New Computer

[XafGoat]

S0 here is what im thinking are going to be my soon to have computer specs:
Lian-Li PC-60
ABIT NF7-S
ATI RADEON 9500 PRO
Antec 430W Power Supply TRUE430
CORSAIR MEMORY XMS Low Latency TWINX512-3200C2PT
WESTERN DIGITAL "SPECIAL EDITION" 120GB
Lite On 52x32x52x Black Color
LITE-ON XJ-HD166 16X DVD
Thermalright SLK-900-U
ANTEC ALL Clear 92mm SMARTFAN
Logitech's THX certified Z560 4.1
As a processor i am not sure if i should go with the 1700+ B or the 2500+. Obviously the 2500+ is faster stock but i have been reading about how the tbred B is such a nutz overclocker. So basically im wondering what is going to give me the better performance if i plan on overclocking with an upgraded heatsink and just air cooling. Id also appreciate any opinions on my other components as well.
Truth about Santa Claus debunks
Santa God. God evolves from Santa.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Xafgoat on 07/17/03 03:10 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[smitbret]

The Barton 2500+ ain't a bad overclocker in its own right. Expect 2.1GHz and don't be surprised at 2.5GHz.
-Brett

 

[endyen]

I'll take mine with the 2500 please.

 

[XafGoat]

Another thing i was wondering was whether i should go with the wd 120 ata or the seagate 120 sata. The seagate is 20 bucks more expensive and is has only a 1 year waranty though. And im really not sure what performance gains it will have over the wd if any.

<font color=blue>Truth about Santa Claus debunks
Santa God. God evolves from Santa.</font color=blue>

 

[Sir_Lovesalot]

The 2100+ is also very "overclockable", and about the harddrive, I´d go for the extra warrenty!

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=profile&mode=viewprofile&internal=1&username=Sir_Lovesalot" target="_new"> My system </A>

 

[shadus]

Far as drive goes, if you are going with the 2mb cache drives, I'd go along with the seagate, probally pay less. If you are going with 8mb cache drives, Western digital baby! (Also I *highly* recommend 8mb cache drives they are MUCH faster.)

Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Shadus on 07/17/03 09:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[XafGoat]

Yeah i would definitely go with the 8mb cache just was wondering if the sata setup up offered any real gains or if it was a waste of 20 bucks and a shorter warranty.

<font color=blue>Truth about Santa Claus debunks
Santa God. God evolves from Santa.</font color=blue>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

The WD performs better, but the Seagate is <i>much</i> quieter. So on one hand you save money and get a little better performance, on the other hand you spend a little more but have one of the quietest hard drives out there. Which is more important to you?

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[Maverick494]

I personally would go with the SATA drive. True it has only a 1yr warranty, but what are the chances it will fail beyond a year and you will not be looking to upgrade anyway? Also SATA has a lot lower CPU overhead than the Parallel IDE does. That will result in a some better performance.

Just a computer junky

 

[XafGoat]

Well i dont know man, i would probably keep a 120 gig hard drive around for quite a few years. I still have my 20 giger i got 3 years ago, though i havent had any problems with it. Quiet is good though, damn i really dont know.

<font color=blue>Truth about Santa Claus debunks
Santa God. God evolves from Santa.</font color=blue>