Hardware Yep, getting a custom-built desktop

[Alexrose]

Really big warning here!

You definitely need to check out the compatibility with your mobo, RAM and heatsink. Those heatsinks are absolute blocks. If you aren't using low profile RAM, there's a reasonable chance that that fan will actually block off a couple of your DIMMs. That's a really important consideration.

Otherwise I would say.. if you're getting 8gb you may as well get 16gb, they go for generally like 1.25x the price (at least over here). Likewise with a HDD, may as well go 2TB.

And, finally, I would really, really, really advise getting a nice SSD for your OS. Maybe just a small 60GB. Disable hibernation and move page files to a different drive, you have easily enough space for your OS and a lot more. SSDs are just.. amazing.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

My only fear is getting the wrong voltage/wattage and end up getting my components fried, but something like 1000 W would be extreme overkill for my build. I don't know which brands are more reliable or what to look for in getting a PSU to be perfectly honest.

I used to know all the brands what ones where best and what to avoid, I think they have improved the standards so that even the cheap ones are pretty good. Yeah 1000 you would probably never use (quad SLI monster system... lol)

I do know that the better quality PSU's will always advertise on them that they are 80+ certified!!! That means that at least 80% of the AC electricity coming in is being turned into DC power. This is great for two reasons, one it will save you money on your power bill and two it will create less heat inside your computer.

A side benefit is that usually these are better PSU's with more stable voltages.... (if your into OC'ing that's super important.)

 

[urbanman2004]

Intel, Crucial M4, Samsung 830 or 840. I prefer the Samsungs.
I have an OCZ Vertex 3. Vertex has the highest performance, but prices tend to be higher and they have a reportedly lower life cycle. Go for Samsung instead which has a reportedly higher life cycle.

I have the Vertex 3 (180GB) as well. I got it around the end of 2010 for little more than $300 at the time and it has served me well since. It should be a lot cheaper now.
@the_randomizer: if your concerned about a warranty, I know my main board i have is by EVGA and they have pretty decent warranties for some of their boards. I'd suggest doing your research by going on their site first or Google.

 

[the_randomizer]

Really big warning here!

You definitely need to check out the compatibility with your mobo, RAM and heatsink. Those heatsinks are absolute blocks. If you aren't using low profile RAM, there's a reasonable chance that that fan will actually block off a couple of your DIMMs. That's a really important consideration.

Otherwise I would say.. if you're getting 8gb you may as well get 16gb, they go for generally like 1.25x the price (at least over here). Likewise with a HDD, may as well go 2TB.

And, finally, I would really, really, really advise getting a nice SSD for your OS. Maybe just a small 60GB. Disable hibernation and move page files to a different drive, you have easily enough space for your OS and a lot more. SSDs are just.. amazing.

By low-profile RAM, you mean just basic RAM PCBs that don't look special but are just the PCB with the modules? I don't know if I really need 16 GB as I thought it would be overkill. Is there a way to find out whether or not the motherboard will support the heatsink/cooler before getting it?

I used to know all the brands what ones where best and what to avoid, I think they have improved the standards so that even the cheap ones are pretty good. Yeah 1000 you would probably never use (quad SLI monster system... lol)

I do know that the better quality PSU's will always advertise on them that they are 80+ certified!!! That means that at least 80% of the AC electricity coming in is being turned into DC power. This is great for two reasons, one it will save you money on your power bill and two it will create less heat inside your computer.

A side benefit is that usually these are better PSU's with more stable voltages.... (if your into OC'ing that's super important.)

Is there a way to calculate how much voltage/wattage my machine will use so as to easily determine the PSU I need for my machine. I need to balance it to ensure stability and not fry anything. I found this, as it's been deemed a good line of PSUs. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=2#scrollFullInfo

I have the Vertex 3 (180GB) as well. I got it around the end of 2010 for little more than $300 at the time and it has served me well since. It should be a lot cheaper now.
@the_randomizer: if your concerned about a warranty, I know my main board i have is by EVGA and they have pretty decent warranties for some of their boards. I'd suggest doing your research by going on their site first or Google.

I didn't know eVGA made motherboards....I've only been told or suggested I stick with Asus, Gigabyte or MSI. As for the SSD, I haven't seen any 60 GB models on Newegg for some weird reason.
My head hurts from trying to figure all this out, making sure I don't screw myself over by getting shoddy components (premature failure or what have you). I think my brain's about to explode.... Not your guys' fault, I'm just being too hard on myself....again.

