Which Hardware Defines PC the most?

[dgianstefani]

I would say it's the motherboard - it defines what CPU you can have, and links everything together.

Some people would probably say the case/cooling system, which is especially true if you have a custom loop.

 

[birdie]

I really envy you.

The fact that you're asking such questions means you're the happiest man on Earth.

I literally couldn't care less what my PC consists of as long is it does its job.

What defines the PC in general? Just keyboard and mouse, that's it. Everything else, including the monitor (consoles do use it, modern TV sets work as monitors as well), is tertiary.

 

[lexluthermiester]

We can call our computers whatever we want.

Yup, that's right.

But it is still the motherboard that establishes the "platform" of that computer from which everything else is built upon.

Perhaps, but the platform doesn't always establish a PC's identity. Maybe it does for you, but not for everyone.


This discussion has been very interesting, not only in the fact of how many ways a person might chose how to identify their PC but also the seemingly very personalized nature of that connection. Very insightful.

 

[ThrashZone]

I would say it's the motherboard - it defines what CPU you can have, and links everything together.

Some people would probably say the case/cooling system, which is especially true if you have a custom loop.

Hi,
Indeed now that I think about it
I'd always say cpu but yeah board indeed tells a lot more it also says why they went custom loop

 

[Bill_Bright]

Perhaps, but the platform doesn't always establish a PC's identity. Maybe it does for you, but not for everyone.

Identity? I think a computer's identity is a totally different topic/discussion. For me, I identify my computers by their primary function (or location) - not brand name, motherboard, or major component.

This computer I am using is "my computer". That's how I identify it. When the wife said, "my computer", I knew she meant her computer, not mine.

"My laptop" is how I identify my laptop. The spare computer in the guest bedroom is my old "my computer" but it now is the "guest computer".

This discussion has been very interesting, not only in the fact that of how many ways a person might chose how to identify their PC but also the seemingly very personalized nature of that connection. Very insightful.

Not just "very personalized nature", but how passionate some are about it too. I supposed it could akin to how some folks humanize (anthropomorphize?) their cars by giving them human names and pronouns. Let's hope they don't call "her" "Christine"!

My truck's name is "truck".

 

[OkieDan]

Ummm, tires and wheels are essential to a car. So is a car no longer a car if the tires and wheels are stolen? You remove the prop from a Cessna Piper is it no longer a plane?

I don't refer to cars as a "car system" or "transportation system", but the OP referred to his build as a "custom built system", which would refer to a computer system, would it not? Words have meanings and I provided the definition for a "system" from Webster and argued within that definition. You're entitled to disagree but you won't get anywhere trying to convince me to share your point of view using logical fallacies, strawmanning my argument.

Is a computer no longer a computer if you remove the boot drive?

It is no longer a computer system if all parts combined don't allow for a functioning computer. So long as there's any drive in the computer that you can make the boot drive then I would consider it a system if all you need to do is install the OS.

No, sorry! Very few systems are designed for specific purposes. If that were so, then most users would have multiple computers, one just for gaming, one just updating social media, one just school projects, etc. But the reality is, the majority of users have just one "general purpose" computer they use for all their computing needs.

Sounds like the specific purpose you're referring to is "general use", i.e., a budget PC in most cases. I can't imagine you've built computer for decades and haven't asked customers what purpose they intend to use their system for and nobody ever says something that would indicate to you that the purpose would be something akin to "general use".

Apparently Dell and other builders understand this, even if you don't:

 

[bobbybluz]

Twenty years ago a friend and I came up with the running joke of Ronco Computamatic PC's. This was back when every computer website wanted to know the manufacturer of your computer. I'll admit to still using it recently. I think you'll have to be from the USA and familiar with late night infomercials on television in the 80's & 90's to truly appreciate the joke. R.I.P. Richard, you were a fun fellow prankster.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Sounds like the specific purpose you're referring to is "general use"

ROTFL

Okay. If "general purpose" to you can be defined as a "specific purpose" then so be it. Not sure any dictionary would agree, however.

I don't refer to cars as a "car system" or "transportation system"

It does not matter how you define something. A car "IS" a transportation system. Just because "a" car may be considered a single unit, it is still a bunch of components integrated into a system.

My home theater system is a system. If I remove the rear surround sound speakers, it will still be a home theater system even though I consider them essential.

Words have meanings

They sure do. And in technical discussions, I prefer those meanings stick with how those in the profession define them. Not definitions made up and used by laypersons. Why? While some may consider it being nitpicky, ultimately, it gets everyone on the same page and thus avoids confusion.

