Basic Motherboard Upgrade Advice?

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

I have an EPoX EP-8K7A motherboard with an AMD Athlon running at around 1.1
GHz. I recently upgraded the graphics to a GeForce 6800 with AGP8X and
128MB DDR. I've confirmed with EPoX though that the mb does not support
AGP8X and 99% of the time the initial cold boot cycle hangs never reaching
the Desktop. 99.9% of the time the second boot works fine. Sometimes the
mouse freezes. EPoX thinks this is why the lack of AGP8X support is
manifesting itself. Games all seem to otherwise play fine.

If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I sit
it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?

Should I bail out of AMD and return to Intel with something bigger and
better?

I don't feel I have any need to spend my last dollar for the latest and
greatest and fastest, but would like to get things back in line and running
faster--mb, cpu, and RAM no doubt.

Any ideas on what direction to point me? Thanks much. I haven't worked my
own system up for years now so I don't know the best spots to start the
searching and thinking.
32 answers Last reply
More about basic motherboard upgrade advice
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
    news:0shsq09p0gfbueck7igpum3e9og8ihps2r@4ax.com...
    > I have an EPoX EP-8K7A motherboard with an AMD Athlon running at around
    1.1
    > GHz. I recently upgraded the graphics to a GeForce 6800 with AGP8X and
    > 128MB DDR. I've confirmed with EPoX though that the mb does not support
    > AGP8X and 99% of the time the initial cold boot cycle hangs never reaching
    > the Desktop. 99.9% of the time the second boot works fine. Sometimes the
    > mouse freezes. EPoX thinks this is why the lack of AGP8X support is
    > manifesting itself. Games all seem to otherwise play fine.
    >
    > If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I
    sit
    > it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?
    >
    > Should I bail out of AMD and return to Intel with something bigger and
    > better?
    >
    > I don't feel I have any need to spend my last dollar for the latest and
    > greatest and fastest, but would like to get things back in line and
    running
    > faster--mb, cpu, and RAM no doubt.
    >
    > Any ideas on what direction to point me? Thanks much. I haven't worked
    my
    > own system up for years now so I don't know the best spots to start the
    > searching and thinking.

    I'd say if your happy with having to boot twice, than leave it the way it
    is. If your not happy having to boot twice, why deal with the problem for 6
    months waiting for something better to come out? You'll just be stuck in an
    endless cycle of waiting.

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

    I don't think your PSu is up to the needs of the Graphics card

    "Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
    news:0shsq09p0gfbueck7igpum3e9og8ihps2r@4ax.com...
    > I have an EPoX EP-8K7A motherboard with an AMD Athlon running at around
    1.1
    > GHz. I recently upgraded the graphics to a GeForce 6800 with AGP8X and
    > 128MB DDR. I've confirmed with EPoX though that the mb does not support
    > AGP8X and 99% of the time the initial cold boot cycle hangs never reaching
    > the Desktop. 99.9% of the time the second boot works fine. Sometimes the
    > mouse freezes. EPoX thinks this is why the lack of AGP8X support is
    > manifesting itself. Games all seem to otherwise play fine.
    >
    > If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I
    sit
    > it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?
    >
    > Should I bail out of AMD and return to Intel with something bigger and
    > better?
    >
    > I don't feel I have any need to spend my last dollar for the latest and
    > greatest and fastest, but would like to get things back in line and
    running
    > faster--mb, cpu, and RAM no doubt.
    >
    > Any ideas on what direction to point me? Thanks much. I haven't worked
    my
    > own system up for years now so I don't know the best spots to start the
    > searching and thinking.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
    news:0shsq09p0gfbueck7igpum3e9og8ihps2r@4ax.com...
    >I have an EPoX EP-8K7A motherboard with an AMD Athlon running at around 1.1
    > GHz. I recently upgraded the graphics to a GeForce 6800 with AGP8X and
    > 128MB DDR. I've confirmed with EPoX though that the mb does not support
    > AGP8X and 99% of the time the initial cold boot cycle hangs never reaching
    > the Desktop. 99.9% of the time the second boot works fine. Sometimes the
    > mouse freezes. EPoX thinks this is why the lack of AGP8X support is
    > manifesting itself. Games all seem to otherwise play fine.
    >
    > If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I
    > sit
    > it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?
    >
    > Should I bail out of AMD and return to Intel with something bigger and
    > better?
    >
    > I don't feel I have any need to spend my last dollar for the latest and
    > greatest and fastest, but would like to get things back in line and
    > running
    > faster--mb, cpu, and RAM no doubt.
    >
    > Any ideas on what direction to point me? Thanks much. I haven't worked
    > my
    > own system up for years now so I don't know the best spots to start the
    > searching and thinking.

    OK, start with this:

    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?submit=Go&DEPA=0&CMP=OTC-Froogle&description=N82E16813123208

    Your current CPU and RAM should work OK on that board, as well as your video
    card. When you want more speed, you can pop in a 400FSB processor. When
    you want even MORE speed, you can pop in 512MB of DDR400 RAM to replace your
    current RAM.

