Components for mid range PC?

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

I have skills sufficient to make my own PC, but since I have not done this
for a few years, am way behind on the latest technology. I would like ideas
on the best motherboard, processor, RAM, and perhaps hard drive. Case
recommendations are welcome.

My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
editing, limited video editing, limited gaming (if at all), Quicken, and
plenty of Internet use with a cable modem through Comcast. I'll be using a
Zip drive, Jaz drive, DVD burner, CD burner, and Zio card reader through a
USB port. Plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and Palm Pilot. I have a
Matrox G400 card with digital output for a Samsung 171P LCD, but is there a
better card with digital out for mostly text use? Opinions on Western
Digital 250 gig hard drive (Ultra/DMA 100)?

Thanks,

- Phil
15 answers Last reply
More about components range
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:nUsTc.151804$eM2.75083@attbi_s51...
    > I have skills sufficient to make my own PC, but since I have not done this
    > for a few years, am way behind on the latest technology. I would like
    ideas
    > on the best motherboard, processor, RAM, and perhaps hard drive. Case
    > recommendations are welcome.
    >
    > My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > editing, limited video editing, limited gaming (if at all), Quicken, and
    > plenty of Internet use with a cable modem through Comcast. I'll be using
    a
    > Zip drive, Jaz drive, DVD burner, CD burner, and Zio card reader through a
    > USB port. Plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and Palm Pilot. I have a
    > Matrox G400 card with digital output for a Samsung 171P LCD, but is there
    a
    > better card with digital out for mostly text use? Opinions on Western
    > Digital 250 gig hard drive (Ultra/DMA 100)?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > - Phil

    OK, this is a complex post that is hard to respond to without knowing your
    budget. First thing though is to ditch the IDE hard drive. As you say
    you'll be using four drives, I take it these are IDE drives you already own?
    If so, SATA would be the way to go for the hard drive. It won't cost
    anymore, and it will leave more space on your IDE ports. I think Matrox may
    be the last holdout of the video card makers that do not support 3D well.
    Even their latest supposed 3D gaming card oddly doesn't list directx version
    (hardware compatibility) in the specifications. The good news is that all
    the latest 3D cards offer excellent text quality and DVI output. So if you
    want to upgrade your video card to something other than Matrox, it will be
    really tough to screw up on that choice. For a mid-range system, I'd
    suggest a FX5900XT or Radeon 9800 Pro. Before someone screams "But those
    are gaming cards!!!", YES, they are. They also offer excellent text
    quality. And shopping for a non-gaming card at the moment would be foolish
    unless you have a very specific non-gaming need in mind. Western Digital is
    a great brand of hard drive. I've tried other brands but keep coming back
    to WD. However, I'd suggest SATA, and 250GB is a great choice for size.
    For a decent mid-range system, look for a i865 chipset mainboard with SATA
    and IDE support and built-in LAN and IEEE1394 (firewire). Throw a ~3.0GHz
    Intel P4 Prescott core processor on it, and about 1GB of DDR400 RAM to start
    with. (Optional: 2 X 512MB if your mainboard supports dual channel. I
    like Kingston and Mushkin brands myself.) You're going to need a good
    mid-tower case with plenty of drive bays and a 400W or better power supply.
    The case is so dependent on personal taste, it's almost foolish to try to
    guess what you'd like. But for the power supply, try a Seasonic or
    Fortron/Sparkle brand. If you want more specific recommendations, I might
    try something like the following. -Dave

    (from newegg)

    COOLER MASTER CENTURION 2 Black ALUMINUM MID-TOWER CASE, Model
    "CAC-T02" -RETAIL
    Specifications:
    Case Type: Mid-Tower Case
    Color: Black
    Material: Aluminum front bezel + Case 0.8 mm SECC (Zinc-coated steel)
    Drive Bays: 5.25" x 4/0, 3.5" x 2/2 (external/internal)
    Expansion Slots: 7
    Front Ports: 2xUSB2.0, 2xAudio, IEEE 1394
    Power Supply: N/A
    Cooling System: N/A
    Motherboard Compatibility: ATX; 12" x 9.6" (30.5cm x 24.5 cm)
    Dimensions: 18.6" x 7.8" x 16.8" (LxWxH) more info-> N82E16811119034
    $39.99
    $39.99


    GIGABYTE "GA-8IPE1000 PRO-G" i865PE Chipset Motherboard for Intel Socket
    478 CPU -RETAIL
    Specifications:
    Supported CPU: Intel Pentium 4 Processors(HT Ready, Prescott Ready)
    Chipset: Intel 865PE + ICH5
    FSB: 800/533/400MHz
    RAM: 4x DIMM for Dual-Channel DDR400/333/266 Max 4GB
    IDE : 2x ATA 100 up to 4 Devices
    Slots: 1x AGP 8X/4X(1.5V only), 5x PCI
    Ports: 2xPS/2,1xLPT,2xCOM,8xUSB2.0(Rear 4),1xLAN,1xGAME,Audio Ports
    Onboard Audio: Realtek ALC850 8-Channel Codec
    Onboard LAN: Marvell 8001 Gigabit Ethernet
    Onboard SATA: 2x SATA 150
    Onboard 1394: TI TSB43AB23, 2 Ports
    Form Factor: ATX more info-> N82E16813128231
    $92.00
    $92.00


    Seasonic 400W ATX12V Power Supply, Model "SUPER TORNADO-400W" -RETAIL
    Specifications:
    Type: ATX12V
    Maximum Power: 400W
    PFC: Active
    Efficiency: Up to 80%
    Input Voltage: 100-240V
    Input Frequency Range: 60/50Hz
    Input Current: 5A
    Output: +3.3V@28A, +5V@30A, +12V@22A, -12V@0.8A, +5VSB@2A
    Approvals: UL, CB, CE, DEMCO, NEMCO, SEMCO, FIMCO, CCC, TUV, FCC more info->
    N82E16817151018
    $86.00
    $86.00


    DIY Blowout Sale!
    Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache, Hyper Threading
    Technology - Retail
    Specifications:
    Model: Intel Pentium 4 w/ Hyper Threading
    Core: Prescott
    Operating Frequency: 3.0GHz
    FSB: 800MHz
    Cache: L1/12K+16K; L2/1MB
    Voltage: 1.25V - 1.525V
    Process: 0.09Micron
    Socket: Socket 478
    Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
    Warranty: 3-year MFG
    Packaging: Retail box (with Heatsink and Fan) more info-> N82E16819116171
    $213.00
    $213.00


