Pentium question

[Forrest]

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

I just upgraded my son's machine to a P-4, 3.0 Gig, 775 Prescott with 1 mg.
cache, but could have gotten a 3.2 Gig older style chip with only 512 L-2
cache. Is that the Northwood? Anywhooo .. does the extra cache and newer
design make up for or exceed the .2 Gig of speed that is lost? Which would
you choose? Thanks

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 00:22:05 -0800, "Forrest"
<REMOVETHISrunforrest1@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I just upgraded my son's machine to a P-4, 3.0 Gig, 775 Prescott with 1 mg.
>cache, but could have gotten a 3.2 Gig older style chip with only 512 L-2
>cache. Is that the Northwood?

Yes

>Anywhooo .. does the extra cache and newer
>design make up for or exceed the .2 Gig of speed that is lost? Which would
>you choose? Thanks

No, the 3.2GHz Northwood is even faster than the 3.2GHz
Prescott, let alone the 3.0GHz Prescott. Prescott is
Intel's desperate measure to get another ~18 months out of
their P4 design before going dual-core.

 

[Phisherman]

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

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 00:22:05 -0800, "Forrest"
<REMOVETHISrunforrest1@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I just upgraded my son's machine to a P-4, 3.0 Gig, 775 Prescott with 1 mg.
>cache, but could have gotten a 3.2 Gig older style chip with only 512 L-2
>cache. Is that the Northwood? Anywhooo .. does the extra cache and newer
>design make up for or exceed the .2 Gig of speed that is lost? Which would
>you choose? Thanks
>

Can't say the extra cache makes up for the slower speed. I'd select
the extra cache, but the faster CPU if I played a lot of action games.

 

[rod]

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

Interesting.

which of these processors would be the faster/most reliable for gaming?

3.06 533 w512 and HT
3.0C 800 w512 and HT
3.0E 800 w 1Meg and HT

Thanks

Rod

BTW, I have the 3.06(bout two years old now) and it still seems faster
(quite noticeably in games)the my father in laws 3.0C, pretty much
everything is the same with the exception of the video card, his is the
FX5200 and mine is the Radeon 9700Pro

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:17:31 -0600, "Rod"
<rmarch@cable_removeme_one.net> wrote:

>Interesting.
>
>which of these processors would be the faster/most reliable for gaming?
>
>3.06 533 w512 and HT
>3.0C 800 w512 and HT
>3.0E 800 w 1Meg and HT
>
>Thanks
>
>Rod
>
>BTW, I have the 3.06(bout two years old now) and it still seems faster
>(quite noticeably in games)the my father in laws 3.0C, pretty much
>everything is the same with the exception of the video card, his is the
>FX5200 and mine is the Radeon 9700Pro

The vast majority of the speed difference is the video card.
I'm somewhat amazed that FX5200 cards are being used at all,
as integrated video is good enough for non-3D work and older
cards (leaving the market) are/were as inexpensive as the
FX5200. I've seen them selling for $100 which is madness,
even with 256MB of memory on 'em.

Radeon 9700 Pro would be better for gaming with a 1.4GHz
Celeron than an FX5200 with any P4.

All other things being equal the 3.0C will "usually" be the
faster of the three CPUs. There are a very few areas where
the 3.0E pulls ahead, but too few to make it a realistic
consideration unless one has a specific limited-use of their
system more akin to a workstation than a PC, and know
through benchmarks that their application/version will
benefit.

 

[rod]

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

Thanks for the info Kony,

I suspected the video was part of the difference, didn't realize it was that
much though.

Possibly you could help me with a decision on building a gaming PC for my
son.

Would you spend more money on a 3.0C than the 3.0E processor? I was
planning on picking up the 3.0E since it is a bit cheaper, and being retail
has the heatsink and fan on board. It's 10 bucks more for the Northwood OEM
requiring me to get a good heatsink and fan, say another 20 bucks for that.

As for video cards, is the FX5900 very good? That was going to be my card
of choice, it's really comparable to the rating on the 9700Pro, and it's
almost a 100 less then the 6800. He's only 6 (going on 7) and we play games
like MOH, Call of Duty and quake III over the LAN, so it's not like he's
going to be playing the latest and greatest games.

Again, thanks for your info, BTW, I see the 3.0E includes SSE3, is this not
a concern since the 3.0C doesn't have it?

