Printable View
Well... kinda... just thinking of what I should get....
I was thinking of something in the area of P4 3ghz, which came out in the paper today, in a system for about 3 grand.
Anyway, price range is between 1000 and 1500.
Any recommendations on what parts I should look for/buy. I'm not sure if I'll go for prebuilt or a custom system as yet.
Anyways, main purpose will be gaming, video, and vb. Not much 3D gaming... but ...
Anyways... thanks in advance. :D
quick tip - if you want to keep costs down, don't get the latest processor (eg: above 2500Mhz). The price rises dramatically the faster the processor - it can soon cost more than the rest of the system put together! :eek:
Don't even bother on the 3 Ghz..waste of money for performance you dont and wont use.
You do want to get a really good video card and plenty of memory for the video and gaming. With that you can get by even with a 1 to 2 Ghz processor and be perfectly happy.
Pound for pound AMD is a better buy.
cheaper than intel for same perf.
Ya, the 3GHz machine probably is overkill on a home machine.
Hell, I'm still running a PII 400MHz and have no complaints.
My 1.2 machine at work boots up faster, but that's the only
difference I've seen yet.
Put up for a decent graphics card and I don't think you'll have too many games that will
crap out... course I"m still playing starcraft, so if that's any indication.
Return to Wolfenstein looks good on my piddly 400 with a radeon 32DDR card.
You'll probably notice more by paying attention to the bus and memory speed. (stick with ddr by the way)
That's all I have to say about it.
Yeah, AMD is better. Also, getting more memory will help increase performance more. If you have like 256mb on an AMD 1600+ it's performance is better than 128 on an AMD 1800+ (Tested it myself)
AMD is NOT better.
A p4 2.4 w/533 FSB is $181.00
256 MB PC1066 RDRAM $103.50(samsung)
a AMD 2400+(1.92 GHz) w/266 FSB is $178.00
256 MB PC2100 DDR $68.87(Micron Crucial)
And you wouldn't have to buy PC1066, but your price/performance ratio is very decent.
The p4 will beat the amd, with the pc1066 ram.
And the memry bandwidth is double that of the AMD.
103.5/68.87 ~ 1.5
So you pay 1.5x more, but gets 2x performance.
Good deal isn't it.
I agree don't bother with the top CPUs, and probably get a good video card. Also I just got an LCD; I wasn't too sure at first but I really love it now. It's real clear, and look at a CRT there's a huge bulge in them! All these years I've never noticed :p So I'd say get one of them if you can. I only paid £200 for this one, but it seems pretty good.
but i want to be able to predict the weather four years in the future... lmao
i'll probably wait until the 'current' clockspeed is 5ghz before i buy the 3ghz... i'm still on 800mhz (and it seems to run faster than the 1.6ghz i use at work)
Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
Don't even bother on the 3 Ghz..waste of money for performance you dont and wont use.
You do want to get a really good video card and plenty of memory for the video and gaming. With that you can get by even with a 1 to 2 Ghz processor and be perfectly happy.
Same here - I have an 800MHx PIII and it's fast enough for me. How much quicker do I need Mozilla to open? ;)
Totally disagree ! All your prices are wrong to start with.. and you cannot compare AMD's with Intel's P4's.Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
AMD is NOT better.
A p4 2.4 w/533 FSB is $181.00
256 MB PC1066 RDRAM $103.50(samsung)
a AMD 2400+(1.92 GHz) w/266 FSB is $178.00
256 MB PC2100 DDR $68.87(Micron Crucial)
The p4 will beat the amd, with the pc1066 ram.
So you pay 1.5x more, but gets 2x performance.
Good deal isn't it.
AMD's XP range 1600+ upto currently 2600+ are fitted with QuantiSpeed architecture. This basically means, an AMD 1.7Ghz processor will do the same of work (data per clock cycle) as a P4 2100Mhz, hence AMD Athlon XP 2100 (1.733Ghz).
Pentium 4's upto the 2.8Ghz mark are bare of any changes. The new 3.0Ghz P4 has been fitted with HT Technology (Hyper Threading), which is Intel's version of Quantispeed. Very few users would see any difference between a Pentium 4 2000Mhz and an AMD XP 2000+ (which is 1633Mhz). Less data clock cycles means less heat, which in turn means better cooling, performance, reliability & lastability.
I sell both Pentium and AMD processors, but until i see some major difference between these two main rivals, i'll be pushing AMD. For the price and specification... they cannot be beaten.
As for the memory aspect...
RD is being phased out anyway... which is why the latest MB's are fitted with Dual Channel DDR support, with speeds curently reaching 400 on Single Channel. (PC3200).
Hope that solves any issues, and keep a look out for AMD's new TerraHertz processor (1000,000Mhz / 1Thz) coming soon, which BTW... Intel haven't got a clue on how they have done it! lol
Regards,
Paul.
Point taken, however to have 256MB of RAM you would need 2 128MB sticks, that'd be about $144. Continue?Quote:
256 MB PC1066 RDRAM $103.50(samsung)
256MB PC2700 DDR is $72. That's exactly what 128MB of PC1066 RDRAM costs. So you get twice the RAM for the same money.Quote:
a AMD 2400+(1.92 GHz) w/266 FSB is $178.00
256 MB PC2100 DDR $68.87(Micron Crucial)
And?
Wrong. As usual.Quote:
And the memry bandwidth is double that of the AMD.
103.5/68.87 ~ 1.5
PC2700 RAM would achieve a THEORETICAL 2.7GB/sec of memory bandwidth. Since RDRAM uses a 16-bit data bus, single-channel PC1066 RDRAM (which is purely theoretical and does not exist) measures in at 2.1GB/sec. If you add dual-channel support you have a theoretical 4.2GB/sec, however, factor in a lot of latency from the dual-channel architecture, and you'll find that it isn't as much faster as it looks on paper. Faster, yes, but not 1.5x faster.
In addition to that, AMD also has a dual-channel architecture.
Maybe, maybe not. The P4 is a pretty good OCer, but on the other hand, so is the AMD. 2.4Ghz is easily achievable with the XP2400, and if you reduce the multiplier and raise the FSB, you can get 200Mhz FSB (400Mhz effective) with a little luck, and blow away any Pentium 4 at 2.4Ghz/400Mhz DDR.Quote:
The p4 will beat the amd
P4s have a quad-pumped FSB but it only really matters with RDRAM. If you're on DDR, there's nothing that will use the 533Mhz FSB.
So you pay $325 for the P4 combo, and $250 for the AMD combo, and maybe you get 5% in either direction with the systems.
While I agree with the rest of what you said, that is false. HyperThreading gives the system two theoretical processors, it helps in some applications, while in others it does absolutely nothing.Quote:
Originally posted by VisionIT
The new 3.0Ghz P4 has been fitted with HT Technology (Hyper Threading), which is Intel's version of Quantispeed.
QuantiSpeed increases the number of instructions per clock cycle that the CPU can process.
i don't even bother with P4 vs. AMD comparisons any more. I just take it as a rule of thumb that AMD will give me the best price/performance ratio.
and it does
always.
now lets wait for Athlon 64 to eat Intel alive.
chomp.