load, which rarely happens unless you game, and this computer is light years away from being a decent gaming machine. My computer, with its full ATX motherboard, quad core CPU, and 5 hard drives, still never pushes above 150 watts. What I would be scared about is not the amount of wattage the power supply can handle before overloading, but rather how well it provides a stable current to the machine and how efficiently it uses the power flowing through it. A computer like this will have a bottom of the barrel power supply. So yeah, be careful if you plan on using this for anything that will require it to be under full load for long periods of time.

Huh? So the shape of the mobo is of concern to you?
Oh --- I get it . Sarcasm.

tsfisch wrote:I just bought a HD camcorder on woot a week or two ago. I use Sony Vegas - any idea if this would be a good computer for editing HD video?

Using Adobe Premiere CS5 would require quad core 3.0 ghz in order to have 'decent' rendering speeds. Also, having a 1gb video card wouldn't hurt.

flattyfrog wrote:What?!? The size of a motherboard has *NOTHING* to do with it's performance.

Consider what you're saying for a moment: if the size of your motherboard has nothing to do with its performance, then why aren't laptops as fast as desktops? Or why are the gaming laptops always twice the size of a standard laptop? Without going into a bunch of techno-babble I'll just say that it's always a good rule of thumb that a full ATX motherboard will always perform better than a micro-ATX motherboard in which both motherboards have similar specs on paper. If you still don't believe me, I encourage you to do a little research. I've been building and fixing computers since the 90s. You can trust what I say.

xlazyslothx wrote:This is a pretty good computer the ram and the processor is very good. 6gb of ram is plenty.
It depends what you are using this computer for though also.
If you are going to use this game for gaming you should look into if you can upgrade the graphics card.
For just checking email, skype, etc.. should be more then enough with the quad core cpu.

If you're going to upgrade the graphics card then you do need much more than a 250 watt power supply. Probably at least 500 to 650 watts Otherwise, it doesn't matter, really. The person doing that would need to see if both will fit in that tower. Chances are, it would be a tight fit or possibly won't fit.

The majority of computers sold without a custom build only have integrated cards which is Jatravartid, just saying......

spanky wrote:Huh? So the shape of the mobo is of concern to you?
Oh --- I get it . Sarcasm.

Nope, not sarcasm. A full ATX motherboard will usually draw a bit more power than a micro-ATX motherboard, depending, of course, on what you actually have the two boards running. If everything else is identical (CPU, RAM, video card, etc.), the full ATX motherboard system will draw more power than the micro-ATX one.

jaburg wrote:6GB? Please.

Seriously? What do you do that taxes 6GB? Most people don't even come close to using that much memory. Even for high-performance gaming or high-def video editing, the general recommendation is 4 to 8 GB of memory... and that recommendation comes from Crucial, which definitely has an interest in selling more memory, not less.

Online Tech Tips (online-tech-tips.com), in a recent article (Feb 11, 2011), suggests the following for Windows 7 64-bit:
- 2GB for the average user
- 4GB for the multi-media user
- 6GB for the mutli-tasking user (often has several programs open at once; video/audio editing)
- 8GB for virtualization computer user (more than one operating system running at the same time)
- 10GB+ for extreme users, such as users who play high-demand PC games within a virtual machine

(The whole article can be found here)

So, if you are a hard-core power gamer, I can see needing more... but you probably won't be using this computer in the first place.

penguincharmer wrote:Anyone have this computer and play WOW. I doubt it runs on max settings, but how does it do without putting any upgrades into it.

I do not play WOW, nor do I have this computer. But I can make a pretty good estimate on how it'll perform.

The CPU is nigh irrelevant, as it has only integrated video, which is going to be the bottleneck.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=757&type=expert&pid=5

According to this review of the chip, a run through an area got about ~28fps average at 1024x768 with moderate settings. It should be playable, but it is not going to run it well out of the box - and you probably won't want to raid with it.