 

[Alexrose]

16GB is not overkill. At worst it is future proofing, at best really useful.

Low profile RAM is RAM without the heatsinks on top in little arcs etc. . Just a block that covers the ram just about.

I can really recommend a Zalmann CNPS 9900 MAXes. They come with two fan settings, one silent, one essentially silent and better. With it I oced my 3.3GHz 2500k to 4.9GHz on air, and still get lower temps than with the stock fan at stock clock speed. It's really well priced, and it won't disturb high profile RAM.

If not.. you can.. google for that problem, with that specific motherboard, and that heatsink, and high profile RAM. Only thing you really can do. I managed to find out that information for my board, and mine isn't too common.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

Is there a way to calculate how much voltage/wattage my machine will use so as to easily determine the PSU I need for my machine. I need to balance it to ensure stability and not fry anything. I found this, as it's been deemed a good line of PSUs. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=2#scrollFullInfo

There used to be a web site where you could put in your CPU your GPU and RAM and hard drives and it would tell you a ball park figure, I am going to try and find it.... If it's still being updated that would be great

lol That search turned out to be awesome! (Thank you!)


http://images10.newegg.com/BizIntell/tool/psucalc/index.html

Newegg has one and its pretty good.

 

[Rydian]

16GB is not overkill. At worst it is future proofing, at best really useful.

A single program 32-bit program (or any program at all under a 32-bit version of Windows) cannot use more than 2 gigs of ram (3 gigs if an optional setting is changed and the program is specifically coded to use it). Considering that going over that limit means your program will not work on 32-bit versions of Windows, even today games still stay under that limit.

So unless you're the kind of person that wants to run three MMO clients at once, 16GB is wasted money for gaming.

 

[the_randomizer]

There used to be a web site where you could put in your CPU your GPU and RAM and hard drives and it would tell you a ball park figure, I am going to try and find it.... If it's still being updated that would be great

lol That search turned out to be awesome! (Thank you!)


http://images10.newegg.com/BizIntell/tool/psucalc/index.html

Newegg has one and its pretty good.

Didn't know they had one, but I'm using it right now. Thanks!

A single program 32-bit program (or any program at all under a 32-bit version of Windows) cannot use more than 2 gigs of ram (3 gigs if an optional setting is changed and the program is specifically coded to use it). Considering that going over that limit means your program will not work on 32-bit versions of Windows, even today games still stay under that limit.

So unless you're the kind of person that wants to run three MMO clients at once, 16GB is wasted money for gaming.

Right, as I'm under the impression that 8 GB is plenty for my needs. The most CPU intensive program I'd use (outside of gaming) would probably be 3DS Studio Max, and since I'm trying to save a few pennies, I don't really need >8 GB.

 

[urbanman2004]

Stick to what Alexrose said and stick to low profile RAM... I have the same version of RAM u got, but it's the low profile version, see:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058J1QII/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00
I upgraded them from Mushkin (3x6GB, 1600MHz) which is a good brand as well.
Also you definately need to get a PSU that would be at least 750... I had problems years ago on a former system I had that was using 650W and it was unstable so I got a 850W to suffice.
I've been dealing EVGA since '07 and I always tend to purchase their high-end motherboards which they usually warrant a limited lifetime warranty for

 

[Alexrose]

A single program 32-bit program (or any program at all under a 32-bit version of Windows) cannot use more than 2 gigs of ram (3 gigs if an optional setting is changed and the program is specifically coded to use it). Considering that going over that limit means your program will not work on 32-bit versions of Windows, even today games still stay under that limit.

So unless you're the kind of person that wants to run three MMO clients at once, 16GB is wasted money for gaming.

That would've been a good argument.. in 2008. When RAM was expensive.

He is already getting 8GB, so the 3GB limit is completely irrelevant, we're talking about using programs that are actually going to be made over 5 years, and every big commercial product is 64 bit now.

16GB is not a waste of money if you already get 8GB. Again, it's like.. a 1.25x step up in price. Instead, if he upgrades it at some other point he will pay up to double to do so. As I said, this is future proofing, and more RAM is never a bad thing, especially when the second 8GB costs ~2% of your total build price.

