Custom Computer Build

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Danny, Aug 31, 2003.

  1. Danny

    Danny Guest

    Hey guys,
    I've decided to go with this P4 build instead of Athlon, because the
    CPU I picked is less than the 3200 XP, and outpreforms it with 800 MHz
    FSB. Everyone tell me what they think. Also, could you tell my if
    all my stuff is compatable? Thanks.

    -Processor---------------------------------------------------------------
    [x] Intel Pentium 4 (3.00GHz, 512KB, 800MHz, Socket 478)
    $392.00

    -Hard Drive--------------------------------------------------------------
    [x] Western Digital Enterprise Serial ATA Hard Drive WD Raptor
    $169.99
    [slave] Western Digital 120 GB 8 MB Cache - 7200 RPM Ultra ATA/100
    $129.99

    -Mother Board------------------------------------------------------------
    [x] ASUS Model# P4C800-E DELUXE 800Mhz FSB $190.00


    -Case--------------------------------------------------------------------
    [x] Antec Preformance II SX1040BII $119.00

    -Ram---------------------------------------------------------------------
    [ ] Kingston 1GB Kit HyperX DDR 333MHz DIMM CL2 (x2 512MB)
    $240.00
    [x] Kingston 1GB Kit HyperX DDR 466MHz DIMM CL3 (x2 512MB)
    $338.00

    -Video Card--------------------------------------------------------------
    [ ] ??????????????????????????????

    -Sound Card--------------------------------------------------------------
    [ ] CREATIVE Soundblaster Audigy Gamer $79.99

    -Speakers----------------------------------------------------------------
    [x] Creative Inspire™ 4.1 4400 $50-$100

    -Keyboard and Mouse------------------------------------------------------
    [x] Logitech® Cordless MX™ Duo
    $99.95

    -CD-ROM Drive------------------------------------------------------------
    [ ] ?????????????????????????????

    -Floppy Drive------------------------------------------------------------
    [ ] ?????????????????????????????

    -Cooling-----------------------------------------------------------------
    [ ] ?????????????????????????????

    As you can all tell, I also need help on deciding a good video card
    (within reasonable price range of $150-$250), CD-ROM drive, Floppy
    drive, and cooling units (such as fans and hd coolers).
     
    Danny, Aug 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Danny

    rAD Guest

    > [x] Intel Pentium 4 (3.00GHz, 512KB, 800MHz, Socket 478)
    > $392.00


    Yikes! Oh well. I once spent $300 for 8MBs of RAM
     
    rAD, Aug 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Danny

    Firebird81 Guest

    Go with a Radeon 9600 for your price range, but really it would seem kinda
    funny to put a mid-range card in a high end system.
     
    Firebird81, Aug 31, 2003
    #3
  4. Danny

    Greg Rice Guest

    What are you going to be using the computer for?

    I wouldn't scrimp on the video/audio if you're going to be doing any gaming,
    audio playing/editing, video/editing. These are your eyes and ears to what's
    going on in everything else.