Rod
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:c2c8t05aj74t29haa0a614gabqbpacu7dm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:17:31 -0600, "Rod"
> <rmarch@cable_removeme_one.net> wrote:
>
>>Interesting.
>>
>>which of these processors would be the faster/most reliable for gaming?
>>
>>3.06 533 w512 and HT
>>3.0C 800 w512 and HT
>>3.0E 800 w 1Meg and HT
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Rod
>>
>>BTW, I have the 3.06(bout two years old now) and it still seems faster
>>(quite noticeably in games)the my father in laws 3.0C, pretty much
>>everything is the same with the exception of the video card, his is the
>>FX5200 and mine is the Radeon 9700Pro
>
> The vast majority of the speed difference is the video card.
> I'm somewhat amazed that FX5200 cards are being used at all,
> as integrated video is good enough for non-3D work and older
> cards (leaving the market) are/were as inexpensive as the
> FX5200. I've seen them selling for $100 which is madness,
> even with 256MB of memory on 'em.
>
> Radeon 9700 Pro would be better for gaming with a 1.4GHz
> Celeron than an FX5200 with any P4.
>
> All other things being equal the 3.0C will "usually" be the
> faster of the three CPUs. There are a very few areas where
> the 3.0E pulls ahead, but too few to make it a realistic
> consideration unless one has a specific limited-use of their
> system more akin to a workstation than a PC, and know
> through benchmarks that their application/version will
> benefit.
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:18:21 -0600, "Rod"
<rmarch@cable_removeme_one.net> wrote:

>Thanks for the info Kony,
>
>I suspected the video was part of the difference, didn't realize it was that
>much though.
>
>Possibly you could help me with a decision on building a gaming PC for my
>son.
>
>Would you spend more money on a 3.0C than the 3.0E processor? I was
>planning on picking up the 3.0E since it is a bit cheaper, and being retail
>has the heatsink and fan on board. It's 10 bucks more for the Northwood OEM
>requiring me to get a good heatsink and fan, say another 20 bucks for that.

Personally I don't ever use Intel heatsinks, they tend to
get whiney bearing noise after a few months if not
immediately. If I wanted to use the retail heatsink the
Prescott, E, might be a reasonable choice. Then again the
pricing might depend on where you buy it,
http:///www.pricewatch.com generally has some pretty
competitive companies, and while I'd not recommend buying
the cheapest memory offered there, a shrink-wrapped retail
packaged CPU is a safer bet, IMO.

There really isn't that much of a difference between the two
CPUs, but frankly I'd get an Athlon 64 instead, it's faster
than either for same $$$, and runs cooler/quieter/less-power
too. Right now it's simply the superior technlogy.


>As for video cards, is the FX5900 very good? That was going to be my card
>of choice, it's really comparable to the rating on the 9700Pro, and it's
>almost a 100 less then the 6800. He's only 6 (going on 7) and we play games
>like MOH, Call of Duty and quake III over the LAN, so it's not like he's
>going to be playing the latest and greatest games.

I have an FX5900 and am pleased with the performance/price
ratio but largely because it was an incredible deal at the
time. Today (for similar price) I'd buy the Radeon 9700 due
to it being faster at DX9 games. All of the nVidia FX(nnnn)
struggle with FSAA and AF, so they're very fast with those
features turned off but slower than other (ATI or newer
Geforce 6600/6800) series at similar price, for today's DX9
games.

You might keep an eye out for deals on Geforce 6800
(base-version, non-ultra), I expect them to be around $200
and a good value at that price-point. The Geforce 6600 (and
of course the 6600GT) would be good more modern choices over
an FX5900, each at their respective price-points which
should be dropping slowly every day.

Today I'd look at building with PCI Express instead of AGP
based video, assuming you don't have the motherboard yet.
Soon there will be several nForce4 platforms in the market,
I'd choose one of those, Athlon 64 3200 and a Geforce 6600GT
(or 6800 non-ultra) for a budget gaming system.

>
>Again, thanks for your info, BTW, I see the 3.0E includes SSE3, is this not
>a concern since the 3.0C doesn't have it?

Games aren't SSE3 optimized. High-end apps (like
Photoshop?) are more likely to receive SSE3 optimization
first, but for the time being it's just future potential
that one gambles on being supported before the CPU is
obsolete again. Everything else still uses SSE2 or less,
and Athlon 64 also supports SSE2.

 

[rod]

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

OK, I'm listening. What are some good boards that you would recommend for
use with the Athlon 64? What chipsets?

