[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]My understanding of one of the reasons why transfer rates weren't any faster is most PCIe graphics cards now days run a brdige from PCIe to AGP internally.
Now I saw a review of a PCIe native nVidia top end graphics card (whatever their numbre was) a couple days back. It was interesting benchmarked data. The PCIe native ran slower then the AGP using an AGP to PCIe bridge...really amazing considering it was the same exact card and the AGP was only done using a bridge. Does this indicate that PCIe is actually slower then AGP??
As for SLI, I suspect where it will become the most useful is in 3d rendering in apps that utilize the GPU to do some of the processing.
--RC [/B][/QUOTE]
Only Nvidia's cards use the AGP-PCIe Bridge...ATI is native PCIe....and the ATI cards show no differences.
LIke I said, PCIe is *not* going to do anything for rendering speeds...it is merely the bus that is used to move textures (and to a far lesser extent, geometry) to the card at level load.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]Pity its only socket 754. Thats only going to be able to run the "budget" Athlon 64 chips, and is due to be phased out after a while. I'd go Socket 930 if at all possible. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not my point :)
My point is that come january, for under 200 dollars, you'll have a MB & CPU that kill the P4EE, and are in striking distance of the FX-53.
The 754 to 939 transition is mainly for performance that is realized with FSB1066, of which there are no boads available for sale yet*.
Plus, they will be $$$ by comparison.
The 754 A643500+ will be the best bang for the buck, and, according to the Half-life hardware survey, should put you in the top 2% of the gaming speed bin.
-R.
* By this I mean there are no Athlon64 boards with 1066FSB on store shelves (yet).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]Like I mentioned about that Finnish computer magazine which had photo of one mobo whose maker must had missed fact they don't fit to same mobo and made it working.
So here's more.
..... [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I heard about that board...they apparently tried to add the "bridge" circuity into the MB to allow you to extend your AGP card out untill you feel like buying a PCIe card.
Also heard it had lots of problems. :/
Apparently VIA tried to make a chipset to do this, but last I heard they gave up on it due to the problems with the bridge design. Maybe they didn't, from the looks of this.
Unfortunately, it's made by ECS, which has a rather poor quality record when it comes to boards :/
If I buy from cyberpowersystem.com before 12 PM PST, I get 5% off. If anyone has a better site for me to go to for buying computers (not computer parts I have to put together -- I don't trust myself enough for that), let me know.
Anyway, this is what I've come up with based on some of the advice you've all given me (thanks).
Note: There was no option for the 754 pin 3500+, though I hear the 3400+ is good, too. Also, should I be worried that the GeForce is from a company called XFX?
Plastic GAzelle Mid-Tower Cases w/ 400Watt Power Supply
(939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 3500+ Processor
(939-pin) ASUS A8V DELUXE VIA K8T800 MAINBOARD
2GB (1GBx2) PC3200 DDR400 Memory (Corsair_XMS)
MAXTOR 200GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA 150 8MB CACHE HARD DRIVE
NVIDIA GF 6800 GT 256MB 8XAGP
PIONEER DVR-108 DUAL FORMAT 16X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER
Creative Labs SB Audigy-2 ZS 7.1
Windows XP Pro
Some random stuff that doesn't show up in the spec summary
$2110.00 - 5% = $2005
I can save $33 by replacing the motherboard with this: GigaByte GA-K8NS ULTRA-939 nForce3 Chipset AGP8X w/LAN,USB2,IEEE,&Audio. I'm not sure what the difference between the two is besides cost.
I can save another $379 by going with just 1 GB of RAM instead of 2 GB. (Will I notice the $379 difference?)
And I can save another $189 by going down to an NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB. This would depend on the difference another 128 MB of RAM makes.
That wold bring the total cost down to $1509 - 5% = $1434.
So that would save me quite a bit for a future upgrade, like when Athlon 64s get boards suppporting FSB1066 and PCIe makes a significant difference for gaming.
Or, I can just upgrade the CPU to a (939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 4000+ with 1MB L2 CACHE for $490, bringing the total cost to $1999 - 5% = $1899. It depends on what will make more of a difference, the extra RAM or the better processor.
Hmm. An AMD ATHLON64 4000+ with 1 GB of RAM and the 6800 GT for $2079 is starting to sound very attractive.
With the demise of Sierra, I've already placed by order for Half-Life 2 Collectors Edition from gogamer.com (along with Alice). When I can find a copy of World of Warcraft's CE, I plan on buying that, too. And eventually Vampre: Bloodlines, maybe Rome: Total War if I have the time, and TES: Oblivion. I'd like to play them all without any problems.