A perfect example is when non-professional computer users refer to that big box thingy sitting on the floor as their "CPU".

And sorry but your Dell screen shot illustrates nothing to rationalize anything you said. "Everyday access?" Come on, OkieDan! Really? Since when does "marketing hype" set the technical standard?

"Everyday access" in no way defines a specific purpose or function. Are not enterprise systems accessed every day - or used to store digital content, or perform office tasks? Are systems used for creativity tasks not accessed every day or used to perform other mundane tasks? Or that budget systems are not used for games, graphics editing, serving files, etc.?

I can't imagine you've built computer for decades and haven't asked customers what purpose they intend to use their system for and nobody ever says something that would indicate to you that the purpose would be something akin to "general use".

Intended purpose and budget are typically the first two questions I always ask clients wanting a new build. And I don't recall any saying, "gaming only", "Office tasks only", or any other single/specific purpose "only". "School only" or "work only", yes. But those could hardly be called specific purpose any more than "IT" can be called "a" specific industry.

It is no longer a computer system if all parts combined don't allow for a functioning computer.

Really? So if you have a computer... err, excuse me... a computer "system", and you remove the RAM, that computer no longer functions. So, according to you, that is no longer a "computer"? Or just not a computer "system"? Either is incorrect. It is still a computer. And it is still a computer system. It is just missing its RAM.

Why do you get to decide for everyone else what is a computer and what is a computer system? You don't - and I don't either. My computer system includes my surround sound computer speakers. Quality audio reproduction and music is a big part of my life so I consider those speakers an integral part of my computer system. So if my sound card fails and I no longer have audio, do I no longer have a computer (or computer "system")? Of course I still have a computer.

@lexluthermiester - see what I mean about some being so (too?) passionate?

***

I say this thread has exhausted its purpose and it is time to move on.

 

[OkieDan]

Okay. If "general purpose" to you can be defined as a "specific purpose" then so be it. Not sure any dictionary would agree, however.

Well let's see, Webster's defines "specific" as: "constituting or falling into a specifiable category ", and you and I both have specified there is a "general [use|purpose]" category, so I would say Webster's agrees with me.

Also, my original statement was "Systems are designed for specific purpose(s) or role(s)", plural, which, given the correct roles, would allow for the design of a general purpose. If you design a system to fill the role of web surfing, watching YT, getting on social media, doing light office work, you've designed a system with multiple roles or for multiple purposes. I would typically refer to this collection of purposes/roles as a general use/purpose PC, but that system was still designed to serve those multiple purposes. I would not refer to it as general purpose if there were other intended purposes such use for gaming or workstation workloads.

Words have meanings

They sure do. And in technical discussions, I prefer those meanings stick with how those in the profession define them. Not definitions made up and used by laypersons. Why? While some may consider it being nitpicky, ultimately, it gets everyone on the same page and thus avoids confusion.

You should take the advice in your signature and look up "computer system", and remember I stated what a system is DESIGNED for not whether or not it's a system when a part breaks. It's definitely not a hodge-podge of parts that together nets you a non-functioning system. When a part breaks it's either a broken system (because it can't perform any role as a computer) or a system that performs fewer roles because a non-critical part failed and it can still operate to perform other roles.

What you're trying to do here by saying: "stick with how those in the profession define them" is use of another logical fallacy, this time it's an "Argument From Authority" that is of your own opinion nonetheless. Why don't you quote a technical source (hell any reliable source) that defines a "computer system" that doesn't agree with the definition I've provided?

And sorry but your Dell screen shot illustrates nothing to rationalize anything you said. "Everyday access?" Come on, OkieDan! Really? Since when does "marketing hype" set the technical standard?

"Everyday access" in no way defines a specific purpose or function. Are not enterprise systems accessed every day - or used to store digital content, or perform office tasks? Are systems used for creativity tasks not accessed every day or used to perform other mundane tasks? Or that budget systems are not used for games, graphics editing, serving files, etc.?

"Everyday access", as I was referring to it, was to say it would fit in the same category of "general use". See above regarding "purpose(s) or role(s)".

Really? So if you have a computer... err, excuse me... a computer "system", and you remove the RAM, that computer no longer functions. So, according to you, that is no longer a "computer"? Or just not a computer "system"? Either is incorrect. It is still a computer. And it is still a computer system. It is just missing its RAM.