    Western Digital 250GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model WD2500JD, OEM Drive
    Only
    Specifications:
    Capacity: 250GB
    Average Seek Time: 8.9 ms
    Buffer: 8MB
    Rotational Speed: 7200 RPM
    Interface: Serial ATA
    Features: Data Lifeguard Tools, Backplane compatibility
    Manufacturer Warranty: 3 years
    Packaging: OEM Drive Only more info-> N82E16822144154
    $171.00
    $171.00


    begin 666 btn_wish_add.gif
    M1TE&.#EA2P`.`-4``**BHHN+B]#0T,W-S:NKJ\3#PFMK:U145 T-#965E-[>
    MWKN[NEM;6_W^_D)"0N'AX"LK*_GY^>KJZNWM[1H:&CL[.V1D9.;FYB$A(4M+
    M2WM[>]34U'%Q<30T-/7U]-G9V82#@Q04%/;V]_/R\K*RLJ>GIXB(AYB8F-32
    MT,K*R>CHZ=/3TY"0D,7%Q=_?WWAX>._O[\;(RF!@8-S<W']]?>3DY,"_O_O[
    M^];7U["OK_;V]%!04%=75P8&!O___P```"'Y! ``````+ ````!+``X```;_
    MP%]O2"P:>[^D<LEL.I_0J++GJUJO6!]"RNUZG=0=SW3+8K=?[A"<GOI #$C+
    MYQ&)ZG=10ZL,5;8A#@X02!05@TA)& X5%1T(% 8&%$P5&@PA/Q@=2($.CPB-
    MAQA"52H.&2H%`P,M`@(L)R-\0B\^!C\,51(R/P%E(CM(/0%6*PP$#0TDE$D.
    M'A<B'#T+$A"Y5@89'U8!0U4-`"$E-@4V"P,D$ 8PM @Y/B4_%B(R!#48&@H'
    M)!YH$#M<E*! PP</'K>4I!" H<*.$!%&6)@W(D,)`14P$%"0X1J5*@]V[$"1
    MHL6"#R8@X*B")L2%`0+F26@HP<&+#10Z^.B@A((`_Q.^5H0(\8%%(8E*(/BP
    M`6#>! <$%E!B,2!3J2HW$E#(\< %BAH94K%,`F$"! \8&)C%$/(%#@P8;C#H
    MN0(H@ )#4@#8`B%"AB0]#!1@@ .;!Q<\DK 08/5CE14=(+S@P($'`A)6T!AH
    M0"#8@9D.GMXTM),NT `X$6PP^H/""%Q""$@8\( "#P^T'2AF#/C*C10F:- `
    M8:)$N[$]3GQ8\ !$A@@&3E+0X$)&@15H6J\(\$-&`QFZ)B91, ."`PL;S#UP
    MP&/&@0%[?RQN?&4$`0(P=,Q(T&(/\@F3D& #0C[4<( O9=10P1(42'#"#R$0
    M4 4!S?SP# PW:(!6!RZPD%>!61SX,!<`%]!GA0(==/" #PL@(,-QM$"P!048
    M( `!!!AT<B,I2_2 03,4,( )$QUH8Z,0/]K8@XV9T)B(8SZ,4$(R!280@W^T
    0M*%E(EL>X>4:6H8I9A `.P``
    `
    end

    begin 666 btn_wish_remv.gif
    M1TE&.#EA2P`.`-4``-[>WFMK:^3DY(.#@_S\_&)B8N'AX;:VMG5U=;&QL?KZ
    M^L7%Q?CX^/+R\EU=7='1T0P,#*BHJ!@8&'!P<9F9F>CHZ%E96?3T]!(2$KJZ
    MNO;V]DY.3LK*RGM[>]C8V#X^/J6EI3DY.:&AH28F)M75U3(R,NSL["DI*2TM
    M+9R<G-O;VT9&1L_/S_#P\+^_OU%142$A(=;6UE965I65E38V-L+"PJRLK,S,
    MS ,#`TE)24%!0?[^_N_O[P8&!O___P```"'Y! ``````+ ````!+``X```;_
    MP%]O2.SABL6?<LEL.I_0J'39\UFOGD/ERH5,O^#PL^ICD$ 8V E7X#PN5Z]8
    M;)Q#R:0?;.(S^1 2/QEQ4A H.CHC.! T'Q\G/R4E0B<E7B,3$S _*) _-!(P
    M'SHT<E%D*CDL$XHK'2PY((11(216`",E#3X*"3TF*C\C'@`E$AP,/@LX"QY#
    M/C(I/CLQ'U-D/C4_#@X%%@X0$RH*5J9/)0(=,@P!)0H!(R<0)!<.'SXL(QT5
    M.2\$+P$T0/APH4<*`1A&8+AV)4(('P0([/"Q`@&Y<E+032!H`04#$0A00&!1
    M@4,''S="V$BPT,.,$ 16##CP(T6#``YZ,.0UH(0/_Q</'C#8\,(/QB@E'NQR
    M(>%$`P$>"O2H02%;`A(K,J30^4 $C@H=#B# 455%A(52R!"8@<+'@1L++FRP
    MP&,6E!(`1+BP@>$$@0(2($!P@8"%BP(&5++\X2'%CP@V&I0P:. 'VK16"%"X
    M)Z#"EKDM[)ZKX `#`!DH%'3X4*J&`S4.*L! 8.*%`V@_`C1H\ -"B@HG0@3"
    M7*:G#PT7=FW88-2'.2<A>!3X,0& @UT^?$554H!'"0P+)F8(!(,`30BR?*BP
    M1MQ'AA\K2H0HL0("`@VBG?10V'L$A!,HH+ )#'(DI!,,!3@P' XG!(*#! 'Z
    =M],T$548T43YV1$%#CAH. H&$B FX>&(&@8!`#L`
    `
    end
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:nUsTc.151804$eM2.75083@attbi_s51...
    > > I have skills sufficient to make my own PC, but since I have not done this
    > > for a few years, am way behind on the latest technology. I would like
    > ideas
    > > on the best motherboard, processor, RAM, and perhaps hard drive. Case
    > > recommendations are welcome.
    > >
    > > My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > > editing, limited video editing, limited gaming (if at all), Quicken, and
    > > plenty of Internet use with a cable modem through Comcast. I'll be using
    > a
    > > Zip drive, Jaz drive, DVD burner, CD burner, and Zio card reader through a
    > > USB port. Plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and Palm Pilot. I have a
    > > Matrox G400 card with digital output for a Samsung 171P LCD, but is there
    > a
    > > better card with digital out for mostly text use? Opinions on Western
    > > Digital 250 gig hard drive (Ultra/DMA 100)?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > - Phil
    >
    > OK, this is a complex post that is hard to respond to without knowing your
    > budget. First thing though is to ditch the IDE hard drive. As you say
    > you'll be using four drives, I take it these are IDE drives you already own?
    > If so, SATA would be the way to go for the hard drive. It won't cost
    > anymore, and it will leave more space on your IDE ports. I think Matrox may
    > be the last holdout of the video card makers that do not support 3D well.
    > Even their latest supposed 3D gaming card oddly doesn't list directx version
    > (hardware compatibility) in the specifications. The good news is that all
    > the latest 3D cards offer excellent text quality and DVI output. So if you
    > want to upgrade your video card to something other than Matrox, it will be
    > really tough to screw up on that choice. For a mid-range system, I'd
    > suggest a FX5900XT or Radeon 9800 Pro. Before someone screams "But those
    > are gaming cards!!!", YES, they are. They also offer excellent text
    > quality. And shopping for a non-gaming card at the moment would be foolish
    > unless you have a very specific non-gaming need in mind. Western Digital is
    > a great brand of hard drive. I've tried other brands but keep coming back
    > to WD. However, I'd suggest SATA, and 250GB is a great choice for size.
    > For a decent mid-range system, look for a i865 chipset mainboard with SATA
    > and IDE support and built-in LAN and IEEE1394 (firewire). Throw a ~3.0GHz
    > Intel P4 Prescott

    Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?