    "Danny" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hey guys,
    > I've decided to go with this P4 build instead of Athlon, because the
    > CPU I picked is less than the 3200 XP, and outpreforms it with 800 MHz
    > FSB. Everyone tell me what they think. Also, could you tell my if
    > all my stuff is compatable? Thanks.
    >
    > -Processor---------------------------------------------------------------
    > [x] Intel Pentium 4 (3.00GHz, 512KB, 800MHz, Socket 478)
    > $392.00
    >
    > -Hard Drive--------------------------------------------------------------
    > [x] Western Digital Enterprise Serial ATA Hard Drive WD Raptor
    > $169.99
    > [slave] Western Digital 120 GB 8 MB Cache - 7200 RPM Ultra ATA/100
    > $129.99
    >
    > -Mother Board------------------------------------------------------------
    > [x] ASUS Model# P4C800-E DELUXE 800Mhz FSB $190.00
    >
    >
    > -Case--------------------------------------------------------------------
    > [x] Antec Preformance II SX1040BII $119.00
    >
    > -Ram---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > [ ] Kingston 1GB Kit HyperX DDR 333MHz DIMM CL2 (x2 512MB)
    > $240.00
    > [x] Kingston 1GB Kit HyperX DDR 466MHz DIMM CL3 (x2 512MB)
    > $338.00
    >
    > -Video Card--------------------------------------------------------------
    > [ ] ??????????????????????????????
    >
    > -Sound Card--------------------------------------------------------------
    > [ ] CREATIVE Soundblaster Audigy Gamer $79.99
    >
    > -Speakers----------------------------------------------------------------
    > [x] Creative InspireT 4.1 4400 $50-$100
    >
    > -Keyboard and Mouse------------------------------------------------------
    > [x] Logitech® Cordless MXT Duo
    > $99.95
    >
    > -CD-ROM Drive------------------------------------------------------------
    > [ ] ?????????????????????????????
    >
    > -Floppy Drive------------------------------------------------------------
    > [ ] ?????????????????????????????
    >
    > -Cooling-----------------------------------------------------------------
    > [ ] ?????????????????????????????
    >
    > As you can all tell, I also need help on deciding a good video card
    > (within reasonable price range of $150-$250), CD-ROM drive, Floppy
    > drive, and cooling units (such as fans and hd coolers).



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003
     
    Greg Rice, Aug 31, 2003
    #4
  5. Danny

    JAD Guest

    funny to put a mid-range card in a high end system.

    agreed
    and one of the reasons of building ones own system, is to upgrade proof yourself, for a little while anyway. Yes?

    "Firebird81" <> wrote in message news:k5s4b.3391$...
    > Go with a Radeon 9600 for your price range, but really it would seem kinda
    > >

    >
     
    JAD, Aug 31, 2003
    #5
  6. Danny

    Ancra Guest

    On 31 Aug 2003 11:27:04 -0700, (Danny)
    wrote:

    >Hey guys,
    >I've decided to go with this P4 build instead of Athlon, because the
    >CPU I picked is less than the 3200 XP, and outpreforms it with 800 MHz
    >FSB. Everyone tell me what they think. Also, could you tell my if
    >all my stuff is compatable? Thanks.
    >
    >-Processor---------------------------------------------------------------
    > [x] Intel Pentium 4 (3.00GHz, 512KB, 800MHz, Socket 478)
    >$392.00


    SNIP

    >As you can all tell, I also need help on deciding a good video card
    >(within reasonable price range of $150-$250), CD-ROM drive, Floppy
    >drive, and cooling units (such as fans and hd coolers).


    "Everyone tell me what they think"
    - Well, I think you have an awfully expensive CPU there, and is
    looking to finance it with a "reasonable price" video card.
    (That's easy: ATI Radeon 9600, 9600pro. And FX5600, FX5600ultra.)
    - But why?

    Lets stop for a while and consider what you're going to use your
    machine for. Your spec is optimal for mpeg&videoencoding. That's about
    it, period.

    Much better balance for games&mpeg&video is 2.8GH@800FSB (which I
    think you can get for $260) and Radeon 9800nonpro (approx $250).
    That's cpu + graphics for about $510, compared to your planned
    $542-$642, with performance about equal to your $642 alternative.
    Even better game performance for your money then, is mainly achieved
    by upping video, up to FX5900ultra, not by upping cpu.

    (Stick to the 9600pro, and you get away with $430. And odds may be, by
    the time you start feeling limits, it's time for a new generation
    videocard anyway?)

    To repeat my main message: Maxing out game performance above 2.4GHz,
    is not mainly achieved by putting lots of money into the cpu.
    Differences between 2.8 and 3.2 are small. The FX5900 and ATI 9800 are
    a world apart from everything else as videocards. It makes better
    sense to use $100 to $200 to up your video instead.

    *******
    You also claimed the 3.0@800FSB outperforms the Athlon XP3200???
    Well, I can only assume your main interest is in video & media, and
    that you have visited anandtech's pages after pages of SSE2-optimized
    Mpeg encoding benchmarks, that they for some reason, offers for
    "comparisions".
    - The P4 excels at mediacontent! It does well on all simple chains of
    monotoneous, nonconditional instructions, thanks to its clockrate. But
    it does even better with SSE2. It's also a good choice for games,
    where the 2.8-3.2@800 often have a tiny edge on XP2800-XP3200.
    At least as long as the AI is not too complex. (Interesting
    observasion: Most games benchmarks do not include impact from complex
    AI.)