#1 Plastic case. To some its a non-issue, to others your case is the home for your system. Anodized Aluminium cases dissapate heat around 8X faster than stainless steel and plastic cases. With those system specs, your gonna run hot. hot = bad
#2 More power (insert best Tim Allen Impression here). 400W for that! You gotta be fucking kidding me? How long do they expect it to run? Gonna need a bigger power supply if you dont want to have problems later on. Keep in mind, they probably go with a bargain power supply unless spefically stated, and they dont normally hold up well when time/heat catch up to them. A year old 400W power supply may be reduced to 320W and that is NOT going to cut it for a system like that.
#3 Does this system come with a monitor? Keyboard, mouse? or are you paying 2 grand for a large paperweight? Just curious.
#4 Warranty? If your gonna pay that much, it needs to a good one.
This is really why I like to build my rigs. I know exactly whats in it, and exactly what Im really getting.
anyway, if you decide to do it, go with the 939 pin AMD64, you will be much happier with the speed without the requirement of registered RAM. Either way though, you shouldnt have a problem playing any of those games with that kind of setup.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]400W for that! You gotta be fucking kidding me? How long do they expect it to run? Gonna need a bigger power supply if you dont want to have problems later on.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well... not exactly, you just have to make sure those are real watts intstead of marketing watts.
Also there's big differences in protections.
When some "Tsing Tsang Tsong" decides to break up it can damage pretty much whole machine at the same time.
Few years ago Antec had some failure prone PSUs but they didn't break other components when they broke.
Well, I guess I won't be getting that 5% discount.
I can replace the Maxtor hard drive with a Western Digital 200GB 7200RPM ATA 100 8MB Special Editon for $2 more.
The case and power supply I will change. An Aluminium case that doesn't look retarded (but still seems to sport a neon light) reduces the cost by $66, but the new power supply, either a THERMALTAKE 480WATT or a ULTRA X-Connect 500W ATX PS w/2 80mm Fans increases the cost by $79. (Though the ULTRA-X has a $30 mail-in rebate). I'm assuming the Termaltake power supply is more expensive per watt because it's just built better and is more reliable; but correct me if I'm wrong.
The system comes with a keyboard and an Intellimouse Explorer. No monitor. I already have two I can use. There's also rounded cables, a firewire card, and free copies of Far Cry and Battlefield 1942 (as long as I stay with AMD and nVidia). Three year limited warranty with lifetime tech support.
Thermaltake does make quality power supplies, and they are usually fairly dependable. X-connect is fairly new in the whole power supply market as far as I know, I have seen their products advertised recently in Maximum PC, but I have yet to see a review.
The idea is good, a power supply with cables that connect and disconnect to keep fewer cables running through your system. They also all appear to be wrapped, which looks good. But again, I cant say anything on the quality or life expectancy.
Alright, I guess I'll hold off on the power supply till I have more time to find a review for it or something. Though if that doesn't work out I'll just go with the Thermaltake.
Now, what's a better option:
1) Athlon 64 4000+ with 1 MB L2 Cache and 1 GB RAM
or
2) Athlon 64 3500+ with 512 KB L2 Cache and 2 GB RAM ($111 less than 1)
or, if I'm pressed for cash
3) Athlon 64 3500+ with 512 KB L2 Cache and 1 GB RAM ($379 less than 2)
Option 1 is more expensive than Option 2 by $111, though that is bearable if the performance increase is worth it. Also, for another $64, I can upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX55.
Option 3, I'm sure, will deliver more than decent performance, at $490 less than Option 1. But I can't help but worry over it's staying power for 4 or so years.
Also, with my plan to upgrade to another motherboard once someone comes out with an AMD one that supports FSB1066, and PCIe provides a significant gain in performance for games, I'm going with the GT 6600 over the GT 6800 for now. If this is a bad idea, let me know why.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]Well... I wouldn't recommend Maxtor for anyone. [/B][/QUOTE]
MT: No offense to ET, but ignore this advice. [b]Everyone[/b] has a hard drive maker they think is horrible and unreliable, and you'll find just as many people hating each maker. Go back to the HDD thread from a couple of months ago and you'll see what I mean. I myself have used Maxtor, Fujitsu, IBM and Seagate drives, all without any problems. Just because a company had problems a few years ago, doesn't mean their current drives are bad. The best way to buy a hard drive is to read online reviews of the current drives, and make your decisions based on that.
I wouldn't keep reviews as ultimate truth... or do you think they use months to test how long drives work? I think they can pretty much find only those which are DOA. (Dead on arrival)
Check here... they require registration but it's well worth of those few minutes what it takes.