You never know what you're going to need your PC for. I got mine for gaming and music making, but now I use it for programming, vector art, video editing, matlab, uber quick game load times, 3d modelling and the ability to run a billion programs at once and never experience any slowdown. That extra.. $20 or whatever it will cost is peanuts in the scheme of a full build, and totally worth the benefit it provides.

 

[the_randomizer]

Stick to what Alexrose said and stick to low profile RAM... I have the same version of RAM u got, but it's the low profile version, see:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058J1QII/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00
I upgraded them from Mushkin (3x6GB, 1600MHz) which is a good brand as well.
Also you definately need to get a PSU that would be at least 750... I had problems years ago on a former system I had that was using 650W and it was unstable so I got a 850W to suffice.
I've been dealing EVGA since '07 and I always tend to purchase their high-end motherboards which they usually warrant a limited lifetime warranty for

That's actually a really good price for 16 GB Most impressive indeed. I calculated the CPU, Motherboard, GPU, HDD, etc on that site and it came out to be 410 W, but that doesn't include the fans and other components, so with everything, probably close to 600 W. I can't, or rather, shouldn't pay for one with more than 750 due to my budget, as I don't want to get a crappy brand, nor do I wish to get one that's >$150. Just sayin'.

That would've been a good argument.. in 2008. When RAM was expensive.

He is already getting 8GB, so the 3GB limit is completely irrelevant, we're talking about using programs that are actually going to be made over 5 years, and every big commercial product is 64 bit now.

16GB is not a waste of money if you already get 8GB. Again, it's like.. a 1.25x step up in price. Instead, if he upgrades it at some other point he will pay up to double to do so. As I said, this is future proofing, and more RAM is never a bad thing, especially when the second 8GB costs ~2% of your total build price.

You never know what you're going to need your PC for. I got mine for gaming and music making, but now I use it for programming, vector art, video editing, matlab, uber quick game load times, 3d modelling and the ability to run a billion programs at once and never experience any slowdown. That extra.. $20 or whatever it will cost is peanuts in the scheme of a full build, and totally worth the benefit it provides.

I'd probably stick with 1333 though and not the 1600 type since I'm not going to overclock.

 

[Alexrose]

I use a 750W PSU very comfortably, and I got that as an overestimate. I run 16GB 2133, three large case cooling fans, the aforementioned Zalmann, a 2500k OCed to 4.9GHz, a Fatal1ty Pro series mobo (I know that comes across a little noobish, but it cost £10 than the equivalent Gigabyte motherboard and the colour scheme was much, much nicer than that.. brown thing), 2 HD 6850s, 2 HDDs and 2 SSDs and other peripheral stuff etc. (USB3 ports, blah blah).

I think you'll be fine with this build on a 600W.

Edit: The 1600 ones are already clocked at 1600MHz, you don't have to overclock them yourself. It's not clocked higher to help you overclock your cpu, it's clocked higher so it can do more calculations per second. Again, if you're already making such an expensive build, you want it to last you the next 5+ years. 1600 is a reasonable amount, 1333 is just a bit.. lacking, especially when the price difference isn't so significant.

 

[urbanman2004]

Alexrose statement has some merit to it: as cheap as RAM is nowadays, you might as well get 16GB/1600MHz now because you never what the future holds with what you're using the RAM for. If you're going to get 8GB, according to your mobo's specs that allows it, get either (1) 8GB stick or (2) 4GB sticks, whichever is cheaper. Also more programs today, i.e. Adobe CS6 (I know because I use it), utilize x64 optimization so Alexrose's statement isn't as farfetched in my opinion.

 

[the_randomizer]

I use a 750W PSU very comfortably, and I got that as an overestimate. I run 16GB 2133, three large case cooling fans, the aforementioned Zalmann, a 2500k OCed to 4.9GHz, a Fatal1ty Pro series mobo (I know that comes across a little noobish, but it cost £10 than the equivalent Gigabyte motherboard and the colour scheme was much, much nicer than that.. brown thing), 2 HD 6850s, 2 HDDs and 2 SSDs and other peripheral stuff etc. (USB3 ports, blah blah).

I think you'll be fine with this build on a 600W.

Edit: The 1600 ones are already clocked at 1600MHz, you don't have to overclock them yourself. It's not clocked higher to help you overclock your cpu, it's clocked higher so it can do more calculations per second. Again, if you're already making such an expensive build, you want it to last you the next 5+ years. 1600 is a reasonable amount, 1333 is just a bit.. lacking, especially when the price difference isn't so significant.