    Other sides of life are, - that on general applications benchmarks,
    the 3.0GHz@800 is no more than a match for the XP2200+ (that's where
    the "+" comes in. ;)). The Athlon also packs a very mean '87 FPU,
    which together with its excellent branchhandling (and the P4's
    terrible branchhandling) means that on traditional '386-'87 apps,
    about every single Athlon XP still in production, beats the top 3.2GHz
    Intel P4.

    Question is, if that's relevant for you? Are those kinds of tasks the
    ones that bogs you down, and you have to wait on? My guess is, that's
    not the case. One has to remember, that even at conditions where the
    P4 is performing poorly, its screaming GHz still drags it along at
    speeds comparable to a theoretical 1500HHz-2000MHz Pentium III.
    Most home users probably have media content as their bottlenecks, with
    games as the really performance critical app. Between mouseclicks, the
    P4's 'poor' general performance is mostly not noticed. The things you
    usually have to wait for in graphics&media, are the ones the P4 does
    well (provided you have a P4-optimized app). So the P4 makes some kind
    of sense for people with lots of money to burn.
    (Me, personally. I'm not in that cathegory. I'm in the
    supercomputer-need cathegory, with multi hour calculations, so I'm
    really pissed tired of my P4's. Never again. I'm really happy with my
    XP3000+!)

    (Mind you, the Athlons are no sloths, even on media, and XP1700-XP2800
    are beyond_terrific value. Chr**, you get the XP2500 for 90 bucks! If
    I wasn't waiting for the A64, my old slow P4's (1.5/PC100, 2.4/PC2100)
    would get heart&lung transplants today.)


    ancra
     
    Ancra, Sep 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Danny

    Night_Seer Guest

    I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz FSB. I am
    building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo editing
    (Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?

    --
    Night_Seer
    "Ancra" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 31 Aug 2003 11:27:04 -0700, (Danny)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Hey guys,
    > >I've decided to go with this P4 build instead of Athlon, because the
    > >CPU I picked is less than the 3200 XP, and outpreforms it with 800 MHz
    > >FSB. Everyone tell me what they think. Also, could you tell my if
    > >all my stuff is compatable? Thanks.
    > >
    > >-Processor---------------------------------------------------------------
    > > [x] Intel Pentium 4 (3.00GHz, 512KB, 800MHz, Socket 478)
    > >$392.00

    >
    > SNIP
    >
    > >As you can all tell, I also need help on deciding a good video card
    > >(within reasonable price range of $150-$250), CD-ROM drive, Floppy
    > >drive, and cooling units (such as fans and hd coolers).

