Computer Building a Desktop Computer for Math/Physics

Click For Summary
Building a desktop computer for math and physics research involves careful consideration of components to ensure longevity and performance within a budget of around $800 to $1000. Key recommendations include opting for at least 16GB of RAM, a solid-state drive (SSD), and a capable graphics card for dual-monitor support and basic modeling tasks. While building your own system can be a learning experience, it may not always be cheaper than pre-built options, especially when factoring in specific component preferences. The Intel Core i5 or i7 processors are suggested for their balance of performance and cost, with a focus on future-proofing for the next several years. Overall, a well-planned build can meet educational needs effectively while staying within budget.
  • #31
So you decided on an expensive high performance build afterall. In that case why not put an M2 SSD in there. Those are 4 to 5 times faster than SATA SSDs. So maybe a 512mb M2 SSD for the system drive plus a 1TB SATA SSD for data storage.
Of course it's total overkill but it's fun to have.
 
  • Like
Likes RJLiberator
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
'Twas just getting to be too much. Needed to stop somewhere. Room for improvements down the line :D.
 
  • #33
RJLiberator said:
Hi all,

Over the summer I have been working hard to net some extra cash to acquire a desktop computer for education based purposes. Physics research, modelling, and coding is what to be expected. I am hoping to have this computer be my main setup for the end of undergraduate (2 years) and graduate school, so I am looking at around a 6-8+ time frame for relevant usage.

You may want to consider parallel processing using the GPU. Check out https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus and also this story about scientists using the GPU instead of a supercomputer. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/use-a-gpu-to-turn-a-pc-into-a-supercomputer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Let me repeat waht I said:

It is true that you can get great calculational performance on GPUs, However, you need to be using code that is specifically written for GPUs. If you aren't writing the code yourself, or using a program specifically written for running on GPUs, it's not likely you will get better performance. You're better off saving your money or spending it elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Likes QuantumQuest
  • #35
Hello!

Here is a site where I put together computer parts and the site calculates the best deals and any compatibility issues: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/mjRdxY

This is actually my first build, and it is based on the "Moderate Gaming Build" tutorial found on the same site referenced. However, I feel comfortable with this since I am not doing any hard core gaming; I am doing more software testing/development.

If wanted, I can follow up with my experience for this what I find to be reasonably-priced build!
 
  • #36
Vanadium 50 said:
Let me repeat waht I said:

It is true that you can get great calculational performance on GPUs, However, you need to be using code that is specifically written for GPUs. If you aren't writing the code yourself, or using a program specifically written for running on GPUs, it's not likely you will get better performance. You're better off saving your money or spending it elsewhere.

I looked at using GPU's when I was in industry a few years ago, they were fast but not nearly as accurate numerically as we had wished, that is why we went towards pc clusters...
 
  • #37
Dr Transport said:
I looked at using GPU's when I was in industry a few years ago, they were fast but not nearly as accurate numerically as we had wished

They mostly use 32 bytes floats, but some of the newer ones can work in double precision (64-bits).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
8K
  • · Replies 104 ·
4
Replies
104
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K