Okay, 600 W it is. and for RAM, I'll go with 1600, as the motherboard should support it just fine.

Alexrose statement has some merit to it: as cheap as RAM is nowadays, you might as well get 16GB/1600MHz now because you never what the future holds with what you're using the RAM for. If you're going to get 8GB, according to your mobo's specs that allows it, get either (1) 8GB stick or (2) 4GB sticks, whichever is cheaper. Also more programs today, i.e. Adobe CS6 (I know because I use it), utilize x64 optimization so Alexrose's statement isn't as farfetched in my opinion.

I'll see what reputable brands are out there/ones that don't suck or have a high failure rate. Perhaps Crucial or Kingston?

 

[Rydian]

That would've been a good argument.. in 2008. When RAM was expensive.

I'm not talking about whether the price for the gain is worth it, I'm showing there will be no gain at all, so unless the price is "free", then it's a waste of money.

He is already getting 8GB, so the 3GB limit is completely irrelevant, we're talking about using programs that are actually going to be made over 5 years,

Even new FPS games like Borderlands 2 are using just ~850MB, in a multiplayer session.

"Future games will use a lot more RAM!" - We might see a game or two top out at 1.5GB of RAM in the upcoming years... but that's still a far cry from needing 16GB, and would fit just fine on 6/8GB.

and every big commercial product is 64 bit now.

Just because there's a 64-bit edition doesn't mean the RAM usage is going to reflect that. Photoshop 64-bit uses ~80MB while idling, as does the 32-bit version. The difference is how large of a project can be worked on with the individual binaries, but that's up to the scope of the project.

Besides, his aim is general use and gaming according to the first post. If he needed the machine for a render farm or something he'd have told us.

16GB is not a waste of money if you already get 8GB. Again, it's like.. a 1.25x step up in price.

Even if it was a dollar, it'd be a wasted dollar.

Instead, if he upgrades it at some other point he will pay up to double to do so.

Hey, mind tossing me that crystal ball you're using to see the future? 'Cause those predictions that he's going to need 8GB more RAM in the life of the machine and that the prices will rise on it within the lifetime... I think your crystal ball needs some fine-tuning.

As I said, this is future proofing

8GB of RAM is already future-proofing because modern programs won't use up that much already. Modern games stick below a gig or so of RAM, web browsers can eat up to a gig if you have a ton of tabs, and some production/office softwares might go up to 500MB+... but all that would already fit in 4GB with plenty of room to spare for things like superfetch.

You never know what you're going to need your PC for. I got mine for gaming and music making, but now I use it for programming, vector art, video editing, matlab, uber quick game load times, 3d modelling and the ability to run a billion programs at once and never experience any slowdown. That extra.. $20 or whatever it will cost is peanuts in the scheme of a full build, and totally worth the benefit it provides.

Because you're the OP, right?

Christ.

 

[Alexrose]

I'm not talking about whether the price for the gain is worth it, I'm showing there will be no gain at all, so unless the price is "free", then it's a waste of money.

Even new FPS games like Borderlands 2 are using just ~850MB, in a multiplayer session.

"Future games will use a lot more RAM!" - We might see a game or two top out at 1.5GB of RAM in the upcoming years... but that's still a far cry from needing 16GB, and would fit just fine on 6/8GB.

Just because there's a 64-bit edition doesn't mean the RAM usage is going to reflect that. Photoshop 64-bit uses ~80MB while idling, as does the 32-bit version. The difference is how large of a project can be worked on with the individual binaries, but that's up to the scope of the project.

Besides, his aim is general use and gaming according to the first post. If he needed the machine for a render farm or something he'd have told us.

Even if it was a dollar, it'd be a wasted dollar.

Hey, mind tossing me that crystal ball you're using to see the future? 'Cause those predictions that he's going to need 8GB more RAM in the life of the machine and that the prices will rise on it within the lifetime... I think your crystal ball needs some fine-tuning.

8GB of RAM is already future-proofing because modern programs won't use up that much already. Modern games stick below a gig or so of RAM, web browsers can eat up to a gig if you have a ton of tabs, and some production/office softwares might go up to 500MB+... but all that would already fit in 4GB with plenty of room to spare for things like superfetch.

Because you're the OP, right?

Christ.

I never said that future games will use a lot more RAM, although, given that we are about to enter a new console generation, we can expect a bump up in required hardware for all games.