[url]http://storagereview.com/map/lm.cgi/survey_login[/url]
Just over month ago I went to one "neighbour" (2 km distance) to check why their PC didn't boot... It was just Maxtor which had become dumb, even if you got BIOS to detect it by shutting power completely it didn't go further than that.
My cousin had two Maxtors breaking up in row, after that he changed to WD.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MT [/i]
[B]Option 3, I'm sure, will deliver more than decent performance, at $490 less than Option 1. But I can't help but worry over it's staying power for 4 or so years.[/B][/QUOTE]I would keep CPU as part which will be bottleneck after some years.
At least currently and next couple years 1GB of RAM is enough if you don't do video editing or something like that. Remember that 512MB has just come as standard amount of it.
For example I bought five years ago new CPU, mobo, RAMs and HD to upgrade my PC and there were PCs for sale in this year still with same amount of memory. (256MB which I bought with 1400 FMK, half year later it would have cost 4500 FMKs so you could talk about very good timing)
Any one of those 3 choices is good for a processor/RAM setup.
Applications such as gaming will make use of the larger on die cache (at least some will) of the AMD64 4000+.
The extra RAM in your 3500/2gb combo almost seems excessive. I have 1GB of RAM in mine, and I have no problems running any application. I honestly cant see where the extra gigabyte would come in handy, unless you do more lightwave apps than I do, or any other large number crunching.
May I ask exactly when you plan on upgrading the motherboard? As soon as? Or a few months after? Or even a year after? If you have already made up your mind to upgrade the motherboard (which is a big step for someone that doesnt want to build his own for fear he will screw it up), then Id go with as little options as possible for now, and just get the system running.
Also, what AMD slot are we looking at on these motherboards, because if its not 939, then dont expect to be upgrading to a new motherboard without buying a new processor too. The 939 will be the slot of the future for all AMD64/FX processors.
By the way, the FX is the processor more geared twords gamers at this point.
It is also worth mentioning, Windows XP is a fairly finicky program. For example, if you do plan on upgrading your motherboard, be prepared to make a phone call to Microsoft. If your operating system registers a 70%(i think) change in system hardware, or if the motherboard is changed, WinXP thinks its installed a new system and will require you to re-register/authorize it, or it will shut itself down on you. For uber geeks like me that are constantly upgrading my computer, I have exceeded the 5 changes limit on this version of my operating system. Every time I do a major change now, I have to call microsoft. They dont hassell me or give me trouble about it, I tell them who I am and what I am doing and they give the command string to clear out the authorization screen. Unfortunately though, it is a fact of life, and you need to be made aware of it. This computer has a lot of life left in it, and when I do build my new machine, this will be relegated to lighter duties in wifes office, where I doubt any major new parts will be added.
By the way, I dont think you realize this, but the 1066mhz bus is an intel thing not an AMD thing. Technically the AMD 64 has integrated its FSB into the core which means your bus speed, is core speed. So the AMD 64 FX-55 that runs at 2.66Ghz, has a 2.66Ghz fsb!
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]I wouldn't keep reviews as ultimate truth... [/B][/QUOTE]
Neither would I, but neither would I not buy a hard drive from one manufacturer based on the advice of someone else. A specific model yes, but not just "Maxtor" or "Seagate" entirely. The problem with that is that if you then follow that anecdotal advice from everyone, you can't buy a hard drive from anyone. :) I'm not saying don't listen to the advice of others, just make sure that advice is a bit more precise.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Technically the AMD 64 has integrated its FSB into the core which means your bus speed, is core speed. So the AMD 64 FX-55 that runs at 2.66Ghz, has a 2.66Ghz fsb! [/B][/QUOTE]It isn't FSB which is integrated into core, it's north bridge/memory controller.
And talking about cores, I think that biggest difference between A64's using socket 754 and socket 939 is later having double channel memory controller while former has only one channel controller. (meaning doubled memory data transfer rate)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]Gigabit... That's not so much, I have eight of them in my PC. [/B][/QUOTE] :eek: :eek: :eek: Care to share?? :D
Ok, no 2 GB setup. I was thinking it would come in handy if I ever got into video editing -- but I guess when I have the budget for that, I'll have the money for more RAM. And my University gives us Power Books for that, anyway, (and my Game Design Class) which only come with a gig of RAM. That leaves option 1 and option 3.
The AMDs I'm looking at are both 939s.
For the hard drive, I'll try to find and read reviews for the two I'm looking at. But for now, due to the majority of advice going against Maxtors, one comment being made on how they were made, I'll stick with the Western Digital. It's only $2 more. Though, since there is no product description for the Maxtor at cybersystem.com, I don't know what difference that ATA 150 is supposed to have over ATA 100. I'm guessing it has something to do with data transfer speed, but I'm no expert on such things.