    > core processor on it, and about 1GB of DDR400 RAM to start
    > with. (Optional: 2 X 512MB if your mainboard supports dual channel. I
    > like Kingston and Mushkin brands myself.) You're going to need a good
    > mid-tower case with plenty of drive bays and a 400W or better power supply.
    > The case is so dependent on personal taste, it's almost foolish to try to
    > guess what you'd like. But for the power supply, try a Seasonic or
    > Fortron/Sparkle brand. If you want more specific recommendations, I might
    > try something like the following. -Dave
    >
    > (from newegg)
    >
    > COOLER MASTER CENTURION 2 Black ALUMINUM MID-TOWER CASE, Model
    > "CAC-T02" -RETAIL
    > Specifications:
    > Case Type: Mid-Tower Case
    > Color: Black
    > Material: Aluminum front bezel + Case 0.8 mm SECC (Zinc-coated steel)
    > Drive Bays: 5.25" x 4/0, 3.5" x 2/2 (external/internal)
    > Expansion Slots: 7
    > Front Ports: 2xUSB2.0, 2xAudio, IEEE 1394
    > Power Supply: N/A
    > Cooling System: N/A
    > Motherboard Compatibility: ATX; 12" x 9.6" (30.5cm x 24.5 cm)
    > Dimensions: 18.6" x 7.8" x 16.8" (LxWxH) more info-> N82E16811119034
    > $39.99
    > $39.99
    >
    > GIGABYTE "GA-8IPE1000 PRO-G" i865PE Chipset Motherboard for Intel Socket
    > 478 CPU -RETAIL
    > Specifications:
    > Supported CPU: Intel Pentium 4 Processors(HT Ready, Prescott Ready)
    > Chipset: Intel 865PE + ICH5
    > FSB: 800/533/400MHz
    > RAM: 4x DIMM for Dual-Channel DDR400/333/266 Max 4GB
    > IDE : 2x ATA 100 up to 4 Devices
    > Slots: 1x AGP 8X/4X(1.5V only), 5x PCI
    > Ports: 2xPS/2,1xLPT,2xCOM,8xUSB2.0(Rear 4),1xLAN,1xGAME,Audio Ports
    > Onboard Audio: Realtek ALC850 8-Channel Codec
    > Onboard LAN: Marvell 8001 Gigabit Ethernet
    > Onboard SATA: 2x SATA 150
    > Onboard 1394: TI TSB43AB23, 2 Ports
    > Form Factor: ATX more info-> N82E16813128231
    > $92.00
    > $92.00
    >
    > Seasonic 400W ATX12V Power Supply, Model "SUPER TORNADO-400W" -RETAIL
    > Specifications:
    > Type: ATX12V
    > Maximum Power: 400W
    > PFC: Active
    > Efficiency: Up to 80%
    > Input Voltage: 100-240V
    > Input Frequency Range: 60/50Hz
    > Input Current: 5A
    > Output: +3.3V@28A, +5V@30A, +12V@22A, -12V@0.8A, +5VSB@2A
    > Approvals: UL, CB, CE, DEMCO, NEMCO, SEMCO, FIMCO, CCC, TUV, FCC more info->
    > N82E16817151018
    > $86.00
    > $86.00
    >
    > DIY Blowout Sale!
    > Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache, Hyper Threading
    > Technology - Retail
    > Specifications:
    > Model: Intel Pentium 4 w/ Hyper Threading
    > Core: Prescott
    > Operating Frequency: 3.0GHz
    > FSB: 800MHz
    > Cache: L1/12K+16K; L2/1MB
    > Voltage: 1.25V - 1.525V
    > Process: 0.09Micron
    > Socket: Socket 478
    > Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
    > Warranty: 3-year MFG
    > Packaging: Retail box (with Heatsink and Fan) more info-> N82E16819116171
    > $213.00
    > $213.00

    For around the same price, one could get an Athlon 64 3200+.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

    >
    >
    > Western Digital 250GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model WD2500JD, OEM Drive
    > Only
    > Specifications:
    > Capacity: 250GB
    > Average Seek Time: 8.9 ms
    > Buffer: 8MB
    > Rotational Speed: 7200 RPM
    > Interface: Serial ATA
    > Features: Data Lifeguard Tools, Backplane compatibility
    > Manufacturer Warranty: 3 years
    > Packaging: OEM Drive Only more info-> N82E16822144154
    > $171.00
    > $171.00
    >
    > [Image]
    >
    > [Image]
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave,

    Thank you! The budget is pretty open. The components recommended come to
    $601.99 and that is fine, but I need to that a new video card, which is
    still OK. The IDE drives I do still own, but if it makes sense, I can drop
    the Zip and Jaz, and just the CD burner and/or DVD burner. I found a 250
    gig drive from WD for $140 with a $30 rebate, but it says Ultra DMA/100, so
    it appears this is not the WD 250 you recommend (SATA).