But the CPU is plenty to play the game well. You would need to add a low-midrange video card to get better performance - I'd recommend something like a Radeon HD5570/5670 (About $70) or A GeForce GT240/430/440 (Again, $70-80). You can do acceptably for a bit less, but these *should* work with the included 250w power supply without breaking the bank.

If you're poking around on Newegg, look for cards from ATI that have at least 320 stream processors, and at least 48 from Nvidia. The low end cards with 40/80 and 8/16 will not be much of a boost over the integrated video in this computer.


These cards should get you decent performance in to HD resolutions with settings pretty high.

migelito wrote:it has the expansion slot for a decent video card (the onboard integrated video card won't do for most recent games) but can someone a little mor savvy than me tell me if that 250W power supply be adequate for the computer and a fan-cooled card?

I purchased a similar model a year ago, threw in a card with fan about six months ago, and it's run beautifully. (I've played Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, and a handful of other games since then.)

No power supply problems yet.

Gatzby wrote:Power requirements, mobile processors, shared memory, heat considerations. Motherboard size may correspond indirectly, but it's kind of a red herring.

That's all true. I was, in fact, implying that the physical size indirectly corresponds to power usage. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I was just trying to give a general rule of thumb.

Gatzby wrote:Yeah, just trying not to confuse the issue too much. =) It's helpful to know how a rule of thumb is established!

*snerk*

(Mod: Don't make me hit you.)

indranil1703 wrote:Umm... never mind. This does not have a hdmi port.

You can get 1080p (or maybe i) through DVI or even VGA as long as your TV has a hook-up and you video card can handle the picture...

I have the dell equivelent to this. right here - right now.

very fist PC that I have ever owned that was store bought - i will never own another store bought system again.

You can only go up to 8gb of memory on this and let me tell you - YOU NEED ALL 8 with is operating system! it sucks anyway but without the max Gb of memory - you would not belive the problems.

I have upgraded as much as possible - Oh there is only a FEW video cards that can be used on this system, they dont mention that anywhere till you call and ask.

another funny thing - the mother board is the most simple and useless thing I have ever seen! what a ripoff -

check this out! if you do happen to get a video card that will work with your system - you can't shut the onboard off! yeah - still runs.
there is very little an operator can do in the Bios, it's rediculous. no joke.

my next upgrade will be to try to fit a new motherboard in there. A Regular full sixed board with options that make sense.

what they have done is make a minimal system that will run what they believe to be a super OP system, but what they really did was make a simple set up that has so many bugs it's insane.

My home built systems are way way way better and I will never doubt that again. if you buy this - make sure to keep a xp pro system for back up LOL seriously. you will not regrete it.

I suppose if you are the type of person that only uses systems and knows jack doo doo about how they work and you actually use the tech support online or over the phone - you will like this. I mean - you will hate it , but it will work for you as well as any other.

How does this compare to the ZT Affinity from Costco? Sorry for the noobish broad question.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11622756&search=zt+affinity&Mo=8&cm_re=1_en-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&lang=en-US&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Sp=S&N=5000043&whse=BC&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=Text_Search&Dr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ne=4000000&D=zt+affinity&Ntt=zt+affinity&No=1&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1

Goosenuts wrote:Your average computer only uses around 75-150 watts. The upper limit (250W) is only required when the computer is under full load, which rarely happens unless you game [snip]

I dunno. My Phenom II x4 B50 (an x2 555 with 2 cores unlocked) draws about 120 watts at full load with the overclock turned off (stock 3.1 GHz), and that's just the processor. Add a good video card at maybe close to 90 watts for 210 watts total. A motherboard, an optical drive, and a hard drive are definitely going to bump you over 250 watts.

To be safe, keep my system stable for a long life, and optimize the efficiency (PSU efficiency drops as it approaches max load) I went with a 530 watt supply, and I wouldn't recommend less than 450 watts for anyone upgrading this HP with a good graphics card.

anyone know how or if this can function as a hackint0sh?