And I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in terms of the future of AMD, which it may not even be addressing:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]The 754 to 939 transition is mainly for performance that is realized with FSB1066, of which there are no boads available for sale yet*.
[...]
* By this I mean there are no Athlon64 boards with 1066FSB on store shelves (yet). [/B][/QUOTE]
So ignore whatever it is I've been saying about it, unless I made sense. In that case, please explain it to me.
...Unless E.T has already done that, which I suspect he has.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MT [/i]
[B]I don't know what difference that ATA 150 is supposed to have over ATA 100. I'm guessing it has something to do with data transfer speed, but I'm no expert on such things.[/B][/QUOTE]It should read SATA in former.
While later is normal IDE, in today also known as PATA.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]I wouldn't keep reviews as ultimate truth... or do you think they use months to test how long drives work? I think they can pretty much find only those which are DOA. (Dead on arrival)
Check here... they require registration but it's well worth of those few minutes what it takes.
[url]http://storagereview.com/map/lm.cgi/survey_login[/url][/b][/quote]
heh, you actually registered? Get Mozilla or FireFox and then [url=http://bugmenot.mozdev.org/]install this[/url]. ;)
[quote][b]Just over month ago I went to one "neighbour" (2 km distance) to check why their PC didn't boot... It was just Maxtor which had become dumb, even if you got BIOS to detect it by shutting power completely it didn't go further than that.
My cousin had two Maxtors breaking up in row, after that he changed to WD. [/B][/QUOTE]
Funny, out of five drives from WD, only one has survived. (all from the "Caviar" line) I've been running nothing but Maxtor, IBM (before they sold their HD line to Hitachi), and Quantum (which IMO made the BEST drives PERIOD) drives since then without incident. Now, I'm not too fond of WD because of that, but not a single one of those drives were larger than 10GB, so I'm not going to say they're all bad because 4/5 of their products failed to survive longer than a year. Every manufactuer has a bad batch every now and then.
For the record, the Maxtors that are currently in use are two 40 giggers, and a 160 gigger (all with 8MB cache). The IBM is the infamous "Deathstar" 45GB 75GXP which has YET to die on me. (because unlike SOME people, I know how to properly ventilate my case) Lastly, the Quantum is a little 170MB drive thats been running constantly for the last 15 years without a problem.
The WD drives that croaked were the 3.2GB, 6.4GB (2x), and 10.2GB respectively with the surviving drive being a refirb when I RMA'd the 10 gigger. The only thing I did to those drives was just casual gaming, and the occasional bit of rendering in 3dsmax.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]heh, you actually registered?...[/B][/QUOTE]
Couple years ago, after that I've submitted four different Seagates to their database.
(and think I'll stick with Seagate when buying next drive... all their latest models are one of the most reliable drives)
Check site for reliability of newer models of Maxtor, those can't be said too good.
I agree that most PCs are sold with damn crappy small cases.
Personally I wouldn't keep even one HD without cooling althought one HD might stay in safe temperatures without own fan in case with well designed route of airflow.
If you're interested... I currently have three HDs in my PC.
[QUOTE][B]Lastly, the Quantum is a little 170MB drive thats been running constantly for the last 15 years without a problem.[/B][/QUOTE]
Kind a reminds me about one phrase.:D
But that old HDs doesn't produce much heat compared to current drives.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rhett [/i]
[B]Just never bother to read that carefully anymore I guess- need to break that habit :) [/B][/QUOTE]
In technical issues even the place of point has meaning.
MT, if you want to play it safe you might want to consider this case:
[url=http://www.coolermaster.com/index.php?LT=english&Language_s=2&url_place=product&p_serial=STC-T01&other_title=STC-T01CM%20Stacker]Cooler Master Stacker[/url]
It can be converted to BTX if that standard somehow manages to take markets from ATX in coming years.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]MT, if you want to play it safe you might want to consider this case:
[url=http://www.coolermaster.com/index.php?LT=english&Language_s=2&url_place=product&p_serial=STC-T01&other_title=STC-T01CM%20Stacker]Cooler Master Stacker[/url]
It can be converted to BTX if that standard somehow manages to take markets from ATX in coming years. [/B][/QUOTE]
By the way, the FX is the processor more geared twords gamers at this point.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'd re-write that to read "[i]marketed[/i] to gamers" instead ;)
Most of the processor shootouts in regards to the 64FX or P4EE show negligable benefits from the enhanced die-side cache....FX does offer more over the standard 64 than the EE does over the P4's, but, again, look at the numbers.
Anandtech and Toms both have excellent CPU scaling guides (usually tied to the latest CPU-intensive games like HL2 or D3).