    - Phil

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message
    news:2o7e4iF7oe7jU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:nUsTc.151804$eM2.75083@attbi_s51...
    > > I have skills sufficient to make my own PC, but since I have not done
    this
    > > for a few years, am way behind on the latest technology. I would like
    > ideas
    > > on the best motherboard, processor, RAM, and perhaps hard drive. Case
    > > recommendations are welcome.
    > >
    > > My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > > editing, limited video editing, limited gaming (if at all), Quicken, and
    > > plenty of Internet use with a cable modem through Comcast. I'll be
    using
    > a
    > > Zip drive, Jaz drive, DVD burner, CD burner, and Zio card reader through
    a
    > > USB port. Plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and Palm Pilot. I have a
    > > Matrox G400 card with digital output for a Samsung 171P LCD, but is
    there
    > a
    > > better card with digital out for mostly text use? Opinions on Western
    > > Digital 250 gig hard drive (Ultra/DMA 100)?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > - Phil
    >
    > OK, this is a complex post that is hard to respond to without knowing your
    > budget. First thing though is to ditch the IDE hard drive. As you say
    > you'll be using four drives, I take it these are IDE drives you already
    own?
    > If so, SATA would be the way to go for the hard drive. It won't cost
    > anymore, and it will leave more space on your IDE ports. I think Matrox
    may
    > be the last holdout of the video card makers that do not support 3D well.
    > Even their latest supposed 3D gaming card oddly doesn't list directx
    version
    > (hardware compatibility) in the specifications. The good news is that all
    > the latest 3D cards offer excellent text quality and DVI output. So if
    you
    > want to upgrade your video card to something other than Matrox, it will be
    > really tough to screw up on that choice. For a mid-range system, I'd
    > suggest a FX5900XT or Radeon 9800 Pro. Before someone screams "But those
    > are gaming cards!!!", YES, they are. They also offer excellent text
    > quality. And shopping for a non-gaming card at the moment would be
    foolish
    > unless you have a very specific non-gaming need in mind. Western Digital
    is
    > a great brand of hard drive. I've tried other brands but keep coming back
    > to WD. However, I'd suggest SATA, and 250GB is a great choice for size.
    > For a decent mid-range system, look for a i865 chipset mainboard with SATA
    > and IDE support and built-in LAN and IEEE1394 (firewire). Throw a ~3.0GHz
    > Intel P4 Prescott core processor on it, and about 1GB of DDR400 RAM to
    start
    > with. (Optional: 2 X 512MB if your mainboard supports dual channel. I
    > like Kingston and Mushkin brands myself.) You're going to need a good
    > mid-tower case with plenty of drive bays and a 400W or better power
    supply.
    > The case is so dependent on personal taste, it's almost foolish to try to
    > guess what you'd like. But for the power supply, try a Seasonic or
    > Fortron/Sparkle brand. If you want more specific recommendations, I might
    > try something like the following. -Dave
    >
    > (from newegg)
    >
    > COOLER MASTER CENTURION 2 Black ALUMINUM MID-TOWER CASE, Model
    > "CAC-T02" -RETAIL
    > Specifications:
    > Case Type: Mid-Tower Case
    > Color: Black
    > Material: Aluminum front bezel + Case 0.8 mm SECC (Zinc-coated steel)
    > Drive Bays: 5.25" x 4/0, 3.5" x 2/2 (external/internal)
    > Expansion Slots: 7
    > Front Ports: 2xUSB2.0, 2xAudio, IEEE 1394
    > Power Supply: N/A
    > Cooling System: N/A
    > Motherboard Compatibility: ATX; 12" x 9.6" (30.5cm x 24.5 cm)
    > Dimensions: 18.6" x 7.8" x 16.8" (LxWxH) more info-> N82E16811119034
    > $39.99
    > $39.99
    >
    >
    > GIGABYTE "GA-8IPE1000 PRO-G" i865PE Chipset Motherboard for Intel Socket
    > 478 CPU -RETAIL
    > Specifications:
    > Supported CPU: Intel Pentium 4 Processors(HT Ready, Prescott Ready)
    > Chipset: Intel 865PE + ICH5
    > FSB: 800/533/400MHz
    > RAM: 4x DIMM for Dual-Channel DDR400/333/266 Max 4GB
    > IDE : 2x ATA 100 up to 4 Devices
    > Slots: 1x AGP 8X/4X(1.5V only), 5x PCI
    > Ports: 2xPS/2,1xLPT,2xCOM,8xUSB2.0(Rear 4),1xLAN,1xGAME,Audio Ports
    > Onboard Audio: Realtek ALC850 8-Channel Codec
    > Onboard LAN: Marvell 8001 Gigabit Ethernet
    > Onboard SATA: 2x SATA 150
    > Onboard 1394: TI TSB43AB23, 2 Ports
    > Form Factor: ATX more info-> N82E16813128231
    > $92.00
    > $92.00
    >
    >
    > Seasonic 400W ATX12V Power Supply, Model "SUPER TORNADO-400W" -RETAIL
    > Specifications:
    > Type: ATX12V
    > Maximum Power: 400W
    > PFC: Active
    > Efficiency: Up to 80%
    > Input Voltage: 100-240V
    > Input Frequency Range: 60/50Hz
    > Input Current: 5A
    > Output: +3.3V@28A, +5V@30A, +12V@22A, -12V@0.8A, +5VSB@2A
    > Approvals: UL, CB, CE, DEMCO, NEMCO, SEMCO, FIMCO, CCC, TUV, FCC more
    info->
    > N82E16817151018
    > $86.00
    > $86.00
    >
    >
    > DIY Blowout Sale!
    > Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0E GHz 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache, Hyper Threading
    > Technology - Retail
    > Specifications:
    > Model: Intel Pentium 4 w/ Hyper Threading
    > Core: Prescott
    > Operating Frequency: 3.0GHz
    > FSB: 800MHz
    > Cache: L1/12K+16K; L2/1MB
    > Voltage: 1.25V - 1.525V
    > Process: 0.09Micron
    > Socket: Socket 478
    > Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
    > Warranty: 3-year MFG
    > Packaging: Retail box (with Heatsink and Fan) more info-> N82E16819116171
    > $213.00
    > $213.00
    >
    >
    > Western Digital 250GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model WD2500JD, OEM Drive
    > Only
    > Specifications:
    > Capacity: 250GB
    > Average Seek Time: 8.9 ms
    > Buffer: 8MB
    > Rotational Speed: 7200 RPM
    > Interface: Serial ATA
    > Features: Data Lifeguard Tools, Backplane compatibility
    > Manufacturer Warranty: 3 years
    > Packaging: OEM Drive Only more info-> N82E16822144154
    > $171.00
    > $171.00
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?
    >

    Video Editing. For about the thousandth time, there is nothing wrong with
    an Athlon 64, but it is not significantly better than a Intel P4 Prescott.
    AMD is always a good choice, but not always the best choice. And video
    editing applications are specifically optimized for Intel processors. And
    yes, I see you posted your link showing one or two benchmarks in which the
    AMD beats the Intel. On average though, the low-end Athlon 64 processors
    are evenly matched with the mid-range Intel P4 Prescott processors. Please
    stop bashing Intel. You are doing nobody any favors by doing so. -Dave
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1vyTc.292211$JR4.264253@attbi_s54...
    > Dave,
    >
    > Thank you! The budget is pretty open. The components recommended come to
    > $601.99 and that is fine, but I need to that a new video card, which is
    > still OK. The IDE drives I do still own, but if it makes sense, I can
    drop
    > the Zip and Jaz, and just the CD burner and/or DVD burner. I found a 250
    > gig drive from WD for $140 with a $30 rebate, but it says Ultra DMA/100,
    so
    > it appears this is not the WD 250 you recommend (SATA).
    >
    > - Phil


    Well at that price, it would almost be worth it to stick with IDE for the
    hard drive. But most motherboards will only support up to (4) total IDE
    devices. The zip and jaz drives are IDE, aren't they? (I honestly don't
    know, never used one). If you think you will have a use for them, don't get
    rid of them. It makes sense for you to go with a SATA hard drive for a
    couple of reasons. First, that will leave your four IDE spots open for your
    other drives, which will work out GREAT. Second, the SATA drive might be
    easier to recycle into the next system you build.

    BUT, if you decide to go with an IDE hard drive, I'd suggest you drop the CD
    burner. It would be nice to still have it in the system, but the DVD burner
    will burn CDs, also. OR, you could get an expansion card to add more IDE
    drives and stick the jaz and zip drives both on that. That would leave
    three IDE devices and the mainboard supports up to four. -Dave
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > > Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?
    > >
    >
    > Video Editing. For about the thousandth time, there is nothing wrong with
    > an Athlon 64, but it is not significantly better than a Intel P4 Prescott.

    An Athlon 64 is much better tham a comparably priced P4 for business
    applications and for many games, as well as many other types of applications.
    The 32 bit processor you mentioned doesn't run 64 bit software. An Athlon 64
    is much better than a comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 chip for running 64 bit
    software.

    http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

    >
    > AMD is always a good choice, but not always the best choice. And video
    > editing applications are specifically optimized for Intel processors.