Once again I'll refer you to your signature and Webster's to get the definition of a computer system and system, respectively. If you remove RAM from the computer the system is inoperable. That doesn't refute my statement: "Systems are designed for specific purpose(s) or role(s).". Why would you design a system that has no RAM, what role is it going to perform other than a paper weight... Oh yeah I already covered that before... it's role is a movie prop, right?

Who are you to decide "Either is incorrect." in regards to what is a computer system? Cite some sources that define a computer system that refute the definitions I've used from a dictionary, not your own opinion.

Why do you get to decide for everyone else what is a computer and what is a computer system? You don't - and I don't either.

You're projecting here, it's you that's trying to force your personal definition of what words mean onto others instead by totally rejecting definitions straight from a dictionary. Go ahead and find a technical or other reputable "professional" source that refutes the definition I provided.

My computer system includes my surround sound computer speakers. Quality audio reproduction and music is a big part of my life so I consider those speakers an integral part of my computer system. So if my sound card fails and I no longer have audio, do I no longer have a computer (or computer "system")? Of course I still have a computer.

What you have now is a computer system that can serve at least one less role, a partially broken computer system if you will, but so long as it can fulfill any role of a computer it is still a computer system, just not the system it was designed to be. Maybe you'll do without those speakers forever or maybe you'll replace them, doesn't matter, it's still a computer system.


When you quote "system", just understand that you're quoting the OP's language, not something I've added:

In a custom built system, which part do you think defines system the most?

P.S.: Please start citing sources of definitions instead of your own opinion if you wish to refute Webster's. If you can cite some then maybe you can change my mind, which hopefully is your goal of online disagreements, and not to shitpost/troll.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I say again,

I say this thread has exhausted its purpose and it is time to move on.

So that is what I am doing. Have a good day.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Oh baby, shhh.
Don't tell my main wife about this.
Let us have an affair.... mmmm yeah...

Kissy kissy...kisses....

Oh face. Oh face!!!

 

[OkieDan]

I say again,

So that is what I am doing. Have a good day.

Probably a good idea, you could google all day and not find a reputable source to refute the definition of a system or computer system as I've provided.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Well let's see, Webster's defines "specific" as: "constituting or falling into a specifiable category ", and you and I both have specified there is a "general [use|purpose]" category, so I would say Webster's agrees with me.

Also, my original statement was "Systems are designed for specific purpose(s) or role(s)", plural, which, given the correct roles, would allow for the design of a general purpose. If you design a system to fill the role of web surfing, watching YT, getting on social media, doing light office work, you've designed a system with multiple roles or for multiple purposes. I would typically refer to this collection of purposes/roles as a general use/purpose PC, but that system was still designed to serve those multiple purposes. I would not refer to it as general purpose if there were other intended purposes such use for gaming or workstation workloads.



You should take the advice in your signature and look up "computer system", and remember I stated what a system is DESIGNED for not whether or not it's a system when a part breaks. It's definitely not a hodge-podge of parts that together nets you a non-functioning system. When a part breaks it's either a broken system (because it can't perform any role as a computer) or a system that performs fewer roles because a non-critical part failed and it can still operate to perform other roles.

What you're trying to do here by saying: "stick with how those in the profession define them" is use of another logical fallacy, this time it's an "Argument From Authority" that is of your own opinion nonetheless. Why don't you quote a technical source (hell any reliable source) that defines a "computer system" that doesn't agree with the definition I've provided?



"Everyday access", as I was referring to it, was to say it would fit in the same category of "general use". See above regarding "purpose(s) or role(s)".


Once again I'll refer you to your signature and Webster's to get the definition of a computer system and system, respectively. If you remove RAM from the computer the system is inoperable. That doesn't refute my statement: "Systems are designed for specific purpose(s) or role(s).". Why would you design a system that has no RAM, what role is it going to perform other than a paper weight... Oh yeah I already covered that before... it's role is a movie prop, right?

Who are you to decide "Either is incorrect." in regards to what is a computer system? Cite some sources that define a computer system that refute the definitions I've used from a dictionary, not your own opinion.


You're projecting here, it's you that's trying to force your personal definition of what words mean onto others instead by totally rejecting definitions straight from a dictionary. Go ahead and find a technical or other reputable "professional" source that refutes the definition I provided.


What you have now is a computer system that can serve at least one less role, a partially broken computer system if you will, but so long as it can fulfill any role of a computer it is still a computer system, just not the system it was designed to be. Maybe you'll do without those speakers forever or maybe you'll replace them, doesn't matter, it's still a computer system.