Using a crystal ball to see the future? No, I'm being sensible. Yeah, Rydian, you're right, in 5 years time everyone will use the same specs your midrig has now. Totally. Like has totally been the trend throughout the whole history of computing.

As I said, 16GB is generally around 1.25x as expensive as 8GB. IN A PACK. If you buy 8GB once, and then a few months later you decide you want the next 8GB, you will pay TWICE, as opposed to 1.25x. So, on the assumption that you're already buying the mid range, since the high range is only at a slight extra cost, it makes way more economical sense to go for the highly specced stuff and not have to buy a new standalone pair.

Modern programs won't use that much. No shit. Do you run one program at once? How much do you think just a 64 bit OS takes on its own? Right now I'm running 4GB RAM and that's just using firefox and having left a few things open (pdfs, tweetdeck, thunderbird, filezilla, word, visual studio, excel, I'm doing a bit of light work in the background). What if he wants to leave his browser on, run a media player and Steam and a 64 bit game, obviously his OS runs, maybe he wants teamspeak too. He will appreciate the extra RAM in that case.

By considering "one program at a time", you're being absolutely ridiculous. What if he goes dual monitor in a couple of years and has a bunch of stuff constantly running on both screens? You can't know that, hence: future proofing. And if you're going to drone on "If you use more than 8GB at once that's your own fault", I frequently use more than 8GB of RAM, but guess what? Because I spent the extra £15 on top of the £60 I was already paying (as part of the £800 I was paying total), now I have the luxury of never having to worry about how much stuff I run.

Likewise, you're not OP. You don't even know for sure everything he wants to run now, let alone where he will go with his life in the next 5 years, what new things he might decide to learn etc. . If he's computer literate enough to build his own build, it's not much of a stretch to say he might become an avid 3d modeller, artist, programmer, scientist in the forseeable future and NEED that RAM, and since neither of us know that, why tell him "Yeah, don't pay those few extra bucks for the security of knowing your PC will be able to cope with anything you throw at it for the half decade, just leave it"?

 

[trumpet-205]

I use a 750W PSU very comfortably, and I got that as an overestimate. I run 16GB 2133, three large case cooling fans, the aforementioned Zalmann, a 2500k OCed to 4.9GHz, a Fatal1ty Pro series mobo (I know that comes across a little noobish, but it cost £10 than the equivalent Gigabyte motherboard and the colour scheme was much, much nicer than that.. brown thing), 2 HD 6850s, 2 HDDs and 2 SSDs and other peripheral stuff etc. (USB3 ports, blah blah).

I run the following,

* Intel Core i5-3570K (overclocked to 4.4 GHz)
* Venomous X tower cooler
* ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3
* Samsung low profile 16 GB DDR3 (overclocked to 1866 MHz for fun)
* Sapphire HD7850 (stock speed)
* 4 x 120 mm fans
* Crucial M4 128 GB + WD Caviar Blue 1 TB

And it works perfectly fine with Rosewill Capstone 450 W while doing Folding@home and H264 encoding. Meter at UPS measured 250 W (this includes monitor) while doing above tasks.

You do NOT need 700+ W to run Sandy/Ivy Bridge computer. You only need that for AMD FX or Intel SB-E (LGA 2011) platform. In fact I am against using overkill PSU because you will NOT be getting efficient output. 80 Plus and ripple are only measured at 20, 50, and 70% power output.

Also I do NOT recommend 16 GB of RAM unless you have specific need for it. In my case I am running multiple virtual machines, so additional RAM is needed. Average gamer who games on PC, using emulator, encodes H264, etc does NOT need 16 GB of DDR3.

 

[Originality]

Exploding PSUs aside, the PSU doesn't fry the components, heat from the graphics/case does. The PSU is only rated to supply the energy, but it doesn't push the energy. A 400W system will only draw about 440W in a 90% efficient PSU. My system has a 1.1kW PSU even though I don't (anymore) go above 600W. This is simply because I used it for stress testing SLI rigs and it was a gift for all the work I did.

650W is what I recommend for single GPU over clocking rigs. 550W for those who never will. Most never see above 350W drawn from their systems.

 

[trumpet-205]

Exploding PSUs aside, the PSU doesn't fry the components, heat from the graphics/case does. The PSU is only rated to supply the energy, but it doesn't push the energy. A 400W system will only draw about 440W in a 90% efficient PSU.