    Did you see this?

    http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=4

    > And
    > yes, I see you posted your link showing one or two benchmarks in which the
    > AMD beats the Intel.

    One or two? You mean there were only a very small number of benchmarks
    where a comparably priced P4 beat an Athlon 64.

    > On average though, the low-end Athlon 64 processors
    > are evenly matched with the mid-range Intel P4 Prescott processors.

    Evenly matched? Certainly not for business software.

    A 3.2 ghz P4 Prescott is close in price to an Athlon 64 3400+.
    The The Athlon 64 3400+ scored 24.9 in Business Winstone 2004,
    while the P4 3.2 Prescott scored 21.8. Even a $105 Athlon XP 3000+
    beats a $260 P4 3.2 ghz Prescott in Business Winstone 2004.

    > Please
    > stop bashing Intel.

    Why? Am I bashing Intel, or just showing that AMD processors are much
    better alternatives for most people? Many might say that Intel processors
    are good, but that AMD processors provide so much more value at each
    price point.


    > You are doing nobody any favors by doing so.

    Perhaps if Intel started pricing their processors more comptatively,
    then an Intel processor might become a more viable option. Many
    knowledgeable people don't want to pay a high price premium when
    buying a processor to help cover Intel's huge marketing costs.
    There are issues that can be discussed. It is silly of you to say
    that AMD processors and comparably priced Intel processors are
    evenly matched, especially when the evidence seems to say that
    there are tremendous differences, and that for the vast najority
    of users, an AMD processor is the more cost effective choice.
    I haven't seen Intel's 64 bit P4 processors on www.pricewatch.com yet.
    It doesn't make any sense for someone to spend more than $150
    for a processor that is only 32 bits. Even at the $150 level, one
    should seriously think about the drawbacks of locking themselves into
    a 32 bit processor. How many people buy a PC with the intention of using
    it for less than a year? A year from now there will probably be plenty of
    X86-64 64 bit software available.


    > -Dave
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:411F789F.47B3C73E@netscape.net...
    >
    >
    > "Dave C." wrote:
    >
    > > > Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?
    > > >
    > >
    > > Video Editing. For about the thousandth time, there is nothing wrong
    with
    > > an Athlon 64, but it is not significantly better than a Intel P4
    Prescott.
    >
    > An Athlon 64 is much better tham a comparably priced P4 for business
    > applications and for many games, as well as many other types of
    applications.
    > The 32 bit processor you mentioned doesn't run 64 bit software. An
    Athlon 64
    > is much better than a comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 chip for running
    64 bit
    > software.
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

    But, the OP doesn't want to play 3D games, he wants to do video editing.
    Who says that he is even going to run a 64bit OS? I'd say that most of the
    average users don't even know that many current OS are 32bit, or even know
    what it would mean.

    >
    > Evenly matched? Certainly not for business software.
    >
    > A 3.2 ghz P4 Prescott is close in price to an Athlon 64 3400+.
    > The The Athlon 64 3400+ scored 24.9 in Business Winstone 2004,
    > while the P4 3.2 Prescott scored 21.8. Even a $105 Athlon XP 3000+
    > beats a $260 P4 3.2 ghz Prescott in Business Winstone 2004.

    You can't classify the "Business Software" category with one piece of
    software...


    > > Please
    > > stop bashing Intel.
    >
    > Why? Am I bashing Intel, or just showing that AMD processors are much
    > better alternatives for most people? Many might say that Intel processors
    > are good, but that AMD processors provide so much more value at each
    > price point.


    > > You are doing nobody any favors by doing so.
    >
    > Perhaps if Intel started pricing their processors more comptatively,
    > then an Intel processor might become a more viable option. Many
    > knowledgeable people don't want to pay a high price premium when
    > buying a processor to help cover Intel's huge marketing costs.
    > There are issues that can be discussed. It is silly of you to say
    > that AMD processors and comparably priced Intel processors are
    > evenly matched, especially when the evidence seems to say that
    > there are tremendous differences, and that for the vast najority
    > of users, an AMD processor is the more cost effective choice.
    > I haven't seen Intel's 64 bit P4 processors on www.pricewatch.com yet.
    > It doesn't make any sense for someone to spend more than $150
    > for a processor that is only 32 bits. Even at the $150 level, one
    > should seriously think about the drawbacks of locking themselves into
    > a 32 bit processor. How many people buy a PC with the intention of using
    > it for less than a year? A year from now there will probably be plenty of
    > X86-64 64 bit software available.

    Like I said above, how many people will actually know, or care, about a
    64bit OS/Software? Sure, the gamers will, and people who are really into
    computers will, but they don't make up the majority of computer users. The
    average user isn't going to rush out and buy all of the newest 64bit
    software when it comes out.

    I just upgraded to a 2.8GHz 800MHz FSB P4, and I don't plan on upgrading
    until after college, about 2 years from now. I might not even upgrade than,
    because this chip can be overclocked to 3.6GHz easy. My only limitation
    right now is RAM. Sure, when I do upgrade, and if the price is right, I
    will do 64bit, and it will be Intel, just because I like Intel. I'm not
    bashing AMD, it's just personal preference.

    > > -Dave
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Moderately Confused wrote:

    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:411F789F.47B3C73E@netscape.net...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Dave C." wrote:
    > >
    > > > > Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Video Editing. For about the thousandth time, there is nothing wrong
    > with
    > > > an Athlon 64, but it is not significantly better than a Intel P4
    > Prescott.
    > >
    > > An Athlon 64 is much better tham a comparably priced P4 for business
    > > applications and for many games, as well as many other types of
    > applications.
    > > The 32 bit processor you mentioned doesn't run 64 bit software. An
    > Athlon 64
    > > is much better than a comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 chip for running
    > 64 bit
    > > software.
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
    >
    > But, the OP doesn't want to play 3D games, he wants to do video editing.

    LOL! This is what he said.

    "My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    editing, limited video editing,....."

    Notice the emphasis on office applications?
    The Athlon 64 is a superb performer for business applications.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6


    >
    > Who says that he is even going to run a 64bit OS? I'd say that most of the
    > average users don't even know that many current OS are 32bit, or even know
    > what it would mean.

    When 64 bit Windows is released, many PC owners who bought a pc
    in '04 will become upset that they didn't buy one with a 64 bit processor.
    People don't typically use a PC for only 6 months, but for a few years.

    >
    >
    > >
    > > Evenly matched? Certainly not for business software.
    > >
    > > A 3.2 ghz P4 Prescott is close in price to an Athlon 64 3400+.
    > > The The Athlon 64 3400+ scored 24.9 in Business Winstone 2004,
    > > while the P4 3.2 Prescott scored 21.8. Even a $105 Athlon XP 3000+
    > > beats a $260 P4 3.2 ghz Prescott in Business Winstone 2004.
    >
    > You can't classify the "Business Software" category with one piece of
    > software...

