Best Mobo/CPU Combo For $200-$250

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I'm putting together a base system tomorrow and could use some advice.
Thanks.
15 answers Last reply
More about best mobo combo
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    mobile 2500 and asus a7n8x-e deluxe would suffice
    "SpicaTC50" <bluesguitar@verizon.com> wrote in message
    news:2k64ptF16pd29U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > I'm putting together a base system tomorrow and could use some advice.
    > Thanks.
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Thanks. Any rec on memory without breaking the bank?

    In article <JulDc.5071$a92.4364@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
    xxrabramson1xx@xxsi.rr.comxx says...
    >
    >mobile 2500 and asus a7n8x-e deluxe would suffice
    >"SpicaTC50" <bluesguitar@verizon.com> wrote in message
    >news:2k64ptF16pd29U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >> I'm putting together a base system tomorrow and could use some advice.
    >> Thanks.
    >>
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Oh come on. Newegg.com has a Athlon64 2800+ & Mobo & FarCry for $223.
    It's time to stop recommending socketA.

    rms
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
    64bit cpu all of them :(


    On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:30:43 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net>
    wrote:

    >Oh come on. Newegg.com has a Athlon64 2800+ & Mobo & FarCry for $223.
    >It's time to stop recommending socketA.
    >
    >rms
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
    > 64bit cpu all of them :(

    So what? the guy is considering the AthlonXP, which the Athlon64 beats
    handily in 32bit. 64bit Windows is a non-issue at the present (and beta)
    time. *But it's there* for the using once a real 64bit Windows is
    available.

    rms
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
    news:ATqDc.8074$Pt.660@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    > > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
    > > 64bit cpu all of them :(
    >
    > So what? the guy is considering the AthlonXP, which the Athlon64
    beats
    > handily in 32bit. 64bit Windows is a non-issue at the present (and beta)
    > time. *But it's there* for the using once a real 64bit Windows is
    > available.
    >
    > rms

    the A64's are more expensive
    Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
    no known issues.
    Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY and try to keep end users from
    buying it (this could be an issue to many people). If you think it's BS
    then tell me where I can buy the XP Media Center Os.

    What was suggested would cost the op 100$, and that'll let them get an extra
    100$ in ram, or more towards a nice video card (in other words, the system
    might just be faster than what they could buy in the a64 range)..

    I am not saying we should stick with socket A but I do think it's good kit
    for most people out there.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    > Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
    > no known issues.

    You are forgetting that PR ratings are not the same for Athlon64 vs XP.
    An Athlon64 2800+ is probably about equal to a XP3200+ in 32bit. And you
    can overclock Athlon64 just as easily as the XP on any of the newer boards.

    > Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY

    Why would they do this?

    rms
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Well ill stick with SocketA for a while, and upgrade to the newer
    mobile cpus :), well thats if AMD release them, 2800,3000,3200 ?

    Ill go 64bit when a OS is their and APPS and games take advantage of
    it, just like the 16 to 32 bit conversion.

    Oh well the times are a changing.


    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:56:00 +0100, "rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
    >news:ATqDc.8074$Pt.660@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    >> > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
    >> > 64bit cpu all of them :(
    >>
    >> So what? the guy is considering the AthlonXP, which the Athlon64
    >beats
    >> handily in 32bit. 64bit Windows is a non-issue at the present (and beta)
    >> time. *But it's there* for the using once a real 64bit Windows is
    >> available.
    >>
    >> rms
    >
    >the A64's are more expensive
    >Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
    >no known issues.
    >Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY and try to keep end users from
    >buying it (this could be an issue to many people). If you think it's BS
    >then tell me where I can buy the XP Media Center Os.
    >
    >What was suggested would cost the op 100$, and that'll let them get an extra
    >100$ in ram, or more towards a nice video card (in other words, the system
    >might just be faster than what they could buy in the a64 range)..
    >
    >I am not saying we should stick with socket A but I do think it's good kit
    >for most people out there.
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Jake Smith wrote:

    >
    > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
    > 64bit cpu all of them :(
    >

    Hmmm... if you are still running windows... yup. It's slower. However, in
    linux land... things are much faster. Even when running 32bit apps on a
    32bit version of linux ... something like 20% faster.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "> the A64's are more expensive
    > Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
    > no known issues.
    > Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY and try to keep end users
    from
    > buying it (this could be an issue to many people). If you think it's BS
    > then tell me where I can buy the XP Media Center Os.
    >
    > What was suggested would cost the op 100$, and that'll let them get an
    extra
    > 100$ in ram, or more towards a nice video card (in other words, the system
    > might just be faster than what they could buy in the a64 range)..
    >
    > I am not saying we should stick with socket A but I do think it's good kit
    > for most people out there.