I'm not aware of any PSU that is 90% efficient. Closest I have seen is 87%.

To add on to your post, there are PSU that while it doesn't explode, will still fry your components. I'm talking about low quality one like Apevia and Diablotek. Usually these PSUs exceeds ripple tolerance set by ATX standards, yet they still claimed to be ATX compliant.

 

[Rydian]

As I said, 16GB is generally around 1.25x as expensive as 8GB. IN A PACK. If you buy 8GB once, and then a few months later you decide you want the next 8GB, you will pay TWICE, as opposed to 1.25x. So, on the assumption that you're already buying the mid range, since the high range is only at a slight extra cost, it makes way more economical sense to go for the highly specced stuff and not have to buy a new standalone pair.

I'm not doubting that he'll need higher specs in the future, but the question is how far?

Let's look at some history.

• Pentium-D. First consumer dual-core CPU. "Games will want dual-core in the future, get it!" But by the time games actually did, the P-D was old crap and nobody would want it, everybody moved onto the Core (2) series.
  
  
• Directx 10. "Future games will use it, get a card that supports it!" We're still seeing games that are DX9-compatible, but it wouldn't be too hard to call right now the advent of higher-API gaming... and right now, the time when you'll actually need a DX10 card for new games, is over six years past when it was originally called for.

Assassin's Creed III? Directx10 game, but the recommended HD 5770 is ~6 times more powerful than the HD 3670 that would have been picked as an affordable DX10 card at the time, and in fact the HD 3670 is below below the listed minimum. I mean it was a nice card in it's time, but it was not future-proof just because it was DX10.

Anyways back to RAM, modern (meaning current-iteration) RAM goes down in price as time goes on, so even if he does need an upgrade within the lifetime of the machine, chances are it'll be cheaper to upgrade later. DDR4 hasn't even come out yet, and implementation would need a new set of CPUs (what with the whole on-die memory controller fad).

Also inb4 "DDR4 has been announced" - DDR4 was actually started two years before DDR3 hit the public, that's how long RAM development cycles are, so we I safely say it'll be years before DDR3 goes out of mass production.

Modern programs won't use that much. No shit. Do you run one program at once? How much do you think just a 64 bit OS takes on its own?

Why do you think I listed the numbers for multiple programs? I have run Borderlands 2 multiplayer while Skyping with the other players, with Cheat Engine changing stats of BL2, firefox in the background with my GBAtemp tabs and such, and pidgin (for other IMs) just fine, totaling well less than even 8GB of RAM usage.

Right now I'm running 4GB RAM and that's just using firefox and having left a few things open (pdfs, tweetdeck, thunderbird, filezilla, word, visual studio, excel, I'm doing a bit of light work in the background).

"A few things"? Jesus, that's like when you walk into a teen's room and see clothes all over the floor, then hear them say "I already cleaned my room". I mean, a programming IDE in the background? That's not the kind of stuff the OP's outlining.

What if he wants to leave his browser on, run a media player and Steam and a 64 bit game, obviously his OS runs, maybe he wants teamspeak too. He will appreciate the extra RAM in that case.

You kidding me? I run far more than that on 4GB of RAM (the total on my personal machine) all the time. 8GB of RAM is already more than is needed, but is an acceptable compromise (free space for superfetch, etc.)

By considering "one program at a time", you're being absolutely ridiculous.

Nice cop-out attempt, but no, I'm not. I am taking multiple programs into consideration because I like to multi-task when I game as well, and it's not nearly the exaggerated load you're making it out to be.

What if he goes dual monitor in a couple of years and has a bunch of stuff constantly running on both screens? You can't know that, hence: future proofing.

What if a meteor hits you on the head when you walk out tomorrow? You can't know that, hence, meteor insurance.

For a less snarky reply...

• What if he needs to do 3D rendering? You can't know that, hence: He should buy a FireGL/Pro GPU and set it aside just in case.
  
  
• What if he needs to run concurrent server OSes? You can't know that, hence: He should buy a multi-socket motherboard and a pair of Xeons.
  
  
• What if he needs to hook up an antiquated printer and grab it's program ROM? You can't know that, hence: He should specifically pick out a motherboard with a parallel port.

Etc.

Likewise, you're not OP. You don't even know for sure everything he wants to run now

*cough*readthefirstpost*cough*



EDIT: BBcode typo fixed.