    It isn't one piece of software. Busineww Winstone 2004 is a benchmark
    composed of several important business applications.

    http://www.veritest.com/benchmarks/bwinstone/s1wsapps.asp


    >
    >
    > > > Please
    > > > stop bashing Intel.
    > >
    > > Why? Am I bashing Intel, or just showing that AMD processors are much
    > > better alternatives for most people? Many might say that Intel processors
    > > are good, but that AMD processors provide so much more value at each
    > > price point.
    >
    > > > You are doing nobody any favors by doing so.
    > >
    > > Perhaps if Intel started pricing their processors more comptatively,
    > > then an Intel processor might become a more viable option. Many
    > > knowledgeable people don't want to pay a high price premium when
    > > buying a processor to help cover Intel's huge marketing costs.
    > > There are issues that can be discussed. It is silly of you to say
    > > that AMD processors and comparably priced Intel processors are
    > > evenly matched, especially when the evidence seems to say that
    > > there are tremendous differences, and that for the vast najority
    > > of users, an AMD processor is the more cost effective choice.
    > > I haven't seen Intel's 64 bit P4 processors on www.pricewatch.com yet.
    > > It doesn't make any sense for someone to spend more than $150
    > > for a processor that is only 32 bits. Even at the $150 level, one
    > > should seriously think about the drawbacks of locking themselves into
    > > a 32 bit processor. How many people buy a PC with the intention of using
    > > it for less than a year? A year from now there will probably be plenty of
    > > X86-64 64 bit software available.
    >
    > Like I said above, how many people will actually know, or care, about a
    > 64bit OS/Software?

    In less than a year most will. How many people use a pc for less than a year?

    > Sure, the gamers will, and people who are really into
    > computers will, but they don't make up the majority of computer users. The
    > average user isn't going to rush out and buy all of the newest 64bit
    > software when it comes out.

    How can you be so certain of that?

    >
    >
    > I just upgraded to a 2.8GHz 800MHz FSB P4, and I don't plan on upgrading
    > until after college, about 2 years from now. I might not even upgrade than,
    > because this chip can be overclocked to 3.6GHz easy.

    Very funny. First you talk about most users, then you talk about overclocking.
    Most users don't even know what overclocking is, and the vast majority of
    people who do know what overclocking is still don't want to do it.

    > My only limitation
    > right now is RAM. Sure, when I do upgrade, and if the price is right, I
    > will do 64bit, and it will be Intel, just because I like Intel. I'm not
    > bashing AMD, it's just personal preference.

    So you admit that you can't provide a good reason for someone to use an
    Intel processor rather than an AMD processor.

    >
    >
    > > > -Dave
    > >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:411F8C53.8C2962C5@netscape.net...
    >
    >
    > Moderately Confused wrote:
    >
    > > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > > news:411F789F.47B3C73E@netscape.net...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Dave C." wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Video Editing. For about the thousandth time, there is nothing
    wrong
    > > with
    > > > > an Athlon 64, but it is not significantly better than a Intel P4
    > > Prescott.
    > > >
    > > > An Athlon 64 is much better tham a comparably priced P4 for business
    > > > applications and for many games, as well as many other types of
    > > applications.
    > > > The 32 bit processor you mentioned doesn't run 64 bit software. An
    > > Athlon 64
    > > > is much better than a comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 chip for
    running
    > > 64 bit
    > > > software.
    > > >
    > > > http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
    > >
    > > But, the OP doesn't want to play 3D games, he wants to do video editing.
    >
    > LOL! This is what he said.
    >
    > "My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > editing, limited video editing,....."
    >
    > Notice the emphasis on office applications?
    > The Athlon 64 is a superb performer for business applications.
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    Ok, I missed the limited video editing, and you got me on the office stuff.

    > >
    > > Who says that he is even going to run a 64bit OS? I'd say that most of
    the
    > > average users don't even know that many current OS are 32bit, or even
    know
    > > what it would mean.
    >
    > When 64 bit Windows is released, many PC owners who bought a pc
    > in '04 will become upset that they didn't buy one with a 64 bit processor.
    > People don't typically use a PC for only 6 months, but for a few years.

    I never said that people would stop using their computer after 6 months, but
    unless they use someone elses computer that is 64bit based, they won't know
    what they are missing. People won't be upset that they didn't get a 64bit
    processor. I'm not against a 64bit processor, don't get me wrong. I'm just
    saying that the average PC user isn't going to know the difference. I'm
    going to go out on a limb here, and say that for every one knowledgable PC
    user, there is two or three who aren't. So when Windows 64 (or whatever
    they are going to call it.) is released, there will *still* be a larger
    percentage of people using 98, ME, 2000, XP, etc.

    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Evenly matched? Certainly not for business software.
    > > >
    > > > A 3.2 ghz P4 Prescott is close in price to an Athlon 64 3400+.
    > > > The The Athlon 64 3400+ scored 24.9 in Business Winstone 2004,
    > > > while the P4 3.2 Prescott scored 21.8. Even a $105 Athlon XP 3000+
    > > > beats a $260 P4 3.2 ghz Prescott in Business Winstone 2004.
    > >
    > > You can't classify the "Business Software" category with one piece of
    > > software...
    >
    > It isn't one piece of software. Busineww Winstone 2004 is a benchmark
    > composed of several important business applications.
    >
    > http://www.veritest.com/benchmarks/bwinstone/s1wsapps.asp
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > > > Please
    > > > > stop bashing Intel.
    > > >
    > > > Why? Am I bashing Intel, or just showing that AMD processors are much
    > > > better alternatives for most people? Many might say that Intel
    processors
    > > > are good, but that AMD processors provide so much more value at each
    > > > price point.
    > >
    > > > > You are doing nobody any favors by doing so.
    > > >
    > > > Perhaps if Intel started pricing their processors more comptatively,
    > > > then an Intel processor might become a more viable option. Many
    > > > knowledgeable people don't want to pay a high price premium when
    > > > buying a processor to help cover Intel's huge marketing costs.
    > > > There are issues that can be discussed. It is silly of you to say
    > > > that AMD processors and comparably priced Intel processors are
    > > > evenly matched, especially when the evidence seems to say that
    > > > there are tremendous differences, and that for the vast najority
    > > > of users, an AMD processor is the more cost effective choice.
    > > > I haven't seen Intel's 64 bit P4 processors on www.pricewatch.com yet.
    > > > It doesn't make any sense for someone to spend more than $150
    > > > for a processor that is only 32 bits. Even at the $150 level, one
    > > > should seriously think about the drawbacks of locking themselves into
    > > > a 32 bit processor. How many people buy a PC with the intention of
    using
    > > > it for less than a year? A year from now there will probably be plenty
    of
    > > > X86-64 64 bit software available.
    > >
    > > Like I said above, how many people will actually know, or care,
    about a
    > > 64bit OS/Software?
    >
    > In less than a year most will. How many people use a pc for less than a
    year?

    I never said that people use a computer for less than a year. Just because
    something new has come out, it doesn't mean that people will go out right
    away and buy it. Sure some will/have too, but the majority won't.

    > > Sure, the gamers will, and people who are really into
    > > computers will, but they don't make up the majority of computer users.
    The
    > > average user isn't going to rush out and buy all of the newest 64bit
    > > software when it comes out.
    >
    > How can you be so certain of that?