AMDzone posted one today [url=http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=88&page=1]here[/url].
(A#; BTW-- I take back my CPU scaling comment on half-Life 2-- I was incorrect --D'oh!)
Comments
[B]My understanding of one of the reasons why transfer rates weren't any faster is most PCIe graphics cards now days run a brdige from PCIe to AGP internally.
Now I saw a review of a PCIe native nVidia top end graphics card (whatever their numbre was) a couple days back. It was interesting benchmarked data. The PCIe native ran slower then the AGP using an AGP to PCIe bridge...really amazing considering it was the same exact card and the AGP was only done using a bridge. Does this indicate that PCIe is actually slower then AGP??
As for SLI, I suspect where it will become the most useful is in 3d rendering in apps that utilize the GPU to do some of the processing.
--RC [/B][/QUOTE]
Only Nvidia's cards use the AGP-PCIe Bridge...ATI is native PCIe....and the ATI cards show no differences.
LIke I said, PCIe is *not* going to do anything for rendering speeds...it is merely the bus that is used to move textures (and to a far lesser extent, geometry) to the card at level load.
-R.
[B]Pity its only socket 754. Thats only going to be able to run the "budget" Athlon 64 chips, and is due to be phased out after a while. I'd go Socket 930 if at all possible. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not my point :)
My point is that come january, for under 200 dollars, you'll have a MB & CPU that kill the P4EE, and are in striking distance of the FX-53.
The 754 to 939 transition is mainly for performance that is realized with FSB1066, of which there are no boads available for sale yet*.
Plus, they will be $$$ by comparison.
The 754 A643500+ will be the best bang for the buck, and, according to the Half-life hardware survey, should put you in the top 2% of the gaming speed bin.
-R.
* By this I mean there are no Athlon64 boards with 1066FSB on store shelves (yet).
[B]Like I mentioned about that Finnish computer magazine which had photo of one mobo whose maker must had missed fact they don't fit to same mobo and made it working.
So here's more.
..... [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I heard about that board...they apparently tried to add the "bridge" circuity into the MB to allow you to extend your AGP card out untill you feel like buying a PCIe card.
Also heard it had lots of problems. :/
Apparently VIA tried to make a chipset to do this, but last I heard they gave up on it due to the problems with the bridge design. Maybe they didn't, from the looks of this.
Unfortunately, it's made by ECS, which has a rather poor quality record when it comes to boards :/
-R.
If I buy from cyberpowersystem.com before 12 PM PST, I get 5% off. If anyone has a better site for me to go to for buying computers (not computer parts I have to put together -- I don't trust myself enough for that), let me know.
Anyway, this is what I've come up with based on some of the advice you've all given me (thanks).
Note: There was no option for the 754 pin 3500+, though I hear the 3400+ is good, too. Also, should I be worried that the GeForce is from a company called XFX?
Plastic GAzelle Mid-Tower Cases w/ 400Watt Power Supply
(939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 3500+ Processor
(939-pin) ASUS A8V DELUXE VIA K8T800 MAINBOARD
2GB (1GBx2) PC3200 DDR400 Memory (Corsair_XMS)
MAXTOR 200GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA 150 8MB CACHE HARD DRIVE
NVIDIA GF 6800 GT 256MB 8XAGP
PIONEER DVR-108 DUAL FORMAT 16X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER
Creative Labs SB Audigy-2 ZS 7.1
Windows XP Pro
Some random stuff that doesn't show up in the spec summary
$2110.00 - 5% = $2005
I can save $33 by replacing the motherboard with this: GigaByte GA-K8NS ULTRA-939 nForce3 Chipset AGP8X w/LAN,USB2,IEEE,&Audio. I'm not sure what the difference between the two is besides cost.
I can save another $379 by going with just 1 GB of RAM instead of 2 GB. (Will I notice the $379 difference?)
And I can save another $189 by going down to an NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB. This would depend on the difference another 128 MB of RAM makes.
That wold bring the total cost down to $1509 - 5% = $1434.
So that would save me quite a bit for a future upgrade, like when Athlon 64s get boards suppporting FSB1066 and PCIe makes a significant difference for gaming.
Or, I can just upgrade the CPU to a (939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 4000+ with 1MB L2 CACHE for $490, bringing the total cost to $1999 - 5% = $1899. It depends on what will make more of a difference, the extra RAM or the better processor.
Hmm. An AMD ATHLON64 4000+ with 1 GB of RAM and the 6800 GT for $2079 is starting to sound very attractive.
