New system, amd 64 3000 vers 3200

[Guest]

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

I am in the process of setting up a new computer to be used for
surfing, word processing, games (not graphics intensive), photo editing
(minor) and minor CAD (learning not production).

I am trying to decide if it is worth the extra $50 to buy the AMD 3200
Winchester core 939 cpu instead of the 3000 version. Is there really
not much difference?

I am considering the following components:

Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra 939 Motherboard (based on Nvidia Nforce3 Ultra)
Corsair VS1gbkit400 (2.5 cas)
Nvidia Quadro FX 500 (current workstation card, 8X agp, plan to upgrade
later)
120 GB Maxtor 7200 RPM 133 ATA drive (current drive)
Windows XP Home
Antec SX6300II case (Antec 300 watt power supply)
Plextor PX712A (current DVD/CD writer)

Any suggestions?

 

[Guest]

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

If you'll be happy with a 7200 RPM HD and XP Home, you'll probably not
notice any CPU performance decrement.

<phughes200@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> I am trying to decide if it is worth the extra $50 to buy the AMD 3200
> Winchester core 939 cpu instead of the 3000 version. Is there really
> not much difference?
>
> I am considering the following components:
>
> Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra 939 Motherboard (based on Nvidia Nforce3 Ultra)
> Corsair VS1gbkit400 (2.5 cas)
> Nvidia Quadro FX 500 (current workstation card, 8X agp, plan to upgrade
> later)
> 120 GB Maxtor 7200 RPM 133 ATA drive (current drive)
> Windows XP Home
> Antec SX6300II case (Antec 300 watt power supply)
> Plextor PX712A (current DVD/CD writer)

 

[Guest]

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

phughes200@hotmail.com wrote:

> I am trying to decide if it is worth the extra $50 to buy the AMD 3200
> Winchester core 939 cpu instead of the 3000 version. Is there really
> not much difference?

From what I understand, the 3200+ is the darling of overclockers, so they
must be getting lots of mileage out of them.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

 

[Guest]

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

I don't plan on overclocking.

 

[Guest]

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

John.

I am curious. I currently have an ATA 133 drive. Is a SATA drive with a
transfer rate of 150 mb/sec really that much better? And what is the
drawvback of XP? What would you recommend?

 

[Guest]

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

<phughes200@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113185892.896721.267360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> John.
>
> I am curious. I currently have an ATA 133 drive. Is a SATA drive with a
> transfer rate of 150 mb/sec really that much better? And what is the
> drawvback of XP? What would you recommend?
>

No, since no SATA drive can even come close to 150mb/s....it's PR and spin.

 

[Guest]

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

"Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3co0f$7ot$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> <phughes200@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113185892.896721.267360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > John.
> >
> > I am curious. I currently have an ATA 133 drive. Is a SATA drive with a
> > transfer rate of 150 mb/sec really that much better? And what is the
> > drawvback of XP? What would you recommend?
> >
>
> No, since no SATA drive can even come close to 150mb/s....it's PR and spin.



http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs.php?masterid=683289

>

 

[Guest]

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

<phughes200@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> I am curious. I currently have an ATA 133 drive. Is a SATA drive with a
> transfer rate of 150 mb/sec really that much better? And what is the
> drawvback of XP? What would you recommend?

Right now, the limit for single drives appears to be the physical
limitations of individual HDs (spindle speed and cache size), not the bus.

WD has the 10K RPM, 8 MB cache Raptor drive available in SATA, which is not
matched by any HD I know of in EIDE. Further, more MoBos have SATA RAID
capability on board, which gives a potential for significant performance
gains.

I have seen various reports on XP vs Win 2K, and they have been mixed
regarding performance. XP does require more resources "out of the box,"
though. If you have 512+MB RAM and a fast CPU, I don't think there is a
significant performance difference. XP will be more supportable in the
future...