    I'm not certain, it's just a guess. How can you be certain that people will
    go out and buy it?

    > >
    > >
    > > I just upgraded to a 2.8GHz 800MHz FSB P4, and I don't plan on
    upgrading
    > > until after college, about 2 years from now. I might not even upgrade
    than,
    > > because this chip can be overclocked to 3.6GHz easy.
    >
    > Very funny. First you talk about most users, then you talk about
    overclocking.
    > Most users don't even know what overclocking is, and the vast majority of
    > people who do know what overclocking is still don't want to do it.

    In case you didn't notice, I started off the sentence with "I", so that
    means I was talking about myself. Besides, 2.8 GHz is more than enough
    power for the average solitare/wordprocessing/internet browsing user.

    > > My only limitation
    > > right now is RAM. Sure, when I do upgrade, and if the price is right, I
    > > will do 64bit, and it will be Intel, just because I like Intel. I'm not
    > > bashing AMD, it's just personal preference.
    >
    > So you admit that you can't provide a good reason for someone to use an
    > Intel processor rather than an AMD processor.

    Personal preference. If I were to build a system for someone, and I was
    trying to keep it in a low budget, I would probably suggest an AMD. For a
    mid range to upper end range system, I would choose an Intel. For 64bit,
    for now, I would go with an AMD. Like I said, it's personal preference. I
    also like Ford over Chevy. If money were not an issue, I'd stay with Intel.

    MC
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:16:19 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Moderately Confused wrote:
    >
    >> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    >> news:411F789F.47B3C73E@netscape.net...
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "Dave C." wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > > Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?
    >> > > >
    >> > >
    >> > > Video Editing. For about the thousandth time, there is nothing wrong
    >> with
    >> > > an Athlon 64, but it is not significantly better than a Intel P4
    >> Prescott.
    >> >
    >> > An Athlon 64 is much better tham a comparably priced P4 for business
    >> > applications and for many games, as well as many other types of
    >> applications.
    >> > The 32 bit processor you mentioned doesn't run 64 bit software. An
    >> Athlon 64
    >> > is much better than a comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 chip for running
    >> 64 bit
    >> > software.
    >> >
    >> > http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
    >>
    >> But, the OP doesn't want to play 3D games, he wants to do video editing.
    >
    >LOL! This is what he said.
    >
    >"My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    >editing, limited video editing,....."
    >
    >Notice the emphasis on office applications?
    >The Athlon 64 is a superb performer for business applications.
    >
    >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
    >

    I would agree to go with Athlon 64. For intense video editing (such
    as movie making), Intel Prescott is a better choice. With either CPU,
    the retail version will include a processor fan. I'm not sure which
    one runs cooler.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Phisherman wrote:

    > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:16:19 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >Moderately Confused wrote:
    > >
    > >> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > >> news:411F789F.47B3C73E@netscape.net...
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "Dave C." wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > > > Why Intel? Why not an Athlon 64?
    > >> > > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Video Editing. For about the thousandth time, there is nothing wrong
    > >> with
    > >> > > an Athlon 64, but it is not significantly better than a Intel P4
    > >> Prescott.
    > >> >
    > >> > An Athlon 64 is much better tham a comparably priced P4 for business
    > >> > applications and for many games, as well as many other types of
    > >> applications.
    > >> > The 32 bit processor you mentioned doesn't run 64 bit software. An
    > >> Athlon 64
    > >> > is much better than a comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 chip for running
    > >> 64 bit
    > >> > software.
    > >> >
    > >> > http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
    > >>
    > >> But, the OP doesn't want to play 3D games, he wants to do video editing.
    > >
    > >LOL! This is what he said.
    > >
    > >"My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > >editing, limited video editing,....."
    > >
    > >Notice the emphasis on office applications?
    > >The Athlon 64 is a superb performer for business applications.
    > >
    > >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
    > >
    >
    > I would agree to go with Athlon 64. For intense video editing (such
    > as movie making), Intel Prescott is a better choice.

    It doesn't seem to be the case with 64 bit software.

    http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=4

    > With either CPU,
    > the retail version will include a processor fan. I'm not sure which
    > one runs cooler.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Wow, a lot of debate on my original post, which has been informative. After
    reviewing the postings here, I see I could have been more clear. I'll try
    that.

    My computer now uses an Asus K7M (I think) motherboard with an Athlon 550,
    512 megs, and 13.6 gig 7200 rpm IBM drive. Speed is modest for most
    business applications such as MS Office, Quicken, MS Money, Dreamweaver,
    Frontpage, Adobe Photoshop, and whatever video editing software I might get
    for transferring old Hi-8 video tapes to DVD. I use XP Home. Games might
    include a few simulation racing games or even something like Halo (saw a
    friend use this, looked fun). This would be minor use.

    I will keep the PC for a few years. I like to have technology that is not
    obsoleted within a year but do not need cutting edge stuff either. If 64
    bit apps or an OS arrives soon, it would be nice to have the hardware
    already in place. That said, after reading posts here and elsewhere, and
    looking at costs, I was considering the following components. I welcome any
    comments. Prices are from NewEgg.

    Case: Lian Li PC-V1000 (long term investment and looks good for future use)
    $206. May get something a bit cheaper, but like Lian Li.
    MotherBoard: ASUS K8V Se Deluxe ($113). Not sure here. Many boards to
    choose from!
    CPU: AMD Athlon 64 2800+ ($148).
    Memory: 512 meg, but do not what brand or type, speed, etc.. Rather lost
    here!
    Hard Drive: Western Digital 250 meg SATA drive ($171).

    Budget is pretty open. If it costs more and there is a benefit I can use,
    then I will probably be willing to get it.

    I welcome comments on the above components or alternates suggestions. No
    doubt, you know far more than I!

    Thanks, Phil

    "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:nUsTc.151804$eM2.75083@attbi_s51...
    > I have skills sufficient to make my own PC, but since I have not done this
    > for a few years, am way behind on the latest technology. I would like
    ideas
    > on the best motherboard, processor, RAM, and perhaps hard drive. Case
    > recommendations are welcome.
    >
    > My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > editing, limited video editing, limited gaming (if at all), Quicken, and
    > plenty of Internet use with a cable modem through Comcast. I'll be using
    a
    > Zip drive, Jaz drive, DVD burner, CD burner, and Zio card reader through a
    > USB port. Plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and Palm Pilot. I have a
    > Matrox G400 card with digital output for a Samsung 171P LCD, but is there
    a
    > better card with digital out for mostly text use? Opinions on Western
    > Digital 250 gig hard drive (Ultra/DMA 100)?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > - Phil
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:NlQTc.296916$JR4.84534@attbi_s54...
    > Wow, a lot of debate on my original post, which has been informative.
    After
    > reviewing the postings here, I see I could have been more clear. I'll try
    > that.
    >
    > My computer now uses an Asus K7M (I think) motherboard with an Athlon 550,
    > 512 megs, and 13.6 gig 7200 rpm IBM drive. Speed is modest for most
    > business applications such as MS Office, Quicken, MS Money, Dreamweaver,
    > Frontpage, Adobe Photoshop, and whatever video editing software I might
    get
    > for transferring old Hi-8 video tapes to DVD. I use XP Home. Games might
    > include a few simulation racing games or even something like Halo (saw a
    > friend use this, looked fun). This would be minor use.
    >
    > I will keep the PC for a few years. I like to have technology that is not
    > obsoleted within a year but do not need cutting edge stuff either. If 64
    > bit apps or an OS arrives soon, it would be nice to have the hardware
    > already in place. That said, after reading posts here and elsewhere, and
    > looking at costs, I was considering the following components. I welcome
    any
    > comments. Prices are from NewEgg.
    >
    > Case: Lian Li PC-V1000 (long term investment and looks good for future
    use)
    > $206. May get something a bit cheaper, but like Lian Li.
    > MotherBoard: ASUS K8V Se Deluxe ($113). Not sure here. Many boards to
    > choose from!
    > CPU: AMD Athlon 64 2800+ ($148).
    > Memory: 512 meg, but do not what brand or type, speed, etc.. Rather lost
    > here!

