Indecisions...

(I have a real problem with that.) Anywho, here's the "new" thread lol.

I'm trying to build a gaming PC. I've decided to go with an Intel P4 2.4GHz w/HT (what's the difference between this and the 2.6 w/HT??). Now I'm stuck with choosing a good motherboard. I do plan to overclock as much as I can and in general (I haven't decided exactly which brands) two 512Mb DDR PC3200 for the RAM, an ATI Radeon 9800, an ethernet
card, a sound card that isn't very pricey (I usually mute my sound so a decent card will do), a case for 400W and I don't think I missed anything.

The problem: I have a rather large list of "recommended" motherboards, about 15 different ones. Which should I choose?! The ones that seem to be recommended most often is the ABit IS7, IS7-G as well as the ASUS P4P800 Deluxe, P4C800-E Deluxe. Are these good choices for gaming and overclocking? I really would prefer to get the most out of it all. Also, I don't want to use the integrated LAN and sound components.

Also, which brand of RAM would you recommend? Most people have been telling me to get Kingston or Corsair. What's the difference between the two? Since I'm asking anyway, what is a good stable ethernet and sound card? Finally, for the power, is 400W good enough or do you highly recommend me to go for higher wattage? Oh yea, I did miss out something: the fans. Should I buy the retail processor (the one with the fan included) or just the processor itself and get a better fan for the overclocking? I read somewhere that the
cooler the processor is, the higher you can overclock it (and the better it runs in any case). Any recommendations for these things? Feel free to go all out. Money isn't a big issue. Ok, I lied but I'd rather get something that's easier to upgrade in the future and worth my money than to get something that I'll throw away in a couple of years.

For interest, what's the difference between DDR SDRAM, DDR, and just SDRAM? I'm looking at some of the titles for the memory and some have a DDR SDRAM at the end, others have just DDR and still others have SDRAM.

Thanks for all the help!
16 answers Last reply
More about indecisions
  1. Ok, from my basis of knowledge...
    Difference between 2.4 HT and 2.6 HT- The only difference I have seen is 200 mhz, a multiplier difference of 1, and a couple of bucks. IMO, the Abit IS7 looks like a good motherboard, and for a decent price. There is an overclocking motherboard comparision on anandtech, but at the time of this post there is a server internal error, so I will try to get a link later. I don't know much about RAM brands, but the difference about the RAM types is this. DDR SDRAM is the same as DDR (that is how I understand it), and plain SDRAM is just plain SDRAM, DDR (double data rate) is twice the speed of SDRAM. In probably all computers built nowadays DDR is used, SDRAM is just slow in comparision (1/2 in theory). Hope this helps, I shouldn't be, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything forumers...
  2. Quote:
    Hope this helps, I shouldn't be...

    You know a lot more than I do. =) Thanks for the info too.

    Quote:
    Difference between 2.4 HT and 2.6 HT- The only difference I have seen is 200 mhz, a multiplier difference of 1, and a couple of bucks.


    This raises another question. When overclocking, is a lower multiplier better? I was reading the overclocking articles at Ars Technica and though they were written for older processors, they mentioned something about a lower multiplier giving a larger bus speed? Either that or I misread it entirely lol. =/<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by oops on 11/24/03 04:54 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
  3. The 2.6C is often cheaper than the 2.4C. I believe the 2.4C is no longer in production.

    At one time people prefered the 2.4C because it was cheaper. You're right that having a lower multiplier means you'll need a higher bus speed to reach the same clock rate. That's why the 2.6C is better.

    You see, the highest bus speed you'll likely use is 250MHz, using DDR500 at rated speed, or DDR400 at a lower bus ratio. That gets the 2.6C to 3250MHz, but the 2.4C to only 3.0GHz.

    <font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
    <font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
  4. That depends on how far you want to OC. Buy 2.6C it's cheaper than 2.4C. Ram OCZ PC4000 copper.
  5. Best bet go to OC Forum for CPU's Check scottchen rig. He has 2.6c OCed to 3.5 with air kooled.
  6. Short shelf life for 2.4C Apr to Nov. No more.
  7. It was no longer needed. Besides, do you think there were really very many P4's that Intel NEEDED to downbin that far? I think it was meant just to be a starting point for 800 bus processors.

    <font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
    <font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
  8. I know it was cheap enuff for me to buy in July. Now if 2.6c was $175 back then I would have bought that. But I did not want too wait till End of Oct.
  9. hehe, it's Intel's model for scaling, when they release a new speed they cut a slower speed. In fact their price scale has remained nearly locked since the early 1980's, except for a minor adjustment for dollar devaluation.

    <font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
    <font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
  10. Well for $175 the price was right. Back in Nov 2000 the guy's store that built my first puter wanted $300 plus for a 800 Mhz Athlon. All most half price an a heck of a lot faster.
  11. >>Short shelf life for 2.4C Apr to Nov. No more.<<

    That's ok. Cheaper is better. ;)

    >>At one time people prefered the 2.4C because it was cheaper. You're right that having a lower multiplier means you'll need a higher bus speed to reach the same clock rate. That's why the 2.6C is better.

    You see, the highest bus speed you'll likely use is 250MHz, using DDR500 at rated speed, or DDR400 at a lower bus ratio. That gets the 2.6C to 3250MHz, but the 2.4C to only 3.0GHz.<<

    Woohoo! I got it right! =D
  12. But on the flip side is the upper limit of the CPU.. which is why a 2.8C is a worse overclocking choice than the 2.6, because you'll hit the limit of the chip before you hit the limit of the chipset. Whereas for the golden overclockers dream you want <i>everything</i> to be at its limit (CPU & Chipset). It's finding a balance between the multiplier of the chip, it's probable max speed, and the probable max speed of the chipset/RAM involved...

    :evil: Just thought I'd try and confuse you a little more :evil:
    :wink:

    ---
    <font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
  13. In the end what everyone is saying is, 2.6c is a killer overclocker :) It has just the right mix of multiplier and fsb at the high end to achieve very nice clock speeds and at a price even lower than the 2.4c, it's a steal.

    Shadus
  14. Right now it is.
  15. >>Just thought I'd try and confuse you a little more<<

    well, you're successful lol. i'll have to sit on this one for a bit but it won't be long before i know what you're rambling about lol.

    i re-read some of the threads i posted and before, i didn't understand any of it, now at least i get the gist of most of the replies lol. i'm getting there! ;)
  16. I love MSI boards. the 865 neo2 ls mobo is awesome.

    p4 2.8 533fsb
    intel mobo
    1gb rdram pc 800
    radeon9800 pro
    120gb seagate s-ata
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs