Opinions wanted on new box

[Guest]

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

I am very close to a new box purchase and would like opinions on the
equipment I have selected below:

Intel P4-550 3.4GHz LGA775
Antec SX1040BII (SOHO File Server) w/ 400W PSU
AOpen 52X CD-RW/16X DVD-ROM Combo
Western Digital 160GB S-ATA
ATI Radeon™ X700 Pro 256MB GDDR3 w/ DVI, TV-Out
2 X 512MB PC-4200 DDR II 533MHz 240-pin, unbuffered
ABIT AA8 DuraMax Intel 925X DDR2 w/ 7.1 sound, Gb LAN, PCI-E

I have thought about AMD but there are no PCIe MBs in the pipeline yet
and PCIe with AMD is not yet proven. I am also on a bit of a budget.

Ron

 

[Guest]

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

"Ron Joiner" <joiner@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:hSOnd.182643$Np3.7379552@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>I am very close to a new box purchase and would like opinions on the
>equipment I have selected below:
>
> Intel P4-550 3.4GHz LGA775
> Antec SX1040BII (SOHO File Server) w/ 400W PSU
> AOpen 52X CD-RW/16X DVD-ROM Combo
> Western Digital 160GB S-ATA
> ATI Radeon™ X700 Pro 256MB GDDR3 w/ DVI, TV-Out
> 2 X 512MB PC-4200 DDR II 533MHz 240-pin, unbuffered
> ABIT AA8 DuraMax Intel 925X DDR2 w/ 7.1 sound, Gb LAN, PCI-E
>
> I have thought about AMD but there are no PCIe MBs in the pipeline yet and
> PCIe with AMD is not yet proven. I am also on a bit of a budget.

A bit of a budget, and you are building THAT rig??? Well, I guess that
would explain how you would choose some of the most expensive components
possible, and then skimp on the relatively inexpensive optical drive. Why
build PCI Express at all? There is nothing to gain by going PCI Express at
the moment. If it's future upgrades you are thinking about, you will
probably replace every component in this system you are planning to build
within 2 years anyway. (that's the average)

I'd suggest you go with a dual layer DVD burner, as that will cost you like,
nothing extra (relatively speaking). Also, you should consider building
socket 478, as the LGA775 processors are not faster, and LGA775 is not a
future upgrade path, either. (not that you will upgrade anyway, you'll
probably just replace everything, like I said before)

It's your money, but I'd suggest you look at the following for equal
performance at a lower cost:
ASUS "P4P800 SE" i865PE Chipset Motherboard for Intel Socket 478 CPU
Intel Pentium 3.4E (if you can find it) or 3.2E or even 3.2C, socket 478
2 X 512MB PC3200 DDR400 RAM
NEC ND-3500A 16X double layer DVD burner
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro video card

 

[Guest]

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

>>Intel P4-550 3.4GHz LGA775
>>> Antec SX1040BII (SOHO File Server) w/ 400W PSU
>>> AOpen 52X CD-RW/16X DVD-ROM Combo
>>> Western Digital 160GB S-ATA
>>> ATI Radeon™ X700 Pro 256MB GDDR3 w/ DVI, TV-Out
>>> 2 X 512MB PC-4200 DDR II 533MHz 240-pin, unbuffered
>>> ABIT AA8 DuraMax Intel 925X DDR2 w/ 7.1 sound, Gb LAN, PCI-E
>>>
>>> I have thought about AMD but there are no PCIe MBs in the pipeline yet and
>>> PCIe with AMD is not yet proven. I am also on a bit of a budget.
>
>
> A bit of a budget, and you are building THAT rig??? Well, I guess that
> would explain how you would choose some of the most expensive components
> possible, and then skimp on the relatively inexpensive optical drive. Why
> build PCI Express at all? There is nothing to gain by going PCI Express at
> the moment. If it's future upgrades you are thinking about, you will
> probably replace every component in this system you are planning to build
> within 2 years anyway. (that's the average)

Exactly what I was thinking. If you're on a budget, you buy AMD.
Anyone who comparatively prices the combined CPUs and motherboards
knows there's no comparison in value -- AMD is way out in front.
Intel CPUs are for people with lots of money who don't know any
better.

 

[Guest]

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

>>
>> A bit of a budget, and you are building THAT rig??? Well, I guess that
>> would explain how you would choose some of the most expensive components
>> possible, and then skimp on the relatively inexpensive optical drive.
>> Why build PCI Express at all? There is nothing to gain by going PCI
>> Express at the moment. If it's future upgrades you are thinking about,
>> you will probably replace every component in this system you are planning
>> to build within 2 years anyway. (that's the average)
>
> Exactly what I was thinking. If you're on a budget, you buy AMD. Anyone
> who comparatively prices the combined CPUs and motherboards knows there's
> no comparison in value -- AMD is way out in front. Intel CPUs are for
> people with lots of money who don't know any better.

Well, nice to see you agree with me. Now let me disagree with you. I've
done extensive research on this issue, as far as who is the best value
(AMD/Intel). Unless you are building super high-end (which favors AMD),
there is little difference at all. If there is a difference, it is likely
to favor Intel. How does that work? Well, if you spend about two hundred
bucks (or so) on a processor (either AMD or Intel, with the same speed
rating), you are likely to find a cheaper mainboard with the SAME quality
and SAME specifications for less money for the *Intel chip*, and all other
components are identical. It boils down to variety and maturity of
mainboards. Intel has a better variety of mature (but still current
technology) mainboards, so there are better bargains to be found if you
build with an Intel chip.

Overall the difference (speed and price) is slight for mid-range systems, so
you can't go wrong either way (Intel or AMD) At the very low end, AMD is
better and at the very high end, AMD is better. For the average system that
most people would actually build though, it's pretty much a tie. -Dave

 

[jk]

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

Ron Joiner wrote:

> I am very close to a new box purchase and would like opinions on the
> equipment I have selected below:
>
> Intel P4-550 3.4GHz LGA775

UGH! Get an Athlon 64 instead. It is silly to pay a high price for a 32 bit
processor. All 32 bit processors should be low priced budget chips.
Many who buy a 32 bit processor in 2004 or early 2005 will regret that
decision as plenty of great 64 bit software is released in the second
half of '05.

>
> Antec SX1040BII (SOHO File Server) w/ 400W PSU
> AOpen 52X CD-RW/16X DVD-ROM Combo
> Western Digital 160GB S-ATA
> ATI Radeon™ X700 Pro 256MB GDDR3 w/ DVI, TV-Out
> 2 X 512MB PC-4200 DDR II 533MHz 240-pin, unbuffered
> ABIT AA8 DuraMax Intel 925X DDR2 w/ 7.1 sound, Gb LAN, PCI-E
>
> I have thought about AMD but there are no PCIe MBs in the pipeline yet

Why do you need PCIe? AGP video cards perform well enough.

>
> and PCIe with AMD is not yet proven. I am also on a bit of a budget.

Then why would you want PCI Express or Intel?
A P4 550 (3.4 ghz) is around $275, while an Athlon 64 3400+ is only around $215, and the
superb Athlon 64 3500+ 90 nm is only $252.

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417

http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

>
>
> Ron

 

[jk]

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

"Dave C." wrote:

> >>
> >> A bit of a budget, and you are building THAT rig??? Well, I guess that
> >> would explain how you would choose some of the most expensive components
> >> possible, and then skimp on the relatively inexpensive optical drive.
> >> Why build PCI Express at all? There is nothing to gain by going PCI
> >> Express at the moment. If it's future upgrades you are thinking about,
> >> you will probably replace every component in this system you are planning
> >> to build within 2 years anyway. (that's the average)
> >
> > Exactly what I was thinking. If you're on a budget, you buy AMD. Anyone
> > who comparatively prices the combined CPUs and motherboards knows there's
> > no comparison in value -- AMD is way out in front. Intel CPUs are for
> > people with lots of money who don't know any better.
>
> Well, nice to see you agree with me. Now let me disagree with you. I've
> done extensive research on this issue, as far as who is the best value
> (AMD/Intel). Unless you are building super high-end (which favors AMD),
> there is little difference at all.

LOL!

An Athlon 64 3500+ 90nm is $252, while a P4 550 (3.4 ghz is $276).

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

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

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417



> If there is a difference, it is likely
> to favor Intel.

ROFLMAO! Let me know when Intel lowers the price of the Pentium 4 560
to below what the Athlon 64 3500+ sells for. Right now, the 560 is almost
double the price!