I'd like USB, and firewire on the front of the case, so ports for these
would be necessary. I'm looking for something out now as I have to make up
my mind in time for his birthday which is coming this February.

The last time I used AMD was with the 5x86 133 and a biostar MB

Yes, Newegg is where I want to shop, I like to get everything from one shop,
and it appears they can deliver. I don't like to go here and there just for
a couple bucks on a single item, like most I suppose.

Thanks

Rod PS thanks for the info on the Aspire and Raidmax. I'm looking at the
ANTEC Super Lan Boy. Looks like a case that could last awhile, yet travel
easy if/when needed.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:33:01 -0600, "Rod"
<rmarch@cable_removeme_one.net> wrote:

>OK, I'm listening. What are some good boards that you would recommend for
>use with the Athlon 64? What chipsets?
>
>I'd like USB, and firewire on the front of the case, so ports for these
>would be necessary. I'm looking for something out now as I have to make up
>my mind in time for his birthday which is coming this February.
>
>The last time I used AMD was with the 5x86 133 and a biostar MB
>
>Yes, Newegg is where I want to shop, I like to get everything from one shop,
>and it appears they can deliver. I don't like to go here and there just for
>a couple bucks on a single item, like most I suppose.
>
>Thanks
>
>Rod PS thanks for the info on the Aspire and Raidmax. I'm looking at the
>ANTEC Super Lan Boy. Looks like a case that could last awhile, yet travel
>easy if/when needed.
>

Newegg now has 3 nForce4 motherboards, I'd either choose one
of those or wait a little while, other nForce4 boards should
be coming along any day. I dont' have first-hand experience
with any of them but you can see easily enough from the
specs and manuals at the respective manufacturer's websites
if they have the port-headers you need for firewire, just
about any board has one if not two or three headers for USB2
these days.

 

[Guest]

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

Rod:

> is the FX5900 very good?

I have a 5900XT that I bought at an excellent price, $149; but if I had to
buy one at full retail, I would opt for the 6600GT instead. The 6600GT is
faster and does not have the DX9 issues that the 5900XT has with
HalfLife2. With the exception of HalfLife2, the 5900XT is an excellent
card, just a bit overpriced IMO.

You asked Kony for some recommendations and he will give you good ones;
however I like to point folks to the following which is, IMO, an excellent
guide to building a new system. You can substitute a 6600 for the 6800 and
shave a $150 off the cost at a minimal performance loss.

http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/system-guide-200411.ars/3
Don't take the prices posted as gospel, they tend to change frequently.
Click the comparison shop link to find the best current deals. Unlike most
price search engines, this one focuses on quality retailers like Newegg.

If you want something more economical...
http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/system-guide-200411.ars/2
--
Mac Cool

 

[rod]

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

Thank you for mentioning the issues with Half Life 2 and the 5900 card. HL2
is on my want list and I'm sure sooner or later the boy would want to play
it as well.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 02:46:12 GMT, Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com>
wrote:

>Rod:
>
>> is the FX5900 very good?
>
>I have a 5900XT that I bought at an excellent price, $149; but if I had to
>buy one at full retail, I would opt for the 6600GT instead. The 6600GT is
>faster and does not have the DX9 issues that the 5900XT has with
>HalfLife2. With the exception of HalfLife2, the 5900XT is an excellent
>card, just a bit overpriced IMO.
>
>You asked Kony for some recommendations and he will give you good ones;
>however I like to point folks to the following which is, IMO, an excellent
>guide to building a new system. You can substitute a 6600 for the 6800 and
>shave a $150 off the cost at a minimal performance loss.
>


I agree that the cost difference may not be worthwhile,
though I was suggesting the 6800 non-ultra which should soon
enough have dropped in price some, and should have far more
overclock headroom than a 6600GT. When comparing the
upper-tierd version of a given GPU and comparing to
lower-tiered version of a different GPU I do usually
consider this as being worth a few $ more... though some may
not.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:53:34 -0600, "Rod"
<bellbodyshop@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Thank you for mentioning the issues with Half Life 2 and the 5900 card. HL2
>is on my want list and I'm sure sooner or later the boy would want to play
>it as well.
>


It's worth mentioning that the FX5900 does play HL2 fine.
What it does not do is use the DirectX9 codepath. That
makes it slightly less visually appealing. Frankly the
difference isn't enough to be concerned about, BUT there is
a real potential that other and/or future games will not be
as forgiving as HL2. FX5900 is a fast card but best seen as
being past it's prime, it's one of the fastest things one
can use to play DX8 games but it's future is limited. In
other words it's not a cost-effective solution. For $120 it
might be the best choice on average, but they're still
priced quite a bit higher than that and the market will
probably run out before the price drops that much.