    I believe the general consenus is brands like Mushkin, Corsair, etc are some
    of the best. I'll let someone else help you with that.

    > Hard Drive: Western Digital 250 meg SATA drive ($171).
    >
    > Budget is pretty open. If it costs more and there is a benefit I can use,
    > then I will probably be willing to get it.

    Can you send some of that open budget this way?

    MC

    > I welcome comments on the above components or alternates suggestions. No
    > doubt, you know far more than I!
    >
    > Thanks, Phil
    >
    > "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:nUsTc.151804$eM2.75083@attbi_s51...
    > > I have skills sufficient to make my own PC, but since I have not done
    this
    > > for a few years, am way behind on the latest technology. I would like
    > ideas
    > > on the best motherboard, processor, RAM, and perhaps hard drive. Case
    > > recommendations are welcome.
    > >
    > > My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > > editing, limited video editing, limited gaming (if at all), Quicken, and
    > > plenty of Internet use with a cable modem through Comcast. I'll be
    using
    > a
    > > Zip drive, Jaz drive, DVD burner, CD burner, and Zio card reader through
    a
    > > USB port. Plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and Palm Pilot. I have a
    > > Matrox G400 card with digital output for a Samsung 171P LCD, but is
    there
    > a
    > > better card with digital out for mostly text use? Opinions on Western
    > > Digital 250 gig hard drive (Ultra/DMA 100)?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > - Phil
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Phil wrote:

    > Wow, a lot of debate on my original post, which has been informative. After
    > reviewing the postings here, I see I could have been more clear. I'll try
    > that.
    >
    > My computer now uses an Asus K7M (I think) motherboard with an Athlon 550,
    > 512 megs, and 13.6 gig 7200 rpm IBM drive. Speed is modest for most
    > business applications such as MS Office, Quicken, MS Money, Dreamweaver,
    > Frontpage, Adobe Photoshop, and whatever video editing software I might get
    > for transferring old Hi-8 video tapes to DVD. I use XP Home. Games might
    > include a few simulation racing games or even something like Halo (saw a
    > friend use this, looked fun). This would be minor use.
    >
    > I will keep the PC for a few years. I like to have technology that is not
    > obsoleted within a year but do not need cutting edge stuff either. If 64
    > bit apps or an OS arrives soon, it would be nice to have the hardware
    > already in place. That said, after reading posts here and elsewhere, and
    > looking at costs, I was considering the following components. I welcome any
    > comments. Prices are from NewEgg.
    >
    > Case: Lian Li PC-V1000 (long term investment and looks good for future use)
    > $206. May get something a bit cheaper, but like Lian Li.

    I wouldn't spend the money on this. I would buy an Antec case instead.
    Antec makes high quality power supplies. You could probably get an
    Antec case with a 350 watt Antec power supply for around $80, or if you
    must have an aluminum case, you could get an Antec Super Lanboy
    case without a power supply for around $85. The Lian Li cases
    usually come without a power supply. A 350 watt Antec power supply
    is around $50 on its own, so an Antec case with a 350 watt Antec power
    supply for $80 is by far the most economical option of the high quality
    choices presented here(There are slightly cheaper decent quality
    options, like an Inwin or Enlight case with power supply, however I
    think it is worth paying the premium for Antec).

    >
    > MotherBoard: ASUS K8V Se Deluxe ($113). Not sure here. Many boards to
    > choose from!

    I see Monarchcomputer.com has it for $94.


    >
    > CPU: AMD Athlon 64 2800+ ($148).

    The Athlon 64 3000+ retail box is only around $15-20 more than the Athlon 64
    2800+ , so I wouldn't even consider the 2800+. Whether it is worth spending
    an extra $45 or so above the Athlon 64 3000+ to get the 3200+ might be something
    worth pondering.


    >
    > Memory: 512 meg, but do not what brand or type, speed, etc.. Rather lost
    > here!

    PC3200 ddr ram. Start with one 512 meg stick, so you will have plenty of
    room to add more if you later feel a need. Go with a brand name like
    Samsung or Micron.

    >
    > Hard Drive: Western Digital 250 meg SATA drive ($171).

    If you plan to do plenty of video, then you need a large hard drive(s), and
    probably
    a DVD writer as well. Otherwise a 160 or 200 gig hard might be more than
    enough. You might be able to get a 7200 rpm 160 gig hard drive 8 meg
    buffer for around $90, or 200 gig 8 meg buffer drive for $110(Maxtor, Western
    Digital or Seagate.)


    >
    >
    > Budget is pretty open. If it costs more and there is a benefit I can use,
    > then I will probably be willing to get it.
    >
    > I welcome comments on the above components or alternates suggestions. No
    > doubt, you know far more than I!
    >
    > Thanks, Phil
    >
    > "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:nUsTc.151804$eM2.75083@attbi_s51...
    > > I have skills sufficient to make my own PC, but since I have not done this
    > > for a few years, am way behind on the latest technology. I would like
    > ideas
    > > on the best motherboard, processor, RAM, and perhaps hard drive. Case
    > > recommendations are welcome.
    > >
    > > My use is mostly office applications (Word, Access, Excel), basic photo
    > > editing, limited video editing, limited gaming (if at all), Quicken, and
    > > plenty of Internet use with a cable modem through Comcast. I'll be using
    > a
    > > Zip drive, Jaz drive, DVD burner, CD burner, and Zio card reader through a
    > > USB port. Plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and Palm Pilot. I have a
    > > Matrox G400 card with digital output for a Samsung 171P LCD, but is there
    > a
    > > better card with digital out for mostly text use? Opinions on Western
    > > Digital 250 gig hard drive (Ultra/DMA 100)?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > - Phil
    > >
    > >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Phil" <p.mentz@comcast.net> said:

    > Games might
    > include a few simulation racing games or even something like Halo

    Your component list excludes a video card and you'll need a good one for
    Halo. I recommend a 9600XT or 5700Ultra as a bare minimum for Halo. Better
    cards would be ... 9700pro, 9800pro, 5900 or 6800. I just bought a 5900XT.

    --
    Mac Cool
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Systems