When you quote "system", just understand that you're quoting the OP's language, not something I've added:




P.S.: Please start citing sources of definitions instead of your own opinion if you wish to refute Webster's. If you can cite some then maybe you can change my mind, which hopefully is your goal of online disagreements, and not to shitpost/troll.

Stop it your out Bill ING Bill

 

[Shrek]

In a custom built system, which part do you think defines system the most? For example If I have an Asus case, MSI gpu, Corsair PSU and a Gigabyte motherboard, which brand could be considered as the system brand?

In my opinion the CPU; I have an Intel Core 2 Quad machine.

 

[freeagent]

Nope, you're all wrong...

Its the RGB

 

[natr0n]

Monitor otherwise you can't see shit.

If you say head less you should get kicked in the balls.

 

[P4-630]

Monitor otherwise you can't see shit.

But without a PC you can't see shit either on that monitor...

Chicken or egg...

 

[natr0n]

But without a PC you can't see shit either on that monitor...

Chicken or egg...

aio screens / smart tvs

this can go on forever

 

[OkieDan]

If you say head less you should get kicked in the balls.

Kicked in the balls for not getting head is a lose/lose situation.

 

[R-T-B]

But without a PC you can't see shit either on that monitor...

Chicken or egg...

What if I hook my printer up for a console out?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Identity? I think a computer's identity is a totally different topic/discussion.

Not at all. Defining a thing involves identifying that thing. It's one and the same conversation.

For me, I identify my computers by their primary function (or location) - not brand name, motherboard, or major component.

But that's you. That is not everyone else.

This computer I am using is "my computer". That's how I identify it. When the wife said, "my computer", I knew she meant her computer, not mine.

"My laptop" is how I identify my laptop. The spare computer in the guest bedroom is my old "my computer" but it now is the "guest computer".

Ok what about people who have more than one example of each? I have 3 laptops and 5 desktops currently. "My laptop" would not be very helpful. "My computer" is likewise very unhelpful to those around me. My wife has two phones and three tablets. Again, your classification system works for you, not necessarily everyone else.

My truck's name is "truck".

My truck is named Titan. Granted, that also happens to be it's model.

@lexluthermiester - see what I mean about some being so (too?) passionate?

Oh yeah, absolutely. And there's not a thing wrong with it.

I say this thread has exhausted its purpose and it is time to move on.

Oh? Just because you're done, doesn't mean everyone else is.

So that is what I am doing. Have a good day.

That's ok then.
.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Not at all. Defining a thing involves identifying that thing. It's one and the same conversation.

I kinda sorta agree. And yes, that is me - which is why I said, "for me" and previously said anyone can call it whatever they want. But then that goes with your next point. About folks having multiple laptops and PCs. I mentioned I ID my computers by function or location. So as mentioned, 3 of my PCs are "my computer", "guest room computer", and "basement computer". When I had 2 laptops, one was the Toshiba and the other MSI - that is, by their manufacturers name because that was easy and because I built the PCs so their brand names (my company name) would be the same. When I had two phones, both Samsungs, one was the "work cell" and the other was "my cell" (even though I owned both since "the work" was my company.

Either way, I did not call them my "Intel" computer or my "AMD" computer, or my "GeForce" or "Radeon" computers.

My truck is named Titan.

LOL - Not Nissy or Datson? I admit, Titan is a good name for a truck. "F150" just doesn't have the same ring to it! "Ol' Blue" would be fitting - maybe if I lived on a farm.

Oh yeah, absolutely. And there's not a thing wrong with it.

I agree - unless such passion leads to closed minds and personal affronts against others with a different view. That's what I was alluding to as that happens way to often here at TPU. You express a different point of view on a technical topic from Joe then suddenly Joe lashes out with personal insults and accusations that you are disparaging his manhood, parents and intelligence.

Oh? Just because you're done, doesn't mean everyone else is.

True - but when the same folks come back to simply repeat themselves (often clear they have not read through the thread) continuing the discussion seems pointless - to me.

The OPs questions (note the "s") about "custom PCs" have been answered - repeatedly.

Q1 - Which hardware "defines the PC" the most?​

A1 - There are logical, technical reasons why the motherboard "defines the PC". It is called a "mother" or "main" board for a reason. Motherboard makers maintain QVLs for that reason. Software licenses are tied to the motherboard for that reason. You can legally swap out any component but the motherboard, and it is still considered (for licensing purposes) the same computer. Replacing the motherboard for any reason (other than to replace a failed motherboard, with an identical or equivalent board, as part of the repair process) constitutes a new computer.​

​

Now some may have a different opinion about that - but A1 is not an opinion. Those are just the technical facts.​

​

However,​

Q2 - Which brand could be considered as the system "brand"?​

A2 - It has been made clear throughout, by you, me and others, that when it comes to "custom-built" PCs, that we, as the owners can, and do and have every right to call (ID) those computers anything we wish. If we want to call them by the CPU brand, we can. If we want to call them by the GPU brand, we can. By case brand? Case badge? Location? Function? Personal company? Pet name? Doesn't matter. We can.​

 

[OkieDan]

A1 - There are logical, technical reasons why the motherboard "defines the PC".