Just a heads up to anyone buying this - its a great deal, and I recently had my roommate buy one last time it was on Woot. We added another 320 GB drive to the system and it took 5 days of terrible HP support to get it working.

So just an FYI - HP support is the worst ever

And if you do add a second hard drive, make sure the hard drive group boots first in the BIOS settings.

Other than that, its a steal, just don't depend on HP.

EDIT - this system can support 2 monitors out of the box with on-board graphics (1 DVI, 1 VGA), something that I was surprised to know.

Here is a comparison of the CPU against other modern CPU's!

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+820

kwikemrt wrote:anyone know how or if this can function as a hackint0sh?

If it can run it at all, it will probably be on the outside edge of compatibility, mostly because it's AMD. That alone restricts you to patched kernels. The onboard video is most likely not supported at all beyond VESA compatibility (no Quartz Extreme or Core Image support).

If you want a system that can boot and install from the retail Snow Leopard disc, I'd stick with Gigabyte or Intel boards. Those are as close to real Apple hardware as you can get. I had a nearly flawless install with a Gigabyte GA-P35-S3G last year, though it is limited to Core 2 series processors and DDR2 memory. I paired it with a GeForce 8400GS and apart from a bit of trial and error with the video card I had a nearly perfect ghetto Mac Pro.

If you're more concerned with price and compatibility than performance, check here for a nearly rock-solid Atom based solution.

Just don't eat the apple...

Got this computer. Replace the power supply, add GeForce card, do nvidia hack...

...congrats. You now have an awesome HD video editor for under a grand after monitor(s).

This thing is expensive for used computer.

I built my own, a lot cheaper and it's not used.
Case 40.00
CPU 89.00 Phenom II x 2 BE 3.2GHZ revision 3
PSU 29.99 w/10.00 rebate 500W Cooler Master
RAM 39.99 w/10.00 rebate 2 x 2GB of Corsair XMS 3
DVD Rom 17.99 Asus 24X DVD burner
Hard drive 45.00 1 TB 7200 RPM w/32 cache Hitachi Deskstar
Micro ATX board 65.00 Biostar AMD 880G chipset [HDMI, DVI]

Total: 327.00 without rebate

The Phenom II x 2 can be unlock to Quad. A lot of success story. My CPU unlock to Quad. Run Prime 95 stable for 2 hours on stock heatsink.

Goosenuts wrote:I built my computer for $600 and it will run circles around this thing no matter what you do to it. Mostly because the little motherboard inside there is going to be horribly slow compared to a system running on a full ATX board. For example, my mom's computer benchmarked at 845 points using Passmark; my computer, which has similar specs except for a full ATX motherboard, benchmarked at 3445 points. That's about 4 times faster! There's a reason it's called a MOTHERBOARD, it's kind of a big deal.

The size of the motherboard doesn't affect the speed that the information transmits across it.

Also 6 GB of RAM in an AMD System is absolute fail, as it is forced to use 3 sticks which squarely places it in single channel. You might actually speed this system up to reduce your RAM to 4GB (2x2GB) operating in dual channel mode.

Also a note on PSUs. In my experience HP and Dell use non-standard PSUs. So if you do intend to install one, it's a crapshoot if it will fit. Sure the screws will go in, but you might find the power plug covered by case metal. I've had to bust the dremel out a few times to cut holes so a PSU would work in non-standard PC cases.

Long story short, if you want a gaming PC, buy or build one. Don't hobble together this system to be something that it's not.

For media storage and playback it's fine. The HD4200 graphics(which I use in my HTPC) will play 1080p fine, as long as your CPU has the muscle to do so, which this Phenom IIx4 certainly has.

I have a motherboard with the HD 4200 integrated graphics. It will play hd video fine, and some games fine. Dawn of War 1, Company of Heroes, and Team Fortress 2 all worked smoothly.