With the demise of Sierra, I've already placed by order for Half-Life 2 Collectors Edition from gogamer.com (along with Alice). When I can find a copy of World of Warcraft's CE, I plan on buying that, too. And eventually Vampre: Bloodlines, maybe Rome: Total War if I have the time, and TES: Oblivion. I'd like to play them all without any problems.
#2 More power (insert best Tim Allen Impression here). 400W for that! You gotta be fucking kidding me? How long do they expect it to run? Gonna need a bigger power supply if you dont want to have problems later on. Keep in mind, they probably go with a bargain power supply unless spefically stated, and they dont normally hold up well when time/heat catch up to them. A year old 400W power supply may be reduced to 320W and that is NOT going to cut it for a system like that.
#3 Does this system come with a monitor? Keyboard, mouse? or are you paying 2 grand for a large paperweight? Just curious.
#4 Warranty? If your gonna pay that much, it needs to a good one.
This is really why I like to build my rigs. I know exactly whats in it, and exactly what Im really getting.
anyway, if you decide to do it, go with the 939 pin AMD64, you will be much happier with the speed without the requirement of registered RAM. Either way though, you shouldnt have a problem playing any of those games with that kind of setup.
[B]400W for that! You gotta be fucking kidding me? How long do they expect it to run? Gonna need a bigger power supply if you dont want to have problems later on.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well... not exactly, you just have to make sure those are real watts intstead of marketing watts.
Also there's big differences in protections.
When some "Tsing Tsang Tsong" decides to break up it can damage pretty much whole machine at the same time.
Few years ago Antec had some failure prone PSUs but they didn't break other components when they broke.
I can replace the Maxtor hard drive with a Western Digital 200GB 7200RPM ATA 100 8MB Special Editon for $2 more.
The case and power supply I will change. An Aluminium case that doesn't look retarded (but still seems to sport a neon light) reduces the cost by $66, but the new power supply, either a THERMALTAKE 480WATT or a ULTRA X-Connect 500W ATX PS w/2 80mm Fans increases the cost by $79. (Though the ULTRA-X has a $30 mail-in rebate). I'm assuming the Termaltake power supply is more expensive per watt because it's just built better and is more reliable; but correct me if I'm wrong.
The system comes with a keyboard and an Intellimouse Explorer. No monitor. I already have two I can use. There's also rounded cables, a firewire card, and free copies of Far Cry and Battlefield 1942 (as long as I stay with AMD and nVidia). Three year limited warranty with lifetime tech support.
The idea is good, a power supply with cables that connect and disconnect to keep fewer cables running through your system. They also all appear to be wrapped, which looks good. But again, I cant say anything on the quality or life expectancy.
Now, what's a better option:
1) Athlon 64 4000+ with 1 MB L2 Cache and 1 GB RAM
or
2) Athlon 64 3500+ with 512 KB L2 Cache and 2 GB RAM ($111 less than 1)
or, if I'm pressed for cash
3) Athlon 64 3500+ with 512 KB L2 Cache and 1 GB RAM ($379 less than 2)
Option 1 is more expensive than Option 2 by $111, though that is bearable if the performance increase is worth it. Also, for another $64, I can upgrade to an Athlon 64 FX55.
Option 3, I'm sure, will deliver more than decent performance, at $490 less than Option 1. But I can't help but worry over it's staying power for 4 or so years.
Also, with my plan to upgrade to another motherboard once someone comes out with an AMD one that supports FSB1066, and PCIe provides a significant gain in performance for games, I'm going with the GT 6600 over the GT 6800 for now. If this is a bad idea, let me know why.
[B]Well... I wouldn't recommend Maxtor for anyone. [/B][/QUOTE]
MT: No offense to ET, but ignore this advice. [b]Everyone[/b] has a hard drive maker they think is horrible and unreliable, and you'll find just as many people hating each maker. Go back to the HDD thread from a couple of months ago and you'll see what I mean. I myself have used Maxtor, Fujitsu, IBM and Seagate drives, all without any problems. Just because a company had problems a few years ago, doesn't mean their current drives are bad. The best way to buy a hard drive is to read online reviews of the current drives, and make your decisions based on that.
Check here... they require registration but it's well worth of those few minutes what it takes.
[url]http://storagereview.com/map/lm.cgi/survey_login[/url]
Just over month ago I went to one "neighbour" (2 km distance) to check why their PC didn't boot... It was just Maxtor which had become dumb, even if you got BIOS to detect it by shutting power completely it didn't go further than that.
My cousin had two Maxtors breaking up in row, after that he changed to WD.
[B]Option 3, I'm sure, will deliver more than decent performance, at $490 less than Option 1. But I can't help but worry over it's staying power for 4 or so years.[/B][/QUOTE]I would keep CPU as part which will be bottleneck after some years.