    >
    > "Everyone tell me what they think"
    > - Well, I think you have an awfully expensive CPU there, and is
    > looking to finance it with a "reasonable price" video card.
    > (That's easy: ATI Radeon 9600, 9600pro. And FX5600, FX5600ultra.)
    > - But why?
    >
    > Lets stop for a while and consider what you're going to use your
    > machine for. Your spec is optimal for mpeg&videoencoding. That's about
    > it, period.
    >
    > Much better balance for games&mpeg&video is 2.8GH@800FSB (which I
    > think you can get for $260) and Radeon 9800nonpro (approx $250).
    > That's cpu + graphics for about $510, compared to your planned
    > $542-$642, with performance about equal to your $642 alternative.
    > Even better game performance for your money then, is mainly achieved
    > by upping video, up to FX5900ultra, not by upping cpu.
    >
    > (Stick to the 9600pro, and you get away with $430. And odds may be, by
    > the time you start feeling limits, it's time for a new generation
    > videocard anyway?)
    >
    > To repeat my main message: Maxing out game performance above 2.4GHz,
    > is not mainly achieved by putting lots of money into the cpu.
    > Differences between 2.8 and 3.2 are small. The FX5900 and ATI 9800 are
    > a world apart from everything else as videocards. It makes better
    > sense to use $100 to $200 to up your video instead.
    >
    > *******
    > You also claimed the 3.0@800FSB outperforms the Athlon XP3200???
    > Well, I can only assume your main interest is in video & media, and
    > that you have visited anandtech's pages after pages of SSE2-optimized
    > Mpeg encoding benchmarks, that they for some reason, offers for
    > "comparisions".
    > - The P4 excels at mediacontent! It does well on all simple chains of
    > monotoneous, nonconditional instructions, thanks to its clockrate. But
    > it does even better with SSE2. It's also a good choice for games,
    > where the 2.8-3.2@800 often have a tiny edge on XP2800-XP3200.
    > At least as long as the AI is not too complex. (Interesting
    > observasion: Most games benchmarks do not include impact from complex
    > AI.)
    >
    > Other sides of life are, - that on general applications benchmarks,
    > the 3.0GHz@800 is no more than a match for the XP2200+ (that's where
    > the "+" comes in. ;)). The Athlon also packs a very mean '87 FPU,
    > which together with its excellent branchhandling (and the P4's
    > terrible branchhandling) means that on traditional '386-'87 apps,
    > about every single Athlon XP still in production, beats the top 3.2GHz
    > Intel P4.
    >
    > Question is, if that's relevant for you? Are those kinds of tasks the
    > ones that bogs you down, and you have to wait on? My guess is, that's
    > not the case. One has to remember, that even at conditions where the
    > P4 is performing poorly, its screaming GHz still drags it along at
    > speeds comparable to a theoretical 1500HHz-2000MHz Pentium III.
    > Most home users probably have media content as their bottlenecks, with
    > games as the really performance critical app. Between mouseclicks, the
    > P4's 'poor' general performance is mostly not noticed. The things you
    > usually have to wait for in graphics&media, are the ones the P4 does
    > well (provided you have a P4-optimized app). So the P4 makes some kind
    > of sense for people with lots of money to burn.
    > (Me, personally. I'm not in that cathegory. I'm in the
    > supercomputer-need cathegory, with multi hour calculations, so I'm
    > really pissed tired of my P4's. Never again. I'm really happy with my
    > XP3000+!)
    >
    > (Mind you, the Athlons are no sloths, even on media, and XP1700-XP2800
    > are beyond_terrific value. Chr**, you get the XP2500 for 90 bucks! If
    > I wasn't waiting for the A64, my old slow P4's (1.5/PC100, 2.4/PC2100)
    > would get heart&lung transplants today.)
    >
    >
    > ancra
     
    Night_Seer, Sep 8, 2003
    #7
  8. Danny

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:zP-
    :

    > I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz FSB. I am
    > building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo editing
    > (Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?


    Probably not. The sweet spot right now is in the mid 2000's, like the
    Athlon XP 2500+ and around there. It won't be as fast, but compare prices
    of the chips as you go up in ratings, and look at the HUGE jump in price
    for a relatively small increase in performance.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Sep 8, 2003
    #8
  9. DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:zP-
    > :
    >
    >
    >>I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz FSB. I am
    >>building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo editing
    >>(Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?

    >
    >
    > Probably not. The sweet spot right now is in the mid 2000's, like the
    > Athlon XP 2500+ and around there. It won't be as fast, but compare prices
    > of the chips as you go up in ratings, and look at the HUGE jump in price
    > for a relatively small increase in performance.


    A shortcoming of this analysis is that it only measures *current*
    cost/performance. Over the long term your costs are frequently minimized
    by minimizing your labor.

    IOW how do you expect your dad's needs to change over the years? If he
    always moves up to the latest version of Photoshop when it comes out
    then you might get another couple of years' use out of the 3000+, and
    putting off your labor of building his next machine for an extra 2 years
    might well be worth the extra current cost.

    Of course it could be a labor of love & then who counts the cost. Or he
    might be the kind that holds on to his current programs until he really
    needs to upgrade in which case the 2500+ would probably last just as
    long as the 3000+ would. Lots of other factors besides the current
    price/performance ratio-but the price/performance ratio is probably the
    only one that strangers are qualified to evaluate.
     