Dawn of War 2 was choppy but playable on low settings, but that might have been due to the major problem I had trying to update the drivers for the card. I went through both the ATI/AMD site and through steam, but every time I tried updating the screen went blank instead of going into windows on startup.

It's possible something else was interfering, but as soon as I switched to a Nvidea card everything worked and updated perfectly.

QFT wrote:Agreed. If you keep it completely stock, you'll probably be OK. But if you put a different, decent video card in there and start playing graphic-intensive games I'll bet you'll run into trouble. If you want to upgrade the video card, I'd suggest buying a 500W or better power supply. Newegg.com is a good place to find one.

I have a similar HP (the intel quad core) with a 1gig video card. I upgraded the GPU and PSU. When I tried a 700 watt corsair PSU, it wouldn't boot up. I could only upgrade it to a 600 watt, which met my needs. (I went through 3 PSU's downgrading a step each time before it booted up.
Beware you don't over upgrade your PSU. HP motherboards are very picky on what upgrades you can add. Don't buy anything above a 500 watt to start. You can't return PSU's unless they are defective at most places.

xrock wrote:This thing is expensive for used computer.

I built my own, a lot cheaper and it's not used.
Case 40.00
CPU 89.00 Phenom II x 2 BE 3.2GHZ revision 3
PSU 29.99 w/10.00 rebate 500W Cooler Master
RAM 39.99 w/10.00 rebate 2 x 2GB of Corsair XMS 3
DVD Rom 17.99 Asus 24X DVD burner
Hard drive 45.00 1 TB 7200 RPM w/32 cache Hitachi Deskstar
Micro ATX board 65.00 Biostar AMD 880G chipset [HDMI, DVI]

Total: 327.00 without rebate

The Phenom II x 2 can be unlock to Quad. A lot of success story. My CPU unlock to Quad. Run Prime 95 stable for 2 hours on stock heatsink.

You forgot OS 100-150 depending on which you install. You only have 2Gb RAM add another 4 to meet this woot, at least $140
Making it 567.00+ to equals woots deal.
See how fast those extras add up?

mcghee358 wrote:The size of the motherboard doesn't affect the speed that the information transmits across it. Please stop spewing your ignorance.

You have the wrong idea. I insinuated that the size of the motherboard is indirectly proportional to power usage and performance and as a rule of thumb, the larger the motherboard, the more power it will draw and the better performance it will have over micro-ATX counter parts. If you don't believe me just go look at some motherboard reviews. My generalization is actually quite the opposite of ignorant, it's based off of many years of experience.

Goosenuts wrote:You have the wrong idea. I insinuated that the size of the motherboard is indirectly proportional to power usage and performance and as a rule of thumb, the larger the motherboard, the more power it will draw and the better performance it will have over micro-ATX counter parts. If you don't believe me just go look at some motherboard reviews. My generalization is actually quite the opposite of ignorant, it's based off of many years of experience.

For example, my mom's computer benchmarked at 845 points using Passmark; my computer, which has similar specs except for a full ATX motherboard, benchmarked at 3445 points. That's about 4 times faster!

That directly says "My motherboard has the same specs as my mom(lol) and it runs 4x faster because it's bigger"

There's no room for misinterpretation, you clearly said bigger motherboards equate to a better motherboard.

Where-as I'd pin any MicroATX 890G against a 770 ATX motherboard.

mcghee358 wrote:That directly says "My motherboard has the same specs as my mom(lol) and it runs 4x faster because it's bigger"

There's no room for misinterpretation, you clearly said bigger motherboards equate to a better motherboard.

Where-as I'd pin any MicroATX 890G against a 770 ATX motherboard.