 

[rod]

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

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> It's worth mentioning that the FX5900 does play HL2 fine.
> What it does not do is use the DirectX9 codepath. That
> makes it slightly less visually appealing. Frankly the
> difference isn't enough to be concerned about, BUT there is
> a real potential that other and/or future games will not be
> as forgiving as HL2. FX5900 is a fast card but best seen as
> being past it's prime, it's one of the fastest things one
> can use to play DX8 games but it's future is limited. In
> other words it's not a cost-effective solution. For $120 it
> might be the best choice on average, but they're still
> priced quite a bit higher than that and the market will
> probably run out before the price drops that much.

I was just about to decide on the FX 5900 when I noticed the last review for
it on NewEgg was January 2004. That's a long time to pass for technology.
Along the lines of your thinking, for the future games, I went with the
6600GT and will just hope it's a good future investment for the extra 40 I
spent. I did go with a Athlon 64 3000+, Retail, with a Soltek MB that has
the nForce3 250GT chipset and a gig of DDR 400 RAM. I ended up getting an
Ever Case USA INC. case, comes with a 350 Watt PSU and a 120mm fan at the
rear of the case. Has room for what appears to be an 80 on the side and two
in the front so I ordered a couple of Artic Cool Blue LED 3 speed case
fans(actually I wanted one of those for the rear of mine). It should be a
decent start for him.

The Mobo can use SATA drives, for now I'm going to use his existing drive
ATA 100 30 gig. When it comes time to upgrade his hard drive, should I go
with the SATA drives, and what might be there advantages?

 

[Guest]

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

kony:

>>You can substitute a 6600 for the 6800 and shave a $150 off the cost
>>at a minimal performance loss.
>
> I agree that the cost difference may not be worthwhile,
> though I was suggesting the 6800 non-ultra which should soon
> enough have dropped in price some, and should have far more
> overclock headroom than a 6600GT. <snip>

I was actually referring to the article. Ars recommends a 6800, I
didn't realize you did also. The 6800 is a good card and if he can
afford it, I would recommend it whole-heartedly.

I have been considering selling my 5900XT and buying a 6800SE and
attempting to soft-mod it. I don't really game anymore and I could
probably make a few dollars on the trade. The only games I am likely to
play are UT2K4 and HL2, which I think the softmodded 6800SE should be
more than adequate. Thoughts?
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:28:47 -0600, "Rod"
<bellbodyshop@earthlink.net> wrote:


>I was just about to decide on the FX 5900 when I noticed the last review for
>it on NewEgg was January 2004. That's a long time to pass for technology.
>Along the lines of your thinking, for the future games, I went with the
>6600GT and will just hope it's a good future investment for the extra 40 I
>spent. I did go with a Athlon 64 3000+, Retail, with a Soltek MB that has
>the nForce3 250GT chipset and a gig of DDR 400 RAM. I ended up getting an
>Ever Case USA INC. case, comes with a 350 Watt PSU and a 120mm fan at the
>rear of the case. Has room for what appears to be an 80 on the side and two
>in the front so I ordered a couple of Artic Cool Blue LED 3 speed case
>fans(actually I wanted one of those for the rear of mine). It should be a
>decent start for him.
>
>The Mobo can use SATA drives, for now I'm going to use his existing drive
>ATA 100 30 gig. When it comes time to upgrade his hard drive, should I go
>with the SATA drives, and what might be there advantages?
>

SATA drives will leave more PATA free for other uses, or
leave one PATA per channel if you had (only) two.
Current-generation drives aren't fast enough to even exploit
all of (P)ATA133, and with SATA(150) being barely faster to
begin with, there's no great advantage to the one interface
over the other... except that your optical drive will likely
be PATA.

The main advantage for a hard drive is the higher rotational
speed (like a WD Raptor, which also happens to be SATA), or
by platter density and brute size (like a Maxtor Maxline
300GB+) and putting the data on the first partition(s), not
on the last slower part of the drive. If you can get SATA
at nearly same price that might be a good idea, except if
you have no other way to support SATA, for example if the
motherboard/system wouldn't boot up and you needed access to
the drive, you'd have been better of to have had PATA... or
perhaps you have other SATA, only you know these things.