    Not much more expensive & the A64 runs great, much cooler then a XP chip...
    I tried the XP-64 windows, work great & it is much faster, but better
    drivers are needed.
    much like XP when it started beta, drivers were the main problem...
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Jake Smith" <paulm@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:gvrsd09bs9q8e03eosrvc78sgjlgqvv0q8@4ax.com...
    >
    > Does that mean it will only install on a dell and like with specific
    > hardware ?
    >
    > >> Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY

    Bit hard getting a Dell with a AMD Athlon 64 CPU
    as they don't sell AMD system ;)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Isn't Linux a nightmare to set up?
    "Jerry McBride" <mcbrides9@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:7ai3r1xk4i.ln2@spinner.my.domain...
    > Jake Smith wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
    > > 64bit cpu all of them :(
    > >
    >
    > Hmmm... if you are still running windows... yup. It's slower. However, in
    > linux land... things are much faster. Even when running 32bit apps on a
    > 32bit version of linux ... something like 20% faster.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
    news:AHpEc.2081$7t3.1279@attbi_s51...
    > Isn't Linux a nightmare to set up?

    No, it depends on the installer (OS, not the person) and/or the users
    experience.

    I've used a few different types:-

    Red Hat, Yellow Dog and Mandrake installed very easily because of their
    installers.

    OpenBSD and another, BSD derivative I think, were much more difficult
    because quite a lot of it had to be installed manually.

    The configuration of the base machine does have an impact on the
    installation, the less memory it has the more you have to do manually.
    Another consideration that has an effect is the use that installation will
    be put to. The various Linux versions I used were for something to replace
    Windoze so I wanted a GUI and various office apps, etc.

    There are lots of variations of Linux out there so you really have to do
    your homework before you make a choice, eg whether you want a full blown on
    or a cut down one to run an internet firewall/ICS sharer.

    Dave
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    SpicaTC50 wrote:
    > "With AMD releasing their Athlon 64 bit desktop processors, one of the
    > issues in upgrading or buying a new computer is "will I need a 64 bit
    > processor." For most people the answer is not until the later part of
    > this decade.
    [...]
    > So unless you
    > are a high level gamer, run high-level scientific or content creation
    > applications, or run Macs you should wait on getting a 64 bit
    > processor computer.

    However, this doesn't really apply to the A64 case (yet). There's a lot more
    to the A64's than just AMD64, and until Sempron comes out (and maybe not
    even then, depending what Sempron has for a core) there's no way to get an
    A64 without AMD64. Yes, most people probably don't need a 64-bit CPU, but
    given that is comes along free with the other architectual benefits of an
    A64 it doesn't mean that you shouldn't buy an A64. AMD64 is sorta a mild
    plus, instead of a requirement. Ie: you shouldn't "wait on getting a 64-bit
    processor", but nor should you not buy a P4 or XP because it's not 64-bit.

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Travis King wrote:

    > Isn't Linux a nightmare to set up?
    > "Jerry McBride" <mcbrides9@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:7ai3r1xk4i.ln2@spinner.my.domain...
    >> Jake Smith wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
    >> > 64bit cpu all of them :(
    >> >
    >>
    >> Hmmm... if you are still running windows... yup. It's slower. However, in
    >> linux land... things are much faster. Even when running 32bit apps on a
    >> 32bit version of linux ... something like 20% faster.

    Uhhh... like windows is easy?


    --

    ******************************************************************************
    Registered Linux User Number 185956
    FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
    Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
    Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
    8:25pm up 71 days, 23:07, 7 users, load average: 0.10, 0.14, 0.10
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Overclocking Hardware CPUs