Oh no! You're right, I've humiliated myself on the internets. That's not quite the idea I was going for when I posted that. I realize any two motherboards with the same chipset will have similar performance regardless of size, and your 890g will tear up a 770. The relationship I was attempting to establish between size and performance was, perhaps, not well put. In my experience manufacturers tend to put more effort and better parts into ATX boards, typically resulting in their having better performance over similar micro-ATX boards (by similar, I mean same chipset).

kwchronic wrote:You forgot OS 100-150 depending on which you install. You only have 2Gb RAM add another 4 to meet this woot, at least $140
Making it 567.00+ to equals woots deal.
See how fast those extras add up?

Don't need a pre-install OS with junk. My Ram is 2 x 2GB = 4GB total (learn how to count). Fast quality RAM, which is better than no name brand. It's in dual channel. You don't need more than 4GB unless you are doing something really intense.
This deal does not equal woot deal. Customize parts, each hand picked. Your own built is better as far as quality. My first built was AMD 2100+. It still last and still kicking.

So, for running a small office, this thing would kick ass, right? email, spreadsheets, billing program, at most?

kwchronic wrote:You forgot OS 100-150 depending on which you install. You only have 2Gb RAM add another 4 to meet this woot, at least $140
Making it 567.00+ to equals woots deal.
See how fast those extras add up?

In addition, the performance on my machine exceed Woot! offer. I'm running on AMD Black Edition 3.2 as a Quad. The multiple is unlock. This can be overclock. Most people can get 3.4 - 3.6 GHZ with ease.... just crank the multiple to 18. Anything above that require a better heatsink. The motherboard is 880G chipset with solid capacitor and support the newest AMD X 6 as future upgrade. It has HDMI out as well as DVI out. The PSU is 500W not the 250W.

So, upgrade Woot! offer to mine and you expect to paid an additional 40.00 for new PSU, another 65.00 for new 880G chipset, another...you get the point.

My son plays WOW all of the time. We upped the graphics card to a 1Gb DDR5 to eliminate some lagginess. We got a Raedon 5750 with very nice results!

Goosenuts wrote:Oh no! You're right, I've humiliated myself on the internets. That's not quite the idea I was going for when I posted that. I realize any two motherboards with the same chipset will have similar performance regardless of size, and your 890g will tear up a 770. The relationship I was attempting to establish between size and performance was, perhaps, not well put. In my experience manufacturers tend to put more effort and better parts into ATX boards, typically resulting in their having better performance over similar micro-ATX boards (by similar, I mean same chipset).

Let's simplify it for the woot readers. OEM's intentionally design crap motherboards because they cost about $20 to make. They severely lack any perk, and they are the bare minimum for any modern CPU/RAM to function appropriately. In most cases the RAM is CAS 9 latency and low speed DDR3 1333 that they beef up to 6 GB(in single channel no less) just to trick those less knowledgeable into thinking that the specs are remotely good.

But regardless of the footprint, because it's a proprietary motherboard manufactured specifically for the OEM, it is pure garbage to anyone with any inkling of desire for performance or customization.

HP AMD Quad Core 3GHz Desktop PC w/ 20" LCD
HP AMD Quad Core 3GHz Desktop PC w/ 20

Shop Now!
$580
+ free shipping
Staples offers the HP Pavilion p6716f-b Athlon II 3GHz Desktop PC, model no. BV574AA#ABA, bundled with an HP 20" LCD Monitor for $579.98 with free shipping. That's $20 under our mention from last week and the lowest total price we've seen for this system. Sales tax is added where applicable. The desktop features an AMD Athlon II 640 3GHz quad-core processor, 6GB RAM, 1TB hard drive, DVD burner, 15-in-1 media card reader, DVI output, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, and more.

* Brand: Hewlett-Packard Company
* Model Number: BV574AA#ABA

After seeing this posted on Dealnews yesterday, the price Woot is asking for a refurb unit seems high to me.

I bought this deal about s mos ago, but with just 500GB HD. I am heavy into multi-media and have yet to test the border of its capabilities. Best $$ I ever spent.