    Calvin Crumrine, Sep 8, 2003
    #9
  10. Danny

    Night_Seer Guest

    "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    news:Xns93F0A9CD675EEWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:zP-
    > :
    >
    > > I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz FSB. I

    am
    > > building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo editing
    > > (Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?

    >
    > Probably not. The sweet spot right now is in the mid 2000's, like the
    > Athlon XP 2500+ and around there. It won't be as fast, but compare prices
    > of the chips as you go up in ratings, and look at the HUGE jump in price
    > for a relatively small increase in performance.


    Actually the 3000+ is 250 bucks right now...that's not too bad IMHO. As
    opposed to almost 500 bucks for the 3200+. He will be using this same
    computer far into the future, so I want it to last that long, and I don't
    think a mid 2000+ is gonna cut it this time. I guess I was asking more
    along the lines of this or an Intel (as far as photo editing is concerned)
    as I think the 3000+ is at the right spot for me right now price and speed
    wise. Also, I'm hoping the regular athlons start dropping in price when the
    new athlons 64's come out. We'll see.

    --
    Night_Seer
     
    Night_Seer, Sep 8, 2003
    #10
  11. Danny

    LeeB18509 Guest

    "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    > news:Xns93F0A9CD675EEWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:zP-
    > > :
    > >
    > > > I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz FSB. I

    > am
    > > > building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo

    editing
    > > > (Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?

    > >
    > > Probably not. The sweet spot right now is in the mid 2000's, like the
    > > Athlon XP 2500+ and around there. It won't be as fast, but compare

    prices
    > > of the chips as you go up in ratings, and look at the HUGE jump in price
    > > for a relatively small increase in performance.

    >
    > Actually the 3000+ is 250 bucks right now...that's not too bad IMHO.

    As
    > opposed to almost 500 bucks for the 3200+. He will be using this same
    > computer far into the future, so I want it to last that long, and I don't
    > think a mid 2000+ is gonna cut it this time. I guess I was asking more
    > along the lines of this or an Intel (as far as photo editing is concerned)
    > as I think the 3000+ is at the right spot for me right now price and speed
    > wise. Also, I'm hoping the regular athlons start dropping in price when

    the
    > new athlons 64's come out. We'll see.
    >
    > --
    > Night_Seer
    >
    >

    A $92 Athlon XP Barton 2500+ easily made to run at 3000+ speeds is the best
    bang for the buck....
     
    LeeB18509, Sep 9, 2003
    #11
  12. Danny

    Michael-NC Guest

    "LeeB18509" <> wrote in message
    news:Qk87b.20198$...
    >
    > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns93F0A9CD675EEWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > > > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:zP-
    > > > :
    > > >
    > > > > I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz FSB.

    I
    > > am
    > > > > building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo

    > editing
    > > > > (Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?
    > > >
    > > > Probably not. The sweet spot right now is in the mid 2000's, like the
    > > > Athlon XP 2500+ and around there. It won't be as fast, but compare

    > prices
    > > > of the chips as you go up in ratings, and look at the HUGE jump in

    price
    > > > for a relatively small increase in performance.

    > >
    > > Actually the 3000+ is 250 bucks right now...that's not too bad IMHO.

    > As
    > > opposed to almost 500 bucks for the 3200+. He will be using this same
    > > computer far into the future, so I want it to last that long, and I

    don't
    > > think a mid 2000+ is gonna cut it this time. I guess I was asking more
    > > along the lines of this or an Intel (as far as photo editing is

    concerned)
    > > as I think the 3000+ is at the right spot for me right now price and

    speed
    > > wise. Also, I'm hoping the regular athlons start dropping in price when

    > the
    > > new athlons 64's come out. We'll see.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Night_Seer
    > >
    > >

    > A $92 Athlon XP Barton 2500+ easily made to run at 3000+ speeds is the

    best
    > bang for the buck....


