Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

i need advice(also posted in graphics)

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 26, 2002 11:24:23 PM

ok, i am upgrading to a P4 processor with the intel 850 chipset(RDRAM). here is my dilema, i can get a 2gig p4 and keep my geforce 2 gts 32mb or i can get that new all-in-wonder radeon 8500 64mb and get a 1.5gig p4. what would you guys do?

my info: i do some gaming(counter strike, civ3) and a good amount of word processing/internet/excel(i am a college student). i recently got a 19" sony monitor and am running at 1280x1024 and the text isn't quite as sharp as i would like it to be, but that may be because of the apreture grille of the monitor rather than the video card.

oh yeah, i am getting the intel P4 for sure, if your sugestion involves an athlon, forget it.

repeat after me, we are all individuals!

More about : advice posted graphics

February 26, 2002 11:43:39 PM

Now first of all why do you go assume that you don't want an Athlon, when you could stand to save money for a much more performing processor, AND get that Radeon 8500! You sir should read some articles before posting this.
Now you want a P4? Well you can go waste money for a 2GHZ A, that is the Northwood one, with 512K, Socket 478, with RDRAM. However the cost is too much. The AthlonXP still does a better job at Office performance in your cases. Same goes for gaming. The P4 2GHZA is about 400$ or below from what I know, and is about the same performance as what an AthlonXP 1700 would give you, for say, less than 130$. Now you can do a total, and see how a more powerful processor for 3 times less the price, can get you that shiny Radeon 8500 DV, or you can waste money and expect it underperforming.
If you overclock, the 1.6GHZA NW, OCed can give you a lot of value. It can be OCed by many to over 2.2GHZ easily. And that can save you over 500$. You choose man, but seriously don't you ever assume Athlons are worse in a CPU choice, you'd be wasting money there.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
February 26, 2002 11:58:30 PM

He specifically asked for a suggestion that did not involve an Athlon. You hounded him about Athlons. That is a troll-defining move.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Related resources
February 27, 2002 12:00:05 AM

If I was in your situation I would get the Pentium 4 2.0A. Make sure it has the A in the name and comes with 512KB of L2 cache. I would then save my money for a later video card purchase.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2002 12:22:59 AM

If you want to keep up on gaming, I would get the Radeon 8500 Retail ($160), then get the fastest P4 -A you can afford. The slowest Northwood I've seen is the 1.6A. You can overclock that quite nicely.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 27, 2002 12:53:15 AM

I strongly recommend against the 1.5GHz P4. Get a 1.6A P4 at the very least. Worst case, get a 2GHz P4 for now, and upgrade to a 5th generation GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)at the end of the year.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 27, 2002 1:04:15 AM

Troll?
Did you see my last phrase at least about the 1.6A?
Dude, the guy was thinking about a Willy 1.5GHZ! And he expects to buy himself a Rad 8500 DV? Where's the money saving in that! I'm merely helping him to save money, and also trying to find out why he can act stubborn at the Athlon without giving any reasons which would have me shut up before I say anything. Fact is he'd save money anytime if he chose an AXP system around the 1700+ AND he would get more performance. It's up to him but he'd be pretty stupid to buy a 1.5GHZ IMO, there's no value in that at all. 1.6A OCed, yeah for sure, but 1.5GHZ, nada.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
February 27, 2002 2:18:23 AM

This isn't your first time handing out such suggestions.

Quote:
The problem lies not in the card but within your CPU.
You are using what we people here have shunned, the "Configuration of the damned"!! If you have at least had the dignity to read THG's article about P4+SDRAM, you'd know by know it cripples what is already crippled, and makes it not more than a P4 1.4GHZ, which an Athlon 1GHZ is about enough to beat it. It's sad, I know, but that's Intel and Adds for you. Take my advice, return the CPU, get an AthlonXP+256DDR instead, an AXP 1700+ will be good, and see how yours will fly over his. Also the video card is indeed not good, MXs are bad kids. As for OS, WinME is the crash lord. You go to it, you're more than damned. I had experience a P4 1.7GHZ with 256RDRAM on WinME, each day several blue screens and crashes occured. So Win98, or WinXP will do you more. Personally your P4+SDRAM will feel sluggish on WinXP though.

Your information is sound but your not really helping anyone giving them a AMD sales pitch. Instead of trying to help the guy out you suggested he return his hardware (If at all possible, taking at least a 15 percent restocking fee). I agree with your opinion on AMD but you have to realize that some people have always used Intel, are comfortable with Intel and dont mind paying a couple of extra bucks to stick with them. Not everybody that comes to this board is an enthusiast.

Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.
February 27, 2002 6:24:04 AM

Quote:
He specifically asked for a suggestion that did not involve an Athlon. You hounded him about Athlons. That is a troll-defining move.

-Raystonn


he also gave him p4 suggestions, which is a NON troll defining move.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 27, 2002 6:35:08 AM

Definitely, get the best video card you can afford and then consider the P4 1.6A. You need a better GPU for gaming more than you need that 2.0A which will cost you a fortune.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
February 27, 2002 7:30:29 PM

You're right, I have sounded a bit pitching for AMD sales. Although usually some people will pay more for Intel, I don't appreciate someone who comes here asking for advice and shuns a processor without giving a rational reason. Maybe if he didn't mention that I wouldn't burst in.
But I am telling him an advice because he wants a Radeon 8500 DV, and these things are nowhere cheap in price. Now he can get a 1.5GHZ, WILLY, and screw the hell off performance just for the card, like he could buy a 2GHZ which is usually 2-3 times the 1.5GHZ price, and still keep his old card. Now that wouldn't sound too good, the performance is already bottlenecked at such speed! He needs a better card, but can't as he has already paid enough for the CPU. You see where I'm going? If someone is strapped in cash, it's his or her fault to be stubborn and stay paying alot for underperformance without OCing.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
February 27, 2002 7:39:41 PM

That is completely irrelevant to his request not to mention Athlons. Some people like Intel. Some people like AMD. It would be in everyone's best interest not to push AMD on Intel folks and not to push Intel on AMD folks. After all, two can play that game. Instead of warring between the factions, we should make an attempt to peacefully coexist. The alternative may not be pretty.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 27, 2002 7:52:07 PM

Um Ray we can play that game but now the story comes down to price here. Like I said the guy can either get a cheap-priced processor and relatively poor performance, and buy that AIW, or he can get a relatively expensive one and dump the AIW. It's either one of these two if he wants to stay Intel here. Unless he plans to OC a 1.6A, I say he has no interest in discovering more. After all, enthusiasts and those who come here have a goal to experience MORE and not use favoritism only. If you stay Intel in this forum, you are NOT enthusiastic at all, you fail to discover more, learn more or experience more. It's up to him really, but I wouldn't respect him if he just despises Athlons and wants to be stubborn and pay the fee and lose the image. Prices on model number-wise for AXPs vs P4 at same GHZ-model number are still on AMD's side for lower. No matter where you look, the XP1500 is still much less expensive than the 1.5GHZ. I won't go further, it's up to him to explain himself and whatever reason he thinks suits him. But personally to live in harmony as enthusiasts, we should go explore more and not favor only one. If you look clearly at my post, I gave him pointers for Intel if he OCs, but I also gave him the truth which many would agree with me, except you, which puts me Neutral.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 02/27/02 04:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 27, 2002 8:03:28 PM

Whether you respect his decision to stay with a Pentium 4 or not, you should still honor his request. If you do not, you will open a huge can of worms. If AMD fans start telling people who ask about a Pentium 4 to go buy an Athlon then Intel fans will start telling those ask about Athlons to go with a Pentium 4. In essence, the war begins again. War is not pretty, so I would rather avoid it. If someone specifically says to leave out the Athlon, then please do so. If you do this, then if someone specifically says to leave out Intel processors in a new thread, I will stay out of it.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 27, 2002 8:18:50 PM

While I mostly agree with what Raystonn is saying, I have noticed several times that people say they aren't interested in a certain processor (whether Intel or AMD), and the reason they don't give at first is simply not valid (for instance, saying that the Athlon XP/P4 is not compatible with Windows 2000, for an extreme example). Wow, that was a long sentence.

Anyhow, while I agree that I don't want people suddenly jumping all over someone saying they're stupid for not considering the other side of the river, this is an educational-oriented forum (or at least should be), and I think it's worthwhile to ask why they refuse to consider a certain platform. I've seen several times where people have been swayed by others who have no clue what they're talking about, and then come to this forum thinking that what they've heard is the truth.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
February 27, 2002 9:38:47 PM

Hopefully this small debate will at least get this guy to ponder BOTH AMD and Intel if he hasn't already done so.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
February 27, 2002 9:39:24 PM

wow, this turned into a much more complicated post than i expected. first of all, i didn't know about that A after the mhz on the processor, i will definetly only look at the 1.6A or the 2.0A rather than the 1.5.

second of all, i neevr really got any good answers on what i should do, get the 2.0 and radeon all-in-wonder or the 1.6 and keep me geforce gts. again, if you want to know what i use my computer for then look at my original(first on the board) post.

