That's it what piece of a new computer so you invest the most money?

hmm, i would have to say my graphics card.. but they are getting so cheap now, everything is.

Funnily, that's where I spend the least money.

In my case, it would definitely be storage -- always was, always has been, and I don't see a sign of that changing anytime soon either. Storage gets cheaper, but files keep growing (large DSLR photos in RAW format, HD videos, multimedia stuff, VM images, etc)

Ive spent £180 on my 8800 GTS graphics card

haha i forgot about storage! i have a lot of money into there as well.
but also my monitors cost alot.
my cooling cost even more... lol

Even a single monitor can be pretty expensive... My 24" BenQ FP241W (P-MVA panel, not TN) was ~$700 CDN from ncix with taxes, shipping, and 0 dead pixel warranty. But I still spend more than that on storage.

nice, i have the TN version.
how many hdds could you possibly have?

12 per stacker 810 just to start, the smallest being 500GB. Then some more in other systems and a couple externals.

There is no such thing as "enough storage", especially if you like HD movies, if you keep all your movies & tv eps handy for a HTPC (even if you delete the stuff you won't watch again) and/or use your computer to PVR stuff, if keep a library of VM images, if you like lossless music or such things. Going through a dozen TBs is very easy.

Definitely monitors. Can't live without at least two (and I'm up to three now... yeah, that's where the $ goes, I guess ).

I used to be like that with 4:3 monitors (CRTs), but then again using 2+ monitors was a pain in different ways: from software not really supporting it/requiring apps like ultramon, to being a real PITA when you wanna switch them using a KVM. Multi monitor KVM switches (like 4 port, dual DVI) aren't too common and rather pricey (last I checked around $500). And that's assuming you don't need dual link DVI or anything fancy either (and I can already foresee needing that with resolutions past 1920x1200)

But nowadays @ 1920x1200 (high res and widescreen), I don't really have a need for dual monitors anymore (I'd rather have virtual desktops Compiz Fusion-style instead). There's barely enough space for a pair of 24" on my desk, and that's definitely wider than my field of view. If I wanted more, I probably would have went for a 30" instead (the Samsung 305T is around $1100 right now), which will also give you more vertical space, and be more useful than a pair of monitors if you plan on watching HD movies on it.

I wish they'd get with the times, and offer spdif or toslinks on some high-end KVM switches too... I'd definitely be willing to pay $100 extra for that.

having a DAW, my primary concern is audio...of course the sound card.
next is graphics.

past that, storage comes and goes as it must.

The most important part of any computer I build, is not a question of money, but money is no object when it comes to choosing, is the motherboard. The motherboard, for me, is primordially the most important component as it defines what you can build around it.

ah come on, get dual 24's
i have a 24" and 22" right now, very nice for coding

I'm using 2 30" and one 20" (vertical). HD monitors are great, but if you can have 2, why not?

"These go to 11"

On every build, the motherboard without a doubt. Last one was $369. The only other expensive parts I have purchased for my current build was 3 24" BenQ FP241W LCD screens and Ergotron mounting arms for them.

nice LCD setups!

but $369 for a motherboard? Unless you are going for insane OCes and SLI/CF, why?

I just recently got myself an ATI Sapphire 4870x2 and that cost me $690 AUS which is by far the most expensive piece of computer hardware I bought up to date.

Dual 24" widescreen LCDs were probably the biggest investment on my main rig at home, followed by the graphics card - when buying a new setup I tend to go for the "price break point" CPU as it's easily upgraded later (when the price drops further, so it's still not the most expensive component), and RAM is dirt cheap, but the graphics card I tend to go towards the (reasonable) upper end of the scale.

When programming, I tend to need more vertical space (so I see more LOCs), not more width. And my 24" swivels, making it a 1200x1920 monitor, so I get to see plenty of lines at once. That works well for all kinds of stuff.

To use dual 24" LCDs, I'd need to find (and buy) a suitable 4 port dual DVI KVM switch (that preferably also supports dual link DVI) first :/ And again, I'd prefer having a single 30" LCD over that (no bezels in the middle of it), but unfortunately the very nice 30" LCDs (i.e. MVA/PVA/IPS, with a nice set of inputs, that rotates, HDCP support and everything else) are rather pricey e.g. Dell UltraSharp 3008WFP at $2049 CAD. The 27" UltraSharp 2709W is cheaper ($899) but it's still 1920x1200.