At least currently and next couple years 1GB of RAM is enough if you don't do video editing or something like that. Remember that 512MB has just come as standard amount of it.
For example I bought five years ago new CPU, mobo, RAMs and HD to upgrade my PC and there were PCs for sale in this year still with same amount of memory. (256MB which I bought with 1400 FMK, half year later it would have cost 4500 FMKs so you could talk about very good timing)
Applications such as gaming will make use of the larger on die cache (at least some will) of the AMD64 4000+.
The extra RAM in your 3500/2gb combo almost seems excessive. I have 1GB of RAM in mine, and I have no problems running any application. I honestly cant see where the extra gigabyte would come in handy, unless you do more lightwave apps than I do, or any other large number crunching.
May I ask exactly when you plan on upgrading the motherboard? As soon as? Or a few months after? Or even a year after? If you have already made up your mind to upgrade the motherboard (which is a big step for someone that doesnt want to build his own for fear he will screw it up), then Id go with as little options as possible for now, and just get the system running.
Also, what AMD slot are we looking at on these motherboards, because if its not 939, then dont expect to be upgrading to a new motherboard without buying a new processor too. The 939 will be the slot of the future for all AMD64/FX processors.
By the way, the FX is the processor more geared twords gamers at this point.
It is also worth mentioning, Windows XP is a fairly finicky program. For example, if you do plan on upgrading your motherboard, be prepared to make a phone call to Microsoft. If your operating system registers a 70%(i think) change in system hardware, or if the motherboard is changed, WinXP thinks its installed a new system and will require you to re-register/authorize it, or it will shut itself down on you. For uber geeks like me that are constantly upgrading my computer, I have exceeded the 5 changes limit on this version of my operating system. Every time I do a major change now, I have to call microsoft. They dont hassell me or give me trouble about it, I tell them who I am and what I am doing and they give the command string to clear out the authorization screen. Unfortunately though, it is a fact of life, and you need to be made aware of it. This computer has a lot of life left in it, and when I do build my new machine, this will be relegated to lighter duties in wifes office, where I doubt any major new parts will be added.
By the way, I dont think you realize this, but the 1066mhz bus is an intel thing not an AMD thing. Technically the AMD 64 has integrated its FSB into the core which means your bus speed, is core speed. So the AMD 64 FX-55 that runs at 2.66Ghz, has a 2.66Ghz fsb!
[B]I wouldn't keep reviews as ultimate truth... [/B][/QUOTE]
Neither would I, but neither would I not buy a hard drive from one manufacturer based on the advice of someone else. A specific model yes, but not just "Maxtor" or "Seagate" entirely. The problem with that is that if you then follow that anecdotal advice from everyone, you can't buy a hard drive from anyone. :) I'm not saying don't listen to the advice of others, just make sure that advice is a bit more precise.
[B]Technically the AMD 64 has integrated its FSB into the core which means your bus speed, is core speed. So the AMD 64 FX-55 that runs at 2.66Ghz, has a 2.66Ghz fsb! [/B][/QUOTE]It isn't FSB which is integrated into core, it's north bridge/memory controller.
And talking about cores, I think that biggest difference between A64's using socket 754 and socket 939 is later having double channel memory controller while former has only one channel controller. (meaning doubled memory data transfer rate)
1.25 Gb RAM and Lightwave!
Yummmm!
:D
[B]1.25 Gb RAM...[/B][/QUOTE]
Gigabit... That's not so much, I have eight of them in my PC.
[B]Gigabit... That's not so much, I have eight of them in my PC. [/B][/QUOTE] :eek: :eek: :eek: Care to share?? :D
Details... details...
The AMDs I'm looking at are both 939s.
For the hard drive, I'll try to find and read reviews for the two I'm looking at. But for now, due to the majority of advice going against Maxtors, one comment being made on how they were made, I'll stick with the Western Digital. It's only $2 more. Though, since there is no product description for the Maxtor at cybersystem.com, I don't know what difference that ATA 150 is supposed to have over ATA 100. I'm guessing it has something to do with data transfer speed, but I'm no expert on such things.
And I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in terms of the future of AMD, which it may not even be addressing:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]The 754 to 939 transition is mainly for performance that is realized with FSB1066, of which there are no boads available for sale yet*.
[...]
* By this I mean there are no Athlon64 boards with 1066FSB on store shelves (yet). [/B][/QUOTE]
So ignore whatever it is I've been saying about it, unless I made sense. In that case, please explain it to me.
...Unless E.T has already done that, which I suspect he has.
[B]I don't know what difference that ATA 150 is supposed to have over ATA 100. I'm guessing it has something to do with data transfer speed, but I'm no expert on such things.[/B][/QUOTE]It should read SATA in former.