    As someone else posted, your symptoms might suggest a power supply that is
    too weak. And it's not a good idea to recycle a power supply into a new
    system. So REGARDLESS of what your next move is, I'd strongly suggest you
    invest in a decent power supply like the following first. -Dave

    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=17-153-006&depa=0
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JAD" <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote in message
    news:Cctrd.579$cv2.337@fe05.lga...
    >I don't think your PSu is up to the needs of the Graphics card
    >

    I think her mainboard is supplying too much voltage to the graphics card. I
    hope she replaces that motherboard before it frys her new video card. But
    you could be right about the PSU, also. -Dave
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I sit
    >it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?

    Maybe not a bad idea. Word around the campfire is BTX will make ATX
    obsolete. More info is available at http://www.formfactors.org/.
    Wait around to see what shakes loose.

    --
    If it's spam, it's a scam! Don't do business with net-abusers.
    http://mbdynip.dyndns.org/html/mboard/

    alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt mini-FAQ available at:
    ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt/
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    <techie@x87.com> wrote in message
    news:3olsq05kudv7d0psbg94fi0q0bnpr96vna@4ax.com...
    > >If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I
    > >sit
    >>it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?
    >
    > Maybe not a bad idea. Word around the campfire is BTX will make ATX
    > obsolete. More info is available at http://www.formfactors.org/.
    > Wait around to see what shakes loose.
    >

    You've been hanging out at the wrong campfire. BTX is a scam which intel is
    trying to foist off on the all-too-gullible public. So far at least, very
    few people have bought into it, thank goodness. There is NOTHING in BTX
    that can't be easily incorporated into ATX. A new form factor is not
    needed. -Dave
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Now, as ATX and its closest cousins begin to show its age from the advent of
    new technologies like Serial ATA and PCI Express, a new form factor is seen
    as a need by many companies and Intel has the answer - it's called Balanced
    Technology eXtended (BTX). BTX, in its basic principle design, is very
    similar to that of ATX, but there are a slew of changes that can and will be
    utilized to show that it has the potential to improve the system as
    a whole in terms of acoustics and heat dissipation.

    keyword 'potential'

    http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId=611

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message
    news:3175onF36g3fqU1@individual.net...
    >
    > <techie@x87.com> wrote in message
    > news:3olsq05kudv7d0psbg94fi0q0bnpr96vna@4ax.com...
    > > >If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I
    > > >sit
    > >>it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?
    > >
    > > Maybe not a bad idea. Word around the campfire is BTX will make ATX
    > > obsolete. More info is available at http://www.formfactors.org/.
    > > Wait around to see what shakes loose.
    > >
    >
    > You've been hanging out at the wrong campfire. BTX is a scam which intel
    is
    > trying to foist off on the all-too-gullible public. So far at least, very
    > few people have bought into it, thank goodness. There is NOTHING in BTX
    > that can't be easily incorporated into ATX. A new form factor is not
    > needed. -Dave
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Susan wrote:
    > I have an EPoX EP-8K7A motherboard with an AMD Athlon running at
    around 1.1
    > GHz. I recently upgraded the graphics to a GeForce 6800 with AGP8X
    and
    > 128MB DDR. I've confirmed with EPoX though that the mb does not
    support
    > AGP8X and 99% of the time the initial cold boot cycle hangs never
    reaching
    > the Desktop. 99.9% of the time the second boot works fine.
    Sometimes the
    > mouse freezes. EPoX thinks this is why the lack of AGP8X support is
    > manifesting itself. Games all seem to otherwise play fine.
    >
    > If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should
    I sit
    > it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?
    >
    > Should I bail out of AMD and return to Intel with something bigger
    and
    > better?

    Initial boot failure is often a sign of a weak power supply, and the
    problem may not be inadequate total wattage but inadequate power on one
    particular voltage output, either the +5V (if the video card lacks its
    own power connector) or +12V (if it has its own power connector). A
    check with a voltage meter (any digital model is more than accurate
    enough) can reveal this fairly quickly. Personally I wouldn't risk
    running video card in the 6800 class if it lacked a power connector
    since it could cause the main motherboard power connetor to overheat
    (brown marks where the red wires go into the white plastic).

    The best thing to do with computers is avoid the cutting edge since it
    costs so much more but gives only slightly better performance. And
    don't switch to BTX until it becomes the dominate case style, that is,
    becomes cheaper than ATX.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Good info to work on so far...thanks.

    I take it there remain good reasons to stick it out with AMD and not jump
    over to Intel which would be more expensive including a CPU.

    I hadn't thought of the power supply angle. There may be something to it
    since the psu might only be 300 watts and I did add a second hdd and a DVD
    burner recently, not to mention the 6800. :( That's two hdds and 2 CD/DVD
    burners.

    BTW, since I only use the basic 3 speaker system is there any reason to
    using the SoundBlaster Live card over the motherboard onboard sound?
    Likewise onboard LAN sounds like it would make sense.

    I haven't taken a closer look at the EPoX board or psu recommended yet and
    I don't think anyone has suggested anything else. It would be nice to have
    some second opinions on these and maybe Tom's Hardware could help. I'm not
    trying to go so far with this that I can't decide what to get though. But
    I am all for working toward a quieter system--the damn thing is to noisy
    even sitting behind the desk off the floor. It is not from the psu though,
    which is quiet. I suspect it is the CPU fan--maybe there is a quieter fan
    to get?