I spend the most on storage. I have loads of VM's and stuff, my entire life and my familys life in digital format and lots of movies and stuff. You can never have enough storage.

You might find it strange that I'd spend that much on a MB and not O/C. But I don't O/C any piece of H/W that I own. I generally find, but not always, that the more expensive MBs have greater stability. They are designed for O/C'ing and need to be stable for it and it would make sense that it would be more stable at stock speeds. I don't use SLI either. I have multiple video cards so I can use more monitors. I currently have 3 LCDs and I'm planning on a 4th. I love the screen space. I write a lot of code, dabble in 3D modeling and animation, semi-pro photography, ect. It's nice to be working in an application and watching a tutorial video on how to do something without having to tab in and out.

I like to build high end machines. I build one super high end machine about every 3 years and upgrade parts here and there as needed.

369$ , if that's current us dollars, then that is pretty much standard for a medium/high end motherboard.

hardware today is meant to be overclocked, i gained the performance level of a 6600gt by overclocking 4850 card. It sets things in perspective.
If you could go faster, with what you have, and the only downside is the hardware will only live 20 years, not 40 years, and you still dont to overclock.

I'm not going to say what i think about that, children might read this xD

I guess I just work a little differently. Any additional systems that I use are either connected to via Remote Desktop or loaded in VMs. That's one of the main reasons I've got multiple monitors, to keep the various "managment" windows open on from my main computer.

As for single most expensive single piece of equipment - I'd have to agree with monitor. As with most things, once you start moving up in screen space, it's hard to drop back down.

As for highest quality - jcarle has a point in the motherboard department, but you don't necessarily have to break the bank here. I've got two systems built around ASUS P5B Deluxe boards (which were about $200 a piece), and they've been running strong for quite a while now.

As for most spent in a single category - storage. In the two systems I have at home there are 12 drives (2x500, 2x640, 8x1TB), and my two work computers have 4 hard drives between them. crahak already outlined the major points here, but I'll add another one - separate redundancy. I've got my main work computer does rolling backups over the past month, and then separate monthly backups for the past year, all stored in two separate locations in two separate buildings. Unless a meteor strikes the university where I work, I've got all the backups I need (at least of the really important stuff).

Its usually the motherboard for me. I typically try to get the newest one out there at the time, although by the time I actually buy it, it might be a 2 months old.

More bandwidth

Hmm, the most expensive part of my system would be the Monitor, a 19" Viewsonic VX924 which I paid $350 for a few years ago, but I havent upgraded from that purchase yet. Otherwise the Barebones Shuttle Kit which includes the Case, Mobo, PSU, HSF for $250 about 6 months ago, then the CPU, E8400 which was $200, then the GPU, 8800GT which was $150, then the HDD, WD WD6400AAKS, which I just got for around $80. However I think the GPU is the most expensive component because it probably has the highest turnover in terms of upgrading. BTW I'm now in the market again for a new monitor, either 24" or 26" @1920x1200 (16:10), and looking at something like the BenQ G2400WD.

For me it's software.

My home machines are re-animated from the dead (the Dr. Frankenstein method of computer building).

My most expensive purchase was a complete Apple IIe setup I bought in 1984 for $5,000.00.

Mine cost $180.00 and its designed for overclocking.

P5Q-E


Most money I spend is on the graphics card. Second in line is the motherboard.

Monitor by FAR..

Me? Vid card & Mobo now! (They both cost me the same... $80 bucks each)

Is there anyone spending more in Sound Systems?

Why? Once you buy a good sound system, you don't replace it. There's no incremental upgrades available.

em...Just a joke here...
Long long ago, someone did as this...

Exactly, buying this to a PC is not good as buying a "theater system" to TV, etc.

Definetly videocard, 2x 4870X2's. Then comes the moniter (1x 28in)

Now that you mention it….

I have several sound systems and I don’t really think of them of part of the computers because they are also stand alone systems. But when I add up all the amplifiers, speakers, mixers and pro sound cards then I’ve spent a lot more on sound systems than anything else.