> How does that work? Well, if you spend about two hundred
> bucks (or so) on a processor (either AMD or Intel, with the same speed
> rating), you are likely to find a cheaper mainboard with the SAME quality
> and SAME specifications for less money for the *Intel chip*, and all other
> components are identical. It boils down to variety and maturity of
> mainboards. Intel has a better variety of mature (but still current
> technology) mainboards, so there are better bargains to be found if you
> build with an Intel chip.
>
> Overall the difference (speed and price) is slight for mid-range systems, so
> you can't go wrong either way (Intel or AMD) At the very low end, AMD is
> better and at the very high end, AMD is better. For the average system that
> most people would actually build though, it's pretty much a tie. -Dave

ROFLMAO! For Doom 3, it takes an $840 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE to come
close to the performance of a $140 Athlon 64 3000+ .

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

A $140 Athlon 64 3000+ beats a $204 Pentium 4 Prescott in Business
Winstone 2004. When will Intel drop the price on the 3.2 ghz Prescott
so that it retails for under $140?

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

 

[Guest]

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

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41A0D635.F0C4686B@netscape.net...
>
According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:

P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as
hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
of their system combined.

So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
has the best bang for buck, at the moment.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=1

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3329681__1

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/19/04

 

[jk]

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

"Dave C." wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:41943476.5ECF3B10@netscape.net...
> > Why a Pentium 4? Why not an Athlon 64?
> > The Athlon 64 is a great performer running 32 bit software using a
> > 32 bit operating system. If you use a 64 bit operating system, you
> > can run 32 bit software side by side with 64 bit software. Many
> > people who buy a 32 bit processor in '04 or ealy '05, will probably
> > regret not buying a 64 bit processor instead, as plenty of great 64 bit
> > software is released in the second half of '05.
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
> > http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=257&p=1
> >
> According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:
>
> P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or
>
> P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Not quite. The Athlon 64 3500+ is less than the Prescott 3.4 ghz.


>
>
> Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
> Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as
> hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
> of their system combined.
>
> So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
> has the best bang for buck, at the moment.
>
> Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster

Not quite.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10



>
> Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
> Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
> TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
> So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
> one tie.
> GAMING OVERALL: TIED
>
> Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

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




>
> Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. See the Content Creation Winstone 2004 results.

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



>
> Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Even an Athlon XP3000+($111) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

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



>
>
> Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
> towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.
>
> Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide
>
> Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
> *CPU* and memory benchmarks
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
>
> Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
> build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
> better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
> be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
> it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.
>
> The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
> is,
> the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
> P4
> processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
> are
> pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
> being faster on others.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=1
>
> Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
> the
> 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
> comparison
> of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
> careful,
> as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
> on
> some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
> you
> will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
> faster
> on some and Intel faster on others.
>
> http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3329681__1
>
> Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
> would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/19/04

Very funny. A $140 Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754 )beats an $840 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

A $111 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $205 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

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


http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:09:07 -0500, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>

>
>I'd suggest you go with a dual layer DVD burner, as that will cost you like,
>nothing extra (relatively speaking). Also, you should consider building
>socket 478, as the LGA775 processors are not faster, and LGA775 is not a
>future upgrade path, either. (not that you will upgrade anyway, you'll
>probably just replace everything, like I said before)
>
>It's your money, but I'd suggest you look at the following for equal
>performance at a lower cost:
>ASUS "P4P800 SE" i865PE Chipset Motherboard for Intel Socket 478 CPU
>Intel Pentium 3.4E (if you can find it) or 3.2E or even 3.2C, socket 478
>2 X 512MB PC3200 DDR400 RAM
>NEC ND-3500A 16X double layer DVD burner
>ATI Radeon 9800 Pro video card

With these in mind,i selected for fun a Socket 478 System for around
900$...
Could not afford it yet :-(

So his System might be around 1300-1600$ now...


My older Celeron 1700 System has to do the job any longer...

 

[Guest]

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

Dave C.:

> The media (blanks) for DVD burners are about as cheap as CDR media

You must buy some cheap ass dvd media. The DVD -+R that I buy are about 5X
as much as the CD-Rs I buy. I don't buy the cheapest discs I can find
though.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

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

"Mac Cool" <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A8F098C52D0MacCool@24.25.9.42...
> Dave C.:
>
>> The media (blanks) for DVD burners are about as cheap as CDR media
>
> You must buy some cheap ass dvd media. The DVD -+R that I buy are about 5X
> as much as the CD-Rs I buy. I don't buy the cheapest discs I can find
> though.
> --
> Mac Cool

Actually, I've had really good luck with cheap DVD media and really bad luck
with cheap CDR media, even when I was using high-end CDR/W drives that had
no DVD capability. Consequently, I tend to actively avoid the cheaper CDR
media. Is it really a bargain if every third disc is a coaster? -Dave