    Thanks for all the help.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JAD" <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote in message
    news:bvtrd.582$SM2.344@fe05.lga...
    > Now, as ATX and its closest cousins begin to show its age from the advent
    > of
    > new technologies like Serial ATA and PCI Express, a new form factor is
    > seen
    > as a need by many companies and Intel has the answer - it's called
    > Balanced
    > Technology eXtended (BTX). BTX, in its basic principle design, is very
    > similar to that of ATX, but there are a slew of changes that can and will
    > be
    > utilized to show that it has the potential to improve the system
    > as
    > a whole in terms of acoustics and heat dissipation.
    >
    > keyword 'potential'

    Yes, and I've reviewed all of those proposed changes in detail. NONE of
    them couldn't be implemented into the ATX form factor quite easily. -Dave
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
    news:guotq0p8q3cmaqbkk8fmetlb6e4rvd7b0h@4ax.com...
    > Good info to work on so far...thanks.
    >
    > I take it there remain good reasons to stick it out with AMD and not jump
    > over to Intel which would be more expensive including a CPU.
    >
    > I hadn't thought of the power supply angle. There may be something to it
    > since the psu might only be 300 watts and I did add a second hdd and a DVD
    > burner recently, not to mention the 6800. :( That's two hdds and 2
    > CD/DVD
    > burners.
    >
    > BTW, since I only use the basic 3 speaker system is there any reason to
    > using the SoundBlaster Live card over the motherboard onboard sound?
    > Likewise onboard LAN sounds like it would make sense.
    >
    > I haven't taken a closer look at the EPoX board or psu recommended yet and
    > I don't think anyone has suggested anything else. It would be nice to
    > have
    > some second opinions on these and maybe Tom's Hardware could help. I'm
    > not
    > trying to go so far with this that I can't decide what to get though. But
    > I am all for working toward a quieter system--the damn thing is to noisy
    > even sitting behind the desk off the floor. It is not from the psu
    > though,
    > which is quiet. I suspect it is the CPU fan--maybe there is a quieter fan
    > to get?
    >
    > Thanks for all the help.

    I recommended the Epox board for a number of reasons. The socket A platform
    has a lot of upgrade potential if you are starting with a ~1.1GHz processor.
    AFAIK, socket A goes all the way up to 3GHz or so, which would make a
    significant improvement in performance on your system. But you COULD jump
    straight to a Athlon 64 or even Intel Pentium 4 system, if you want to.
    That would give you even better performance, but it'll cost you. To go with
    a faster socket A system might make more sense, as you can work on it a
    little at a time.

    Onboard sound and LAN solutions are pretty decent. There is no need to
    upgrade.

    The following is a good quiet cooler for socket A . . . either your current
    CPU or a faster one, if you decide to upgrade it. -Dave
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=35-150-010&depa=0
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <3olsq05kudv7d0psbg94fi0q0bnpr96vna@4ax.com>, says...
    > >If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I sit
    > >it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?
    >
    > Maybe not a bad idea. Word around the campfire is BTX will make ATX
    > obsolete. More info is available at http://www.formfactors.org/.
    > Wait around to see what shakes loose.
    >
    AMD has no plans to jump on the BTX bandwagon which leaves Intel, who
    are losing CPU market share, to try and force it through.


    --
    Conor

    Greedo shot first. Greedo ALWAYS shot first. You did not see Solo shoot
    first.
    It never happened. Never, ever. Not in any version. Remember: Greedo
    shot first.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Susan wrote:

    > I have an EPoX EP-8K7A motherboard with an AMD Athlon running at around
    > 1.1
    > GHz. I recently upgraded the graphics to a GeForce 6800 with AGP8X and
    > 128MB DDR. I've confirmed with EPoX though that the mb does not support
    > AGP8X and 99% of the time the initial cold boot cycle hangs never reaching
    > the Desktop. 99.9% of the time the second boot works fine. Sometimes the
    > mouse freezes. EPoX thinks this is why the lack of AGP8X support is
    > manifesting itself. Games all seem to otherwise play fine.

    I've installed 8X cards in 4X boards with no problem. I've also installed 4X
    cards in 2X boards with no problem. I can't see why lack of 8X support
    would cause a problem. The motherboard and card should simply run at either
    2X or 4X, whichever the motherboard supports, which should be 4X in your
    case.

    > If I were to upgrade the motherboard now is my timing right or should I
    > sit it out another six months which would be easy enough to do maybe?

    In six months, something even better will still be on the horizon. Jump in
    now and get it over with. It's like a dog chasing its tail: It never
    catches it. Besides, I doubt there will be anything new and great in 6
    months that supports the AGP slot than there is out there now, except if
    someone releases boards that have both AGP and PCI-e 16 slots. Who knows?

    > Should I bail out of AMD and return to Intel with something bigger and
    > better?

    Are you kidding? AMD is on fire and Intel's flame is smoldering. AMD is
    definitely the way to go, both for performance and value. The Athlon 64
    systems will get about a 20% boost in speed with the release of 64 bit
    Windows. Right now, in 32 bit mode, they compete head to head with Intel's
    finest.

    > I don't feel I have any need to spend my last dollar for the latest and
    > greatest and fastest, but would like to get things back in line and
    > running faster--mb, cpu, and RAM no doubt.

    If you have an 8X card that you want to keep, Socket 939 boards are very
    reasonable and they support dual channel DDR. Honestly, the graphics card
    better be one you don't ever intend on upgrading because nVidia and ATi
    have both announced no new products for AGP after the current generation.

    > Any ideas on what direction to point me? Thanks much. I haven't worked
    > my own system up for years now so I don't know the best spots to start the
    > searching and thinking.

    Knowing that you sunk quite a bit of investment in a GeForce 6800 card, I
    suggest nice new Athlon 64 Socket 939 board like either the MSI K8N Neo2
    Platinum nForce2 Ultra.

    http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=241143

    You can decide on which Athlon 64 CPU you want, based on your budget. For
    memory, let me recommend Corsair Twin X pairs. 1GB should do wonders for
    you.

    http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80097-16

    Feel free to purchase higher frequency and/or lower latency models if you
    plan to overclock your system to its fullest. You'll get more mileage out
    of higher frequency RAM than low latency, in my experience.

    Some good places to visit for reviews and help are:

    www.tomshardware.com
    www.ocworkbench.com
    www.cdrinfo.com
    www.cdfreaks.com
    www.xbitlabs.com
    www.tweaktown.com
    www.sharkyextreme.com
    www.motherboards.org
    www.hardocp.com
    www.cdrlabs.com
    www.extremeoverclocking.com
    www.hardcoreware.net
    www.lostcircuits.com
    www.overclockercafe.com
    www.hexus.net
    www.hardwareanalysis.com
    www.anandtech.com
    www.amdzone.com
    www.amdmb.com
    www.octools.com
    www.theinquirer.net
    www.viaarena.com

    Also, look at the OEM sites themselves. My favorites are:

    www.corsairmicro.com
    www.crucial.com
    www.msicomputer.com
    usa.asus.com
    www.giga-byte.com
    www.abit-usa.com

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

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >Yes, and I've reviewed all of those proposed changes in detail. NONE of
    >them couldn't be implemented into the ATX form factor quite easily. -Dave

    Dave, are you being contradictory? If a new form factor (BTX) is needed to
    support the proposed changes in a mb then bring it on... Or, were you
    saying you reviewed the proposed changes and you see no need for them so
    that ATX, since these un-needed changes cannot be integrated into it,
    should remain as is?

    It doesn't sound like BTX will be ready for me in 6 months. Read on
    because I think I need to make a change of some sort now.

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

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >I think her mainboard is supplying too much voltage to the graphics card. I
    >hope she replaces that motherboard before it frys her new video card. But
    >you could be right about the PSU, also. -Dave

    I couldn't find the psu data so I'll have to stand on my head--but I'm not
    going to do that just yet because...

    I just started playing Half-Life 2 and some of the automatically set
    options came out medium and the water reflections were set to simple.
    After playing for hours and shutting down for the night it took a long time
    and the Desktop graphics was screwed up for a minute until everything
    eventually settled down to normal. When I turned up the options that were
    set down the in-game graphics totally choked and I couldn't turn the game
    off normally but Ctrl-Alt-Del worked, as did Alt-Tab.

    I'm thinking (wondering) if this is also a result of trying to use an AGP
    8X card on a 4X mb?

    Is there really a voltage slot difference between 4X and 8X? That really
    could be serious if I am really supplying more voltage then I should to the
    6800.

    If I wanted to upgrade now and spend over $300 instead of under $100 and go
    for 3+ GHz would I be better off in the long run bailing from AMD or not?

    That $10 CPU cooler on NewEgg looked great. I bet they make one for a P4
    too? And I bet they'd sell the Intel mb, P4, and memory too?

    I've been using a nice square style mid-sized aluminum tower by Lian Li.
    Do cases really make a noise difference? What is specifically good to look
    for in a quiet case?

    I haven't bought anything yet but I am getting kind of antsy. I'm tired of
    a local friend telling how neat a game is with all the features turned up
    and I discover I have to leave some features turned down.

    Thanks for the help. I feel like spending some money now...but not the
    bleeding-edge please.

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

    >
    > I couldn't find the psu data so I'll have to stand on my head--but I'm not
    > going to do that just yet because...
    >
    > I just started playing Half-Life 2 and some of the automatically set
    > options came out medium and the water reflections were set to simple.
    > After playing for hours and shutting down for the night it took a long
    > time
    > and the Desktop graphics was screwed up for a minute until everything
    > eventually settled down to normal. When I turned up the options that were
    > set down the in-game graphics totally choked and I couldn't turn the game
    > off normally but Ctrl-Alt-Del worked, as did Alt-Tab.
    >
    > I'm thinking (wondering) if this is also a result of trying to use an AGP
    > 8X card on a 4X mb?
    >
    > Is there really a voltage slot difference between 4X and 8X? That really
    > could be serious if I am really supplying more voltage then I should to
    > the
    > 6800.
    >
    > If I wanted to upgrade now and spend over $300 instead of under $100 and
    > go
    > for 3+ GHz would I be better off in the long run bailing from AMD or not?
    >
    > That $10 CPU cooler on NewEgg looked great. I bet they make one for a P4
    > too? And I bet they'd sell the Intel mb, P4, and memory too?
    >
    > I've been using a nice square style mid-sized aluminum tower by Lian Li.
    > Do cases really make a noise difference? What is specifically good to
    > look
    > for in a quiet case?
    >
    > I haven't bought anything yet but I am getting kind of antsy. I'm tired
    > of
    > a local friend telling how neat a game is with all the features turned up
    > and I discover I have to leave some features turned down.
    >
    > Thanks for the help. I feel like spending some money now...but not the
    > bleeding-edge please.
    >
    > Susan