    There's no guarantee that an overclocked machine will perform correctly. If
    a machine is used for anything other than a test bed for overclocking, one
    should not overclock. This is true for almost all CPU's with very few
    exceptions.

    With the speed of the CPUs' today, overclocking is nothing but an enjoyable
    hobby and not at all necessary for running everyday apps.

    IOW, OC'ing is _not_ a solution, it's a game people play.
     
    Michael-NC, Sep 9, 2003
    #12
  13. Danny

    LeeB18509 Guest

    "Michael-NC" <> wrote in message
    news:26a7b.15810$...
    >
    > "LeeB18509" <> wrote in message
    > news:Qk87b.20198$...
    > >
    > > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    > > > news:Xns93F0A9CD675EEWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > > > > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:zP-
    > > > > :
    > > > >
    > > > > > I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz

    FSB.
    > I
    > > > am
    > > > > > building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo

    > > editing
    > > > > > (Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?
    > > > >
    > > > > Probably not. The sweet spot right now is in the mid 2000's, like

    the
    > > > > Athlon XP 2500+ and around there. It won't be as fast, but compare

    > > prices
    > > > > of the chips as you go up in ratings, and look at the HUGE jump in

    > price
    > > > > for a relatively small increase in performance.
    > > >
    > > > Actually the 3000+ is 250 bucks right now...that's not too bad

    IMHO.
    > > As
    > > > opposed to almost 500 bucks for the 3200+. He will be using this same
    > > > computer far into the future, so I want it to last that long, and I

    > don't
    > > > think a mid 2000+ is gonna cut it this time. I guess I was asking

    more
    > > > along the lines of this or an Intel (as far as photo editing is

    > concerned)
    > > > as I think the 3000+ is at the right spot for me right now price and

    > speed
    > > > wise. Also, I'm hoping the regular athlons start dropping in price

    when
    > > the
    > > > new athlons 64's come out. We'll see.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Night_Seer
    > > >
    > > >

    > > A $92 Athlon XP Barton 2500+ easily made to run at 3000+ speeds is the

    > best
    > > bang for the buck....

    >
    > There's no guarantee that an overclocked machine will perform correctly.

    If
    > a machine is used for anything other than a test bed for overclocking, one
    > should not overclock. This is true for almost all CPU's with very few
    > exceptions.
    >
    > With the speed of the CPUs' today, overclocking is nothing but an

    enjoyable
    > hobby and not at all necessary for running everyday apps.
    >
    > IOW, OC'ing is _not_ a solution, it's a game people play.
    >

    I think of it as more like a game AMD and Intel play, namely selling
    perfectly functional chips "rated" at slower speeds that have no discernable
    difference to their more expensive brethren.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    LeeB18509, Sep 9, 2003
    #13
  14. Danny

    Michael-NC Guest

    "LeeB18509" <> wrote in message
    news:Cba7b.35221$...
    >
    > "Michael-NC" <> wrote in message
    > news:26a7b.15810$...
    > >
    > > "LeeB18509" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Qk87b.20198$...
    > > >
    > > > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    > > > > news:Xns93F0A9CD675EEWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > > > > > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in news:zP-
    > > > > > :
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > I think I am going with an Barton athlon 3000+ with the 400mhz

    > FSB.
    > > I
    > > > > am
    > > > > > > building it for my dad. He mainly works with pictures and photo
    > > > editing
    > > > > > > (Photoshop) is this the best bang for the buck?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Probably not. The sweet spot right now is in the mid 2000's, like

    > the
    > > > > > Athlon XP 2500+ and around there. It won't be as fast, but

    compare
    > > > prices
    > > > > > of the chips as you go up in ratings, and look at the HUGE jump in

    > > price
    > > > > > for a relatively small increase in performance.
    > > > >
    > > > > Actually the 3000+ is 250 bucks right now...that's not too bad

    > IMHO.
    > > > As
    > > > > opposed to almost 500 bucks for the 3200+. He will be using this

    same
    > > > > computer far into the future, so I want it to last that long, and I

    > > don't
    > > > > think a mid 2000+ is gonna cut it this time. I guess I was asking

    > more
    > > > > along the lines of this or an Intel (as far as photo editing is

    > > concerned)
    > > > > as I think the 3000+ is at the right spot for me right now price and

    > > speed
    > > > > wise. Also, I'm hoping the regular athlons start dropping in price

    > when
    > > > the
    > > > > new athlons 64's come out. We'll see.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Night_Seer
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > A $92 Athlon XP Barton 2500+ easily made to run at 3000+ speeds is the

    > > best
    > > > bang for the buck....

