Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

System Questions

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 19, 2005 6:50:18 PM

Ok I plan on getting a new system soon and i am in the process of putting together a list of components for it. I want to overclock it, but to tell the truth I have no clue where or how to begin. Here's the plane I have so far:

TT Xaser V Damier w/ 420 PSU
Asus P5GD2 Deluxe
Pentium 4 550 3.4ghz
Crucial Ballistix pc2-5300 512mb (2)
Audigy2 ZS
dvd-rom
dvd burner
Seagate 120 gb
MSI nx6800-td256e
Debating on a zalman 7700cu or water cooled

Now my questions are: Will i be able to overclock this configuration? I'm really not looking to overclock the video and sound cards and may downgrade that to something a little cheaper, so those aren't a factor unless they can be overclocked stabily. How do i go about overclocking? Is the zalman going to be efficient enough to cool? I'm a real noob at this kind of stuff so bear with me here. thanks

More about : system questions

January 19, 2005 8:42:54 PM

It depends on how lucky you are with the CPU. Even with the Zalman 7700, the Prescott is hot. If you're lucky and get a good cpu you might be able to get about 200MHz+ on air, but prescott and liquid seems to become common, even if you dont OC.

You might also like some extra storage space or a Western Digital Raptor for extra speed. Make sure the Seagate is SATA.
I don't know anything about your case and CPU but make sure its a P4-E compliant case (if TT is thermaltake itll probably be) and the PSU must be good.
January 19, 2005 8:59:13 PM

Yeah it is a thermaltake case and I plan to use their silent purepower. Yeah i was afraid that i wouldn't be able to do too much with just air, but I don't know if I'm willing to dish out more for water, but maybe if i start playing with my configuartion i can afford it.
Related resources
January 19, 2005 9:07:26 PM

Well, if you're lucky with the CPU you might get a really good overclock, especially if you've got a good setup of the case ventilation and a low room temperature. You might just want to test the CPU, if it does what you want on air without throttling, no need to go liquid.
January 19, 2005 10:45:42 PM

This is the wrong time to be building an Intel system. Amd offers a superior product, with 1/2 the heat output, and it's already 64 bit ready. If you need a space heater, try chromolox, but if you want a fast stable computer, buy A64.
January 20, 2005 11:40:38 AM

so what would you suggest in going the amd direction that is around the same price of the stuff i have listed? what kind of overclocking can i do? etc.?
January 20, 2005 12:30:08 PM

I have to agree with endyen. AMD is the route to take today. Intel has a lot of potential, but lately they've been wasting in on some really stupid engineering paths. You'd almost swear that they're trying not to do well right now. Hot CPUs that hinder their own performance potential aren't a great engineering feat.

And another thing to consider, tameanaka, is trying to OC to save money instead of OCing to exceed the performance of the best stock available. You usually don't have to have an extreme of a cooling solution then ... and you save money. :) 

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
January 20, 2005 1:03:26 PM

Wow, I couldn't agree more with slvr_phoenix and endyen...

The OCing to save money is a good route. You might wanna try going for a AMD A64 3200+ s939. Or possibly the A64 3000+ s754 if you find the price is much better.

That said it is pretty hard to help you pick your parts when we don't really know your price range. It might be a good idea just to tell us how much you are willing to spend, and let us give you some advice. Make sure to tell us what application you will use this rig for.
January 20, 2005 2:30:17 PM

well i think i figured my price range to be about 1200-1300. I plan to use this system for gaming, audio/video editing, multiple program usage, and just the basic other stuff that any comp can do. The reason i chose intel is because I really don't know anything about the new processors that amd has. I would really like speed and i really don't know anything about OCing so i guess my question would be what kind of speeds could i see with an OCed amd configuration?
January 21, 2005 1:01:10 AM

Anybody got any other ideas for me?
January 21, 2005 1:22:11 AM

Tonight, it is going to be -30 celcius(-22F) here, where I live. having a Prescott tonight would probably help me to save on my heating bill... Well, I guess that it is one disadvantage to go with AMD in Quebec, Canada...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 21, 2005 2:21:58 AM

I hate to interrupt this meeting of the AMD Fanboy Club, but you could also go with a P4 3.0C Northwood and clock it up to 3.5ghz - 3.75ghz. That would give you plenty of gas.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
January 21, 2005 3:32:28 AM

Do you think a P4c OCed to 3.5 would outperform a 3200 OCed to 2.6? Not that it really matters. I doubt a first timer could reach either of those speeds, but performance wise, which do you think would be better?
January 21, 2005 3:36:56 AM

Here is a simple change for you. Get the Gigabyte K8NS-939, the s939 A64-3200+ and ballistics DDR, rather than DDR2. It will save you a lot of money, and give you a great system.
Once you have it all set up, and running good, check in the overclockers forum. Wusy, Cybercraig, and the gang will set you up right.
January 21, 2005 3:39:07 AM

For the money he was willing to shell out for that 3.4 P4, he could also get an A64 3500+(winchester or newcastle) for about the same or slightly less $$$.