    Some 4X cards use the same voltage as 8X cards, but not all. So your 4X max
    AGP slot could be supplying too much voltage to a 8X AGP card. Your choice
    of Intel or AMD should be based entirely on how much you want to spend. If
    you want to build an average system, your money is better spent on Intel.
    If you want to go bleeding edge, then Intel is way over-priced. Yes, there
    are good (and inexpensive) coolers for any processor you choose. If you
    want to upgrade specifically for half-life 2 but not build bleeding edge,
    then your choice is pretty simple:

    P4 3.2 or 3.4GHz 800FSB 1Mcache processor on socket 478 865PE or 875 chipset
    mainboard with 512MB of DDR400 RAM. OR:

    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=13-123-217&depa=0
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-176&depa=0
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-144-309&depa=0
    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=35-103-139&depa=0
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=17-153-006&depa=0

    The HSF above is really effective and quiet. Same with the power supply.
    (don't recycle the power supply, but keep your current case) -Dave
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >significant improvement in performance on your system. But you COULD jump
    >straight to a Athlon 64 or even Intel Pentium 4 system, if you want to.
    >That would give you even better performance, but it'll cost you. To go with
    >a faster socket A system might make more sense, as you can work on it a
    >little at a time.

    Would Intel give me better performance for the dollar then AMD? If I
    wanted to make the jump to 3+ GHz is there something good out there that
    will remain good enough for a year or two before the developers start
    developing BTX only games?

    >Onboard sound and LAN solutions are pretty decent. There is no need to
    >upgrade.

    So, I will retire my Live and LAN cards. That should make things less
    complicated in the sound and BIOS departments. It would be nice to end up
    with a mb this time that really spells out the Chipset/BIOS options. I'm
    so tired of that always being such a mystery.

    >The following is a good quiet cooler for socket A . . . either your current
    >CPU or a faster one, if you decide to upgrade it. -Dave
    >http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=35-150-010&depa=0

    Another cool NewEgg item. I'm going to do my whole upgrade from that
    outfit it looks like.

    I suspect at this point that I will be carrying over to the new system a
    Lian Li aluminum mid-tower, two Maxtor HDDs, a Verbatim CD burner, a Sony
    DVD burner, my Samsung SyncMaster 955DF, and of course, my nVidia 6800 AGP
    8X with 128 MB DDR.

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

    Susan wrote:

    > "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>significant improvement in performance on your system. But you COULD jump
    >>straight to a Athlon 64 or even Intel Pentium 4 system, if you want to.
    >>That would give you even better performance, but it'll cost you. To go with
    >>a faster socket A system might make more sense, as you can work on it a
    >>little at a time.
    >
    >
    > Would Intel give me better performance for the dollar then AMD? If I
    > wanted to make the jump to 3+ GHz is there something good out there that
    > will remain good enough for a year or two before the developers start
    > developing BTX only games?

    "BTX" has nothing to do with software.

    The question for software is when will they start making 64 bit 'only'
    stuff so that 32 bit processors can't run them?


    >>Onboard sound and LAN solutions are pretty decent. There is no need to
    >>upgrade.
    >
    >
    > So, I will retire my Live and LAN cards. That should make things less
    > complicated in the sound and BIOS departments. It would be nice to end up
    > with a mb this time that really spells out the Chipset/BIOS options. I'm
    > so tired of that always being such a mystery.
    >
    >
    >>The following is a good quiet cooler for socket A . . . either your current
    >>CPU or a faster one, if you decide to upgrade it. -Dave
    >>http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=35-150-010&depa=0
    >
    >
    > Another cool NewEgg item. I'm going to do my whole upgrade from that
    > outfit it looks like.
    >
    > I suspect at this point that I will be carrying over to the new system a
    > Lian Li aluminum mid-tower, two Maxtor HDDs, a Verbatim CD burner, a Sony
    > DVD burner, my Samsung SyncMaster 955DF, and of course, my nVidia 6800 AGP
    > 8X with 128 MB DDR.
    >
    > Susan
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    I think I will make it clear here, because I really haven't per se anywhere
    else, that I am not interested in over-clocking anything or going with a
    particular upgrade path that over-clocks anything in the future. Nor am I
    interested in designing cooling ducting. But I must stick within the
    software developer's envelope and right now at 1.1 GHz, possibly an AGP
    4X-8X conflict, and possibly a week psu I strongly suspect the machine is
    drifting out of that envelope and warranting some "adjustments".

    If overclocking is no issue for me does that make it easier to realize that
    Intel is the path to take over AMD?

    Thanks.

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

    "Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
    news:2uu4r09ogmvgnjse1cn5f8r1d9hmkbsmr4@4ax.com...
    >I think I will make it clear here, because I really haven't per se anywhere
    > else, that I am not interested in over-clocking anything or going with a
    > particular upgrade path that over-clocks anything in the future. Nor am I
    > interested in designing cooling ducting. But I must stick within the
    > software developer's envelope and right now at 1.1 GHz, possibly an AGP
    > 4X-8X conflict, and possibly a week psu I strongly suspect the machine is
    > drifting out of that envelope and warranting some "adjustments".
    >
    > If overclocking is no issue for me does that make it easier to realize
    > that
    > Intel is the path to take over AMD?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Susan

    Well, Intel is the path to take unless you want to spend a -lot- of money.
    For the average system, Intel is a better deal, at the moment. -Dave

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

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >That doesn't mean I'm thrilled with it but 'BTX' is only a small piece of
    >the 'problem' because, after the next year or two, there will be literally
    >nothing reusable. All 'legacy' devices gone: no ISA cards (already), serial
    >ports, parallel ports, PS2, etc. SATA will replace IDE and PCI-Express will
    >replace AGP/PCI. You're complaining about, as you put it, a ~$20 case when
    >there's not a single AGP/PCI card you'll be able to reuse. And then, just
    >to make sure it's as painful as possible, all existing software will be
    >rendered 'obsolete' by 64 bit.

    So, this might be a pretty good time to make a standard (non-overclocking)
    upgrade to last another couple years? I presume 32 bit software will still
    come out with its 64 bit newer counterpart.

    Is just like HD TV today? There is some neat HD programming for it but
    I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $3K for the TV set. I figure $1K tops.
    Meanwhile everything will go HD but will still play on older analog TVs
    too--won't it?

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

    >
    > So, this might be a pretty good time to make a standard (non-overclocking)
    > upgrade to last another couple years? I presume 32 bit software will
    > still
    > come out with its 64 bit newer counterpart.
    >
    > Is just like HD TV today? There is some neat HD programming for it but
    > I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $3K for the TV set. I figure $1K tops.
    > Meanwhile everything will go HD but will still play on older analog TVs
    > too--won't it?
    >
    > Susan

    ANY time is a good time to make an upgrade to last another couple of years.
    If you always look forward to new technology, you will never build. By the
    time you actually need (note: NEED) 64 bit hardware, anything you build in
    2004 will be at least 10 years old. Or in other words, it will be worn out
    and/or 8 years obsolete before you need to replace it with something 64 bit.
    You'll probably build your next three or four systems before you REQUIRE
    hardware that is 64 bits. That doesn't mean you can't build a 64-bit system
    today. Just that the killer app software that you will want to run and that
    REQUIRES 64-bit hardware hasn't even been imagined yet. It will take
    several years to develop that software, whatever it is. Yes, there are
    64-bit operating systems, gold and beta, right now. But it will be several
    years before you want to buy a software package that will ONLY run on a
    64-bit version of Windows. -Dave
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Susan wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>That doesn't mean I'm thrilled with it but 'BTX' is only a small piece of
    >>the 'problem' because, after the next year or two, there will be literally
    >>nothing reusable. All 'legacy' devices gone: no ISA cards (already), serial
    >>ports, parallel ports, PS2, etc. SATA will replace IDE and PCI-Express will
    >>replace AGP/PCI. You're complaining about, as you put it, a ~$20 case when
    >>there's not a single AGP/PCI card you'll be able to reuse. And then, just
    >>to make sure it's as painful as possible, all existing software will be
    >>rendered 'obsolete' by 64 bit.
    >
    >
    > So, this might be a pretty good time to make a standard (non-overclocking)
    > upgrade to last another couple years?

    That's a loaded question but, in general, the decision should be based on
    your current needs because if you try to 'wait' for whatever 'the future'
    is you'll be perpetually waiting as there's always something even newer
    'just around the corner'.

    So, as for 'now' being a 'pretty good time', I don't know that it's
    necessarily any better or worse but it does become a serious issue next
    year, depending on what one considers the life of the machine to be, as
    that will be nearer the cusp of the transition.

    > I presume 32 bit software will still
    > come out with its 64 bit newer counterpart.

    Likely, as there will remain a huge installed 32 bit base for a fair amount
    of time.


    > Is just like HD TV today? There is some neat HD programming for it but
    > I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $3K for the TV set. I figure $1K tops.
    > Meanwhile everything will go HD but will still play on older analog TVs
    > too--won't it?

    Oh brother did you bring up a debacle: HDTV. We were supposed to have
    stampeded all over each other buying the things in droves by now but, to
    the industry and government's surprise, the vast majority of folks felt
    like you do; that going from a 400 buck TV set to a 4,000 buck TV set was a
    bit of a leap no matter *how* 'wonderful' the picture is.

    I'd have to recheck because Congress has been holding new hearings on it
    (because it just ain't happening like they planned) but the original plan
    was that analog broadcast would disappear completely in 2006, after which
    the hype was you'd be able to buy an 'inexpensive' set top converter but
    I'm not so sure that a converter costing as much as an entire 32 inch
    stereo TV set ($300-$400) qualifies as 'inexpensive'.