    > >
    > > There's no guarantee that an overclocked machine will perform correctly.

    > If
    > > a machine is used for anything other than a test bed for overclocking,

    one
    > > should not overclock. This is true for almost all CPU's with very few
    > > exceptions.
    > >
    > > With the speed of the CPUs' today, overclocking is nothing but an

    > enjoyable
    > > hobby and not at all necessary for running everyday apps.
    > >
    > > IOW, OC'ing is _not_ a solution, it's a game people play.
    > >

    > I think of it as more like a game AMD and Intel play, namely selling
    > perfectly functional chips "rated" at slower speeds that have no

    discernable
    > difference to their more expensive brethren.


    Till you get a corrupted registry, _then_ you can tell the difference. If
    you overclock, you _will_ get a corrupted registry. After all, that's the
    edge of the envelope. Like I said, it's not something for the mainstream,
    it's a specialized avocation.
     
    Michael-NC, Sep 9, 2003
    #14
  15. Danny

    Ancra Guest

    On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:01:00 -0700, "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail
    dot com> wrote:


    snip
    >I guess I was asking more
    >along the lines of this or an Intel (as far as photo editing is concerned)
    >as I think the 3000+ is at the right spot for me right now price and speed
    >wise. Also, I'm hoping the regular athlons start dropping in price when the
    >new athlons 64's come out. We'll see.


    Well, a P4-optimized edition of Photoshop is one of the applications a
    2.8GHz P4 HT @800FSB would do well on. I'm firmly on the Athlon path
    nowdays, but I wouldn't want to hide that from you.

    If you get the XP3000+@400FSB look around for tests on nForce2 400
    mobos like A7N8XX. I haven't seen any myself, but it might be an idea.


    ancra
     
    Ancra, Sep 9, 2003
    #15
  16. Danny

    Night_Seer Guest

    Yeah I was just looking at that...they say the Gigabyte and MSI boards
    are really good (Tom's hardware) but I am skeptical about MSI (mine at home
    is MSI, and have had problems in the past) I hear nothing but good things
    about the asus deluxe, and the 2.0 pcb supports 400mhz fsb out of the box,
    so I think I know what I am going with :).

    --
    Night_Seer
    "Ancra" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:01:00 -0700, "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail
    > dot com> wrote:
    >
    >
    > snip
    > >I guess I was asking more
    > >along the lines of this or an Intel (as far as photo editing is

    concerned)
    > >as I think the 3000+ is at the right spot for me right now price and

    speed
    > >wise. Also, I'm hoping the regular athlons start dropping in price when

    the
    > >new athlons 64's come out. We'll see.

    >
    > Well, a P4-optimized edition of Photoshop is one of the applications a
    > 2.8GHz P4 HT @800FSB would do well on. I'm firmly on the Athlon path
    > nowdays, but I wouldn't want to hide that from you.
    >
    > If you get the XP3000+@400FSB look around for tests on nForce2 400
    > mobos like A7N8XX. I haven't seen any myself, but it might be an idea.
    >
    >
    > ancra
     
    Night_Seer, Sep 9, 2003
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. vvcd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,496
  2. Peleus Polychroniou

    Re: How much to build custom PC?

    Peleus Polychroniou, May 14, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    Peleus Polychroniou
    May 14, 2005
  3. DeMoN LaG

    Re: Custom Computer

    DeMoN LaG, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    807
    Danny
    Aug 30, 2003
  4. draga

    Re: Custom Computer

    draga, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    773
    Danny
    Aug 31, 2003
  5. jimmy

    To build or not to build

    jimmy, Feb 23, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    622
Loading...

Share This Page