Anyone know why the Winchester core is so much more expensive than the newcastle? 3500 to 3500 comparison here.
<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti..." target="_new">Newcastle 130nm</A>
vs.
<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti..." target="_new">Winchester 90nm</A>

<font color=green>AMD 64 3700+
ASUS K8N-E Deluxe
CORSAIR XMS (1gb) PC-3200
Gigabyte GF 6800gt 256mb
Audigy 2 ZS
2_36.7gb Raptors/Raid 0
Tt 480 watt PSU</font color=green>
January 21, 2005 5:24:15 AM

It's not that the winchester is so much more expensive, so much as they are dumping the newcastles. Intel's 3.6 ghz 560J is $449.
January 21, 2005 5:33:19 AM

Ive got one of the P4 550 3.4 systems. If you would like to know anything in particular just send me a PM.
January 21, 2005 6:17:19 AM

His original list would have been about $1500, he wants an Amd system for $200 to $300 less. I gave him a system that is less, by a few hundred, but will do gaming as well, or a little better, many things on par, and the odd thing almost as well. Looks like a good deal to me.
January 21, 2005 10:09:19 AM

I agree with endyen here... he saves a little money, and gets a system that I feel is on par or better than the one he was thinking of. endyen even gave him the parts to buy, now all he has to do is find them. Although as a side note, I really want to see a review that puts the Gigabyte K8NS-939 against the MSI Neo2 platinum. I am about to build a very similar system to the one being built here, and I wanna see a reason to choose one of these boards over the other.
January 21, 2005 3:00:30 PM

I guess i'm just a little confused as to how something running at 2.5 is faster, and better performing than something running at 3.4. I know intel has some heat/stability issues, but isn't it still faster than an amd oc'ed to 2.5? Or is stability a huge concern? I've been using intel for pretty much my whole life and i've only tried amd once and it didn't impress me. I'm sorry if these are noobish questions, but hey that's what i am. so if someone could maybe post a link to answers or answer them here, that'd be cool.
January 21, 2005 3:17:16 PM

Intel and AMD don't use an identical architecture. Intel's CPUs do less work per cycle, but make that up by running faster (having more cycles per second). AMD's on the other hard do more work per cycle, but run slower. In the end they perform around the same, give or take depending on exact speeds and such.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
January 21, 2005 3:52:57 PM

Well... to be honest I have no idea what speed his system is running at. When I was over at his house we were much more concerned with getting it running at all. That said, I have overexaggerated a little. When we first put together the system it was pure hell, but that just happens from time to time when building a rig (I'm sure many of you have experienced this) and I was just so pleased with how easy mine was to put together. He had some major stability and some major heat problems at the beginning, I haven't heard him complain lately too much about how upset he is with it so I guess that means it's not all bad, however, he is still talking about liquid cooling, which would suggest to me that it is still running hot (as my bro is not a hardcore OCer).
January 22, 2005 2:13:16 AM

Well I happen to like both, especially since they came out with the A64. If you set an A64 up right they run great. The A64 CPU has the memory controller "on die" and it executes 1/3 more instructions per clock cycle than the Pentium. That's why an A64-3000+ can be called a "3000+ even though it's only running at 2ghz. I like the Northwoods too, and being as how mine does everything I need right now I probably won't upgrade till Spring. When I do upgrade I will probably end up with an AMD. We'll see. I think either platform will perform fine for you. I have seen more bad A64 motherboards than P4 boards the last 12 months. I have had no failed P4, XP, or A64 CPU's come back. FYI

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
January 22, 2005 3:05:33 AM

Your going to get a few different categories of replys to any question in a forum such as this one. Some of them will be quality replys and some of them will not. You will always have some that are biased for company A and some that are biased towards company B. You see, everyone has there on idea of what the perfect system is. Alot of the time the perfect system for them is not the perfect one for you.

Now this is the way that I see it, and this is coming from someone that has been using all Intel since 1998. My current systems have a P4 3.0E socket 478, P4 3.4 Socket775, P3 550, P2 266, P2 333. All the testing and benchmarking has put AMD as the faster or better performing system for now. Keep in mind that the speed of the CPU doesnt mean anything until you factor in the other components. My P2 333 system will turn out much higher benchmarks than my P3 550 system. The P2 has more ram and a better video card as well as a much better PSU.

AMD is also cheaper to build in most cases. If your willing to shop around for a while, this isnt always true. My P4 3.4 775 system was built with less money than I could have built a comparable AMD system for. It took me over 2 months of price watching and buying parts here and there to accomplish this however. At some point I will probably build an AMD system, but I doubt that I will ever be without an Intel at the same time. Both are great systems, and you should be happy with either choice. While im thinking about it, let me say something about all the things that you may have heard when it comes to how hot some intel systems get. They do get hot, sometimes very hot. The thing that I dont understand is why it gets hyped so bad when there are solutions to making them run as cool as anything else. I Overclocked my 3.0e to 3.8 the other day. I didnt leave it that high, but I did this on just air cooling and used the stock heatsink and fan. The temps under a mild load were in the low 60's, but that is at an extreme OC on air. The other thing that bothers me is that so many people go on and on about the heat issue and how it will decrease the life of the CPU. Heat does decrease the life of a CPU, however most people that are into overclocking dont keep the same CPU long enough to kill one from heat anyhow. Now you can kill one from being stupid, but im talking about the life span of a CPU that has been properly OCed and cooled. I have no idea what the lifespan of the Prescott is, but I have a ton of the old P2 and P3's that have been going almost nonstop since as early as 1998. This leads me to beleive that a properly OCed Intlel will last for at least 3 years, and thats longer than I will probably have it anyhow.

I hope that this doesnt offend anyone. It certainly was not aimed at anyone here, and was in no way trying to take away from AMD and their accomplishments. This was only an attempt to help clear some of this up so that this person wouldnt be so confused going into the purchasing of a system. I am not pushing one or the other, I think that both are extremely good choices as long as you know and understand the facts of each individual system.
January 23, 2005 2:21:15 PM

How do I know what features the processor has by looking at the sl-spec number (features like thermal monitoring 2 and such)? and how can i tell if it has prb0 or prb1?

mozz i pmed you and you haven't pmed me back, so if you could please do that'd be cool. thank you
!