    That 'end of analog' mandate only applies to broadcast so cable companies
    can continue analog if they chose to.

    However, to answer your question "but will still play on older analog TVs?"
    No. An analog TV cannot decode HD signals.

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

    Dave C. wrote:

    >>So, this might be a pretty good time to make a standard (non-overclocking)
    >>upgrade to last another couple years? I presume 32 bit software will
    >>still
    >>come out with its 64 bit newer counterpart.
    >>
    >>Is just like HD TV today? There is some neat HD programming for it but
    >>I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $3K for the TV set. I figure $1K tops.
    >>Meanwhile everything will go HD but will still play on older analog TVs
    >>too--won't it?
    >>
    >>Susan
    >
    >
    > ANY time is a good time to make an upgrade to last another couple of years.
    > If you always look forward to new technology, you will never build. By the
    > time you actually need (note: NEED) 64 bit hardware, anything you build in
    > 2004 will be at least 10 years old. Or in other words, it will be worn out
    > and/or 8 years obsolete before you need to replace it with something 64 bit.
    > You'll probably build your next three or four systems before you REQUIRE
    > hardware that is 64 bits. That doesn't mean you can't build a 64-bit system
    > today. Just that the killer app software that you will want to run and that
    > REQUIRES 64-bit hardware hasn't even been imagined yet. It will take
    > several years to develop that software, whatever it is. Yes, there are
    > 64-bit operating systems, gold and beta, right now. But it will be several
    > years before you want to buy a software package that will ONLY run on a
    > 64-bit version of Windows. -Dave
    >
    >

    Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame is
    way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly didn't take
    10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as Windows 95 came out in
    1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.

    I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not having
    an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.

    You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try to
    find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to find a 16
    bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.

    3 to 4 years, perhaps, but after 5 I think you'd really start to feel
    'antiquity' setting in.

    Now, I suppose some might say that the next Windows, supposedly '64 bit',
    will be more like Windows 3.1 with the 32 bit 'extension' added and, so, is
    not really going to be the 64 bit demarcation point.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >If you want to upgrade specifically for half-life 2 but not build
    >bleeding edge, then your choice is pretty simple:
    >
    >P4 3.2 or 3.4GHz 800FSB 1Mcache processor on socket 478 865PE or
    >875 chipset mainboard with 512MB of DDR400 RAM.

    I do want to upgrade for gaming's sake--like H-L 2. What ever I do today I
    would like it to work well for a couple of years--no more. By then this
    BTX should be sorted out and/or we may all be playing with PS3s and XBox2s.
    :)

    Dave, you are giving me a lot of good advice I hope, where there is very
    little if any homework on my part--and I like that. But I was wondering
    and curious if you would share a little on what your background is? We can
    give NewEgg pretty good press that they may well deserve but I don't think
    you work for them. Hopefully you work for and live and breath what we have
    been talking about here. And so are so many others too.

    Thanks.

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

    >
    > Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame is
    > way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly didn't take
    > 10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as Windows 95 came out in
    > 1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.
    >
    > I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not
    > having an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.
    >
    > You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try to
    > find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to find a 16
    > bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.
    >
    > 3 to 4 years, perhaps, but after 5 I think you'd really start to feel
    > 'antiquity' setting in.
    >
    > Now, I suppose some might say that the next Windows, supposedly '64 bit',
    > will be more like Windows 3.1 with the 32 bit 'extension' added and, so,
    > is not really going to be the 64 bit demarcation point.
    >

    Well we may have to disagree on how soon it's going to happen. But
    obviously, if either one of us is right, then the 32-bit / 64-bit issue is
    not something that one would need to consider for a current system build, or
    even the NEXT one. I happen to think it's going to take longer to go from
    32 to 64 than it did to go from 16 to 32 as there are not that many
    applications that would REALLY benefit from 64 bits. For example, how much
    better would Microsoft WORD be if it was written for a 64-bit OS? (that is,
    aside from upgrades/enhancements that would have happened anyway, due to
    time) How much faster can you surf the web with a 64-bit OS? How much
    greater would the graphics be in a game written for a 64-bit OS?
    :) -Dave
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave C. wrote:

    >>Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame is
    >>way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly didn't take
    >>10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as Windows 95 came out in
    >>1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.
    >>
    >>I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not
    >>having an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.
    >>
    >>You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try to
    >>find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to find a 16
    >>bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.
    >>
    >>3 to 4 years, perhaps, but after 5 I think you'd really start to feel
    >>'antiquity' setting in.
    >>
    >>Now, I suppose some might say that the next Windows, supposedly '64 bit',
    >>will be more like Windows 3.1 with the 32 bit 'extension' added and, so,
    >>is not really going to be the 64 bit demarcation point.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Well we may have to disagree on how soon it's going to happen. But
    > obviously, if either one of us is right, then the 32-bit / 64-bit issue is
    > not something that one would need to consider for a current system build, or
    > even the NEXT one. I happen to think it's going to take longer to go from
    > 32 to 64 than it did to go from 16 to 32 as there are not that many
    > applications that would REALLY benefit from 64 bits. For example, how much
    > better would Microsoft WORD be if it was written for a 64-bit OS? (that is,
    > aside from upgrades/enhancements that would have happened anyway, due to
    > time) How much faster can you surf the web with a 64-bit OS? How much
    > greater would the graphics be in a game written for a 64-bit OS?
    > :) -Dave


    You do realize that people have been saying the same thing about Word ever
    since it's first incarnation in DOS. Just how fast can you type anyway, eh?
    And just a few years ago people were predicting the end of the processor
    speed wars because there simply wasn't any need for more than 1 GHz. But,
    today, you'll see folks in here tell you a 1 GHz machine is useless 'junk'.