While later is normal IDE, in today also known as PATA.
[B]Gigabit... That's not so much, I have eight of them in my PC. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah yeah ok, I meant GigaByte... :p
Rhett didn't get it... :D
[B]I wouldn't keep reviews as ultimate truth... or do you think they use months to test how long drives work? I think they can pretty much find only those which are DOA. (Dead on arrival)
Check here... they require registration but it's well worth of those few minutes what it takes.
[url]http://storagereview.com/map/lm.cgi/survey_login[/url][/b][/quote]
heh, you actually registered? Get Mozilla or FireFox and then [url=http://bugmenot.mozdev.org/]install this[/url]. ;)
[quote][b]Just over month ago I went to one "neighbour" (2 km distance) to check why their PC didn't boot... It was just Maxtor which had become dumb, even if you got BIOS to detect it by shutting power completely it didn't go further than that.
My cousin had two Maxtors breaking up in row, after that he changed to WD. [/B][/QUOTE]
Funny, out of five drives from WD, only one has survived. (all from the "Caviar" line) I've been running nothing but Maxtor, IBM (before they sold their HD line to Hitachi), and Quantum (which IMO made the BEST drives PERIOD) drives since then without incident. Now, I'm not too fond of WD because of that, but not a single one of those drives were larger than 10GB, so I'm not going to say they're all bad because 4/5 of their products failed to survive longer than a year. Every manufactuer has a bad batch every now and then.
For the record, the Maxtors that are currently in use are two 40 giggers, and a 160 gigger (all with 8MB cache). The IBM is the infamous "Deathstar" 45GB 75GXP which has YET to die on me. (because unlike SOME people, I know how to properly ventilate my case) Lastly, the Quantum is a little 170MB drive thats been running constantly for the last 15 years without a problem.
The WD drives that croaked were the 3.2GB, 6.4GB (2x), and 10.2GB respectively with the surviving drive being a refirb when I RMA'd the 10 gigger. The only thing I did to those drives was just casual gaming, and the occasional bit of rendering in 3dsmax.
rhett: 8 bits = 1 byte dummy. ;)
[B]Yeah yeah ok, I meant GigaByte... :p
Rhett didn't get it... :D [/B][/QUOTE]
Haha well I dont mind being the local idiot for this thread :D Just never bother to read that carefully anymore I guess- need to break that habit :)
[B]heh, you actually registered?...[/B][/QUOTE]
Couple years ago, after that I've submitted four different Seagates to their database.
(and think I'll stick with Seagate when buying next drive... all their latest models are one of the most reliable drives)
Check site for reliability of newer models of Maxtor, those can't be said too good.
I agree that most PCs are sold with damn crappy small cases.
Personally I wouldn't keep even one HD without cooling althought one HD might stay in safe temperatures without own fan in case with well designed route of airflow.
If you're interested... I currently have three HDs in my PC.
[QUOTE][B]Lastly, the Quantum is a little 170MB drive thats been running constantly for the last 15 years without a problem.[/B][/QUOTE]
Kind a reminds me about one phrase.:D
But that old HDs doesn't produce much heat compared to current drives.
[B]Just never bother to read that carefully anymore I guess- need to break that habit :) [/B][/QUOTE]
In technical issues even the place of point has meaning.
[url=http://www.coolermaster.com/index.php?LT=english&Language_s=2&url_place=product&p_serial=STC-T01&other_title=STC-T01CM%20Stacker]Cooler Master Stacker[/url]
It can be converted to BTX if that standard somehow manages to take markets from ATX in coming years.
[B]MT, if you want to play it safe you might want to consider this case:
[url=http://www.coolermaster.com/index.php?LT=english&Language_s=2&url_place=product&p_serial=STC-T01&other_title=STC-T01CM%20Stacker]Cooler Master Stacker[/url]
It can be converted to BTX if that standard somehow manages to take markets from ATX in coming years. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's a spiffy lookin' case there...
:)
[B]
By the way, the FX is the processor more geared twords gamers at this point.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'd re-write that to read "[i]marketed[/i] to gamers" instead ;)
Most of the processor shootouts in regards to the 64FX or P4EE show negligable benefits from the enhanced die-side cache....FX does offer more over the standard 64 than the EE does over the P4's, but, again, look at the numbers.
Anandtech and Toms both have excellent CPU scaling guides (usually tied to the latest CPU-intensive games like HL2 or D3).
AMDzone posted one today [url=http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=88&page=1]here[/url].
(A#; BTW-- I take back my CPU scaling comment on half-Life 2-- I was incorrect --D'oh!)
-R.