Were you quoting someone?

It is called a "mother" or "main" board for a reason.

The CPU is most commonly called the "heart of the computer" and "brains of the computer", the real technical reasons the CPU is the part that defines a system*.
You can check that with Google: "heart of the computer" site:.edu "brains of the computer" site:.edu

* I still maintain no single part truly "defines a system" as you can't have a system without all the critical parts working together. There could be a part or two that really contributes more than all other components towards achieving the role the system was built for though, such as faster framerate in a game that is CPU and GPU heavy or used for gaming and workstation purposes.

Motherboard makers maintain QVLs for that reason.

The MBD QVL doesn't define what RAM I can use, it's just what the MFG has tested. I'd argue, for most MBDs, there are more kits that are compatible that aren't on the QVL than kits that are on the QVL.

MBD MFGs do have a CPU compatibility list of course, but the existence of that list isn't in any way evidence that the MBD defines a system. A CPU compatibility list exists solely to determine compatibility between a MBD and CPU. If for some reason you select a MBD for a build first, the list determines which CPUs you can choose from. If you select a CPU first, the the list simply let's you know if the MBD is compatible with the CPU.

Who chooses a MBD first and only afterwards then finds a compatible CPU and RAM?
Maybe this is where personal opinions start to differ:
1) It's possible for a guy that builds systems for a living often has a list of MBDs they like to work with and use in their builds at given price points. When a customer tells the builder what purposes they intend to use their PC for and give a budget, the builder already has a board in mind that will fit that budget and will go from there.
2) For people building a system for themselves, they often watch reviews and try to get an idea on which CPU they want and then they might watch/read reviews on MBDs that support that CPU to make sure the MBD has features they want and a small portion might watch/read a review over MBD VRMs. If they're a gamer, they will likely watch reviews on the GPU as well.

Let's say a person has decided that a 5600x and a 6500 xt is the best CPU/GPU for a build, given a user's needs. Those parts would tell us we should go for an AM4 MBD with a bios that supports Zen3 and due to the 6500xt having only 4 PCIe lanes, the MBD should support PCIe gen 4 to get the most from the GPU. So it's not the MBD defining the rest of the system, it's the other parts defining which MBD we should get... but in all actuality, it's the purpose the PC is being built to serve is what defines a PC system and parts used to build it.

Software licenses are tied to the motherboard for that reason. You can legally swap out any component but the motherboard, and it is still considered (for licensing purposes) the same computer. Replacing the motherboard for any reason (other than to replace a failed motherboard, with an identical or equivalent board, as part of the repair process) constitutes a new computer.

What parts any particular software looks to for licensing only defines what the license ties to, it doesn't define a PC, that's ridiculous to use this as evidence of what part defines a PC. Not that it matters but MS looking to the MBD for OEM licensing reasons makes a lot of sense given that large OEM licenses are stored in the BIOS and replacing an HP/Dell/Lenovo/etc.. MBD with same OEM MBD when it fails doesn't in any way void an OEM license. OEM licensing is cheaper so the OEM license is more stringent. If you're using a retail license you can change the MBD to any different model or brand and simply reactivate it LEGALLY, MS will even tell you how to reactivate:

When installing Windows 10, the digital license associates itself with your device's hardware. If you make significant hardware changes on your device, such as replacing your motherboard, Windows will no longer find a license that matches your device, and you’ll need to reactivate Windows to get it up and running.

Now some may have a different opinion about that - but A1 is not an opinion. Those are just the technical facts.

The only opinions you listed as "technical facts" are "QVL" and "MS Software licensing" which have both been debunked.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The CPU may very well be the heart, but it is not soul.

And no, QVLs and MS Software licensing has not been debunked. You illustrated this yourself by explaining how, with OEM licenses, you need a new license if you upgrade the board. Yet you don't if you upgrade the CPU, (including boot drive) or any other component. There is no reason for that if the motherboard didn't define the computer in term of licensing.

The rest is just you arguing semantics. Time to move on.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
I knew he couldn't resist and would return