    I have yet to see software fail to fill up whatever size bucket hardware
    provides, be it RAM, speed, or bits, and the prediction most likely to fail
    is saying we have 'enough' of anything. A truism enshrined in the infamous
    prediction that 640K was more RAM that anyone could ever use (hell, it was
    10 times the 'typical max' of the time).
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
    news:ke05r0tloi9au6m4tpp3c48gh9cudmqhtd@4ax.com...
    > "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >
    >>If you want to upgrade specifically for half-life 2 but not build
    >>bleeding edge, then your choice is pretty simple:
    >>
    >>P4 3.2 or 3.4GHz 800FSB 1Mcache processor on socket 478 865PE or
    >>875 chipset mainboard with 512MB of DDR400 RAM.
    >
    > I do want to upgrade for gaming's sake--like H-L 2. What ever I do today
    > I
    > would like it to work well for a couple of years--no more. By then this
    > BTX should be sorted out and/or we may all be playing with PS3s and
    > XBox2s.
    > :)
    >
    > Dave, you are giving me a lot of good advice I hope, where there is very
    > little if any homework on my part--and I like that. But I was wondering
    > and curious if you would share a little on what your background is? We
    > can
    > give NewEgg pretty good press that they may well deserve but I don't think
    > you work for them. Hopefully you work for and live and breath what we
    > have
    > been talking about here. And so are so many others too.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Susan

    I'm an electronics technician by training. If I had a job title that could
    be translated to the civilian world, it would probably be "PC Technician".
    I'm a defense contractor who services networked, high-end (gaming) style
    personal computers. The systems I service are like PCs married to small
    movie theaters. You can think of them as the world's largest computer game.
    Imagine a PC with a monitor that is 40 feet WIDE, and speakers the size of
    small refrigerators. They are used to train soldiers in the U.S. Army (and
    other armed forces, from this country and others) in basic and advanced
    marksmanship skills. In my free time, I'm also a very serious computer
    hobbyist who is NOT into computer games. That's ironic, as I'm paid to play
    computer games (hey, someone's gotta test the trainers after I repair them),
    build gaming style personal computer systems for all my friends and family,
    and have NO INTEREST in computer gaming, personally. :)

    And no, I don't work for Newegg. I personally prefer mwave to newegg for
    most of my own hardware purchases, but you can't argue with some of the
    prices on newegg. -Dave
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > You do realize that people have been saying the same thing about Word ever
    > since it's first incarnation in DOS. Just how fast can you type anyway,
    > eh? And just a few years ago people were predicting the end of the
    > processor speed wars because there simply wasn't any need for more than 1
    > GHz. But, today, you'll see folks in here tell you a 1 GHz machine is
    > useless 'junk'.
    >
    > I have yet to see software fail to fill up whatever size bucket hardware
    > provides, be it RAM, speed, or bits, and the prediction most likely to
    > fail is saying we have 'enough' of anything. A truism enshrined in the
    > infamous prediction that 640K was more RAM that anyone could ever use
    > (hell, it was 10 times the 'typical max' of the time).
    >
    >

    Point well made. :) -Dave
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame is way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly didn't take 10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as Windows 95 came out in 1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.
    >
    > I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not having an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.
    >
    > You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try to find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to find a 16 bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.

    I agree. How fast we make the transition to 64-bit entirely
    depends on how fast Microsoft releases its Windows XP-64 OS. Once
    that comes out, the change over is going to happen fast -- within
    about two years, I'd guess.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Al Smith wrote:

    >> Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame
    >> is way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly
    >> didn't take 10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as
    >> Windows 95 came out in 1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.
    >>
    >> I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not
    >> having an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.
    >>
    >> You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try
    >> to find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to
    >> find a 16 bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.
    >
    >
    > I agree. How fast we make the transition to 64-bit entirely depends on
    > how fast Microsoft releases its Windows XP-64 OS. Once that comes out,
    > the change over is going to happen fast -- within about two years, I'd
    > guess.

    It'll be interesting to see just how it plays out.

    The retarding factor will be the massive investment already existing in 32
    bit computers and software, which is much, much, more than existed during
    the 16 to 32 bit transition. That means that even if 'everything new' is 64
    bit there will still be a huge 32 bit customer base to sell product into
    and, therefor, an incentive to do so.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Just want to follow up briefly on my thread. I am keeping this advice/info
    for future reference and further review at a later time and continuing to
    operate the Desktop by restarting a second time. Although weird there
    doesn't seem to be any game playing problems once whatever is initially
    upset warms up.

    Thanks again for the information.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Epox Motherboards Systems