and lastly, i guess some people need me to justify my bias towards intel, although i didn't really want to get into bashing anothers processor. AMd made the K5 and K6, they were slow, too hot and sucked. Then they made the Athlon, faster but still too hot for my taste. i worked with them for a long time(for my job) and they were always too hot and sometimes when a fan would stop working the dang processor would burn up and ruin the whole ssytem. it's been my experience that my p-60, PII 350, and PIII 800 have run just fine with regards to speed and reliability. another factor that is beyond the control of AMD is the chipset that supports the processors. when i worked with AMD's i got a good taste of what via and ALi were about, they sucked. always have to install new drivers and sometimes they just acted crappy. while the itnel chipsets always ran fine and never had to install software to make them work right. so there it is, that's why i like intel. maybe AMD has "changed" but if they have i don't even want to give them a try until they have enacted their change for atleast 5 years.

so back to the subject at hand, lets talk about intel in this post.

repeat after me, we are all individuals!
February 27, 2002 11:32:21 PM

I might disagree with your bias, since you are talking about easily avoidable and old problems, but the 1.6A Northwood is a good overclocker so you could consider it if you are overclocking. If you plan on running at stock speeds then your purchase will not be that good since the Athlon counterparts are much faster and cheaper, but if you want to overclock, then the P4 1.6A along with the best video card you can get will be a good purchase.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
February 27, 2002 11:33:24 PM

Are you interested in overclocking? The 1.6A will overclock very well. I have yet to see anyone who could not get at least a 50% overclock with air cooling and some voltage tweaks. You could then afford your video card as well.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 27, 2002 11:39:02 PM

A 50% overclock on a 1.6a is 2.4ghz, many people are topping out at 2.2ghz, ray, this is a misstatement.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 27, 2002 11:44:01 PM

Quote:

A 50% overclock on a 1.6a is 2.4ghz, many people are topping out at 2.2ghz, ray, this is a misstatement

Actually, it's not. Assuming they have motherboard that supports a voltage of over 1.625V, then 2.4GHz might be quite possible.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 28, 2002 12:04:19 AM

People are not topping out at 2.2GHz unless they are unwilling to tweak their vCore. A 50% overclock on the 1.6A is pretty much a given.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 28, 2002 12:30:13 AM

Thank you for clarifying now why you wanted an Intel. I can respect that thoroughly, because after all, each person has different luck with each processor. However it is true indeed that AMD has changed, especially the VIA KT266A being the most stable chipset yet (in my case it is), long gone are those SBLIVE problems too. As for heat the AthlonXP consumes less than a similar P4 at 0.18m,(Northwood is far cooler) and less power too. The only gripe is heat protection, which is anyway rare and has a chance of 1/100000 of happening. If the fan fails, the heatsinks will prevent the processor from burning up, even after 9 minutes according to AMD's counter attack video of THG's. I have also activated a self shut-down feature which many mobos have, which will shut off automatically at any given temp above 60ºC, so you shouldn't worry of heat with AXPs from then on.
In any case back to topic, if you do get a 1.6A, please OC it. It can reach 2.2GHZ as Ray said, more than safely and at this speed, it's pretty nice, plus you get the benefit of a higher system bus. Perhaps the best thing is, that you will have saved over 400$ US, and can put it towards the Radeon 8500 you want, AND have obtained stability, quality, and most of all, value for better performance at lower price. I can find that very nice if you do OC it, as it will also give a sizeable improvement in performance in games for the Radeon, as well as any AIW function you want to use from it.
However if you do choose not to OC it, then like Dhlucke, and Matisaro and many others, the choice becomes very cheap. It's up to you really. You can still try to look at AMD, nobody's gonna force you, or you can get that wonder OCer and give it a try, because in any case if it does not get proper cooling, it will throttle down so your chip is in no danger on burning up if you OVER Overclock too much.

Good luck, and I hope Ray finds this more adequate by me... I do not wanna give a bad perception of myself to these boards which I consider my sanctuary for dicussion of technology. I should note I am also extremly under stress since a while, because of many school projects so please bear with me!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 02/27/02 10:08 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 28, 2002 12:50:14 AM

not so much changed as matured.
far less chipset problems and the like.
chipsets perform far better too.


"I came, I saw, I overclocked", Julius 'Smokin CPU' Caesar :smile:
February 28, 2002 1:10:12 AM

Quote:
People are not topping out at 2.2GHz unless they are unwilling to tweak their vCore. A 50% overclock on the 1.6A is pretty much a given.

-Raystonn



You said that you have never heard of it, I showed you that it is fact occuring, the reason is irrelevant, some people are topping out at 2.2ghz.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 28, 2002 1:45:32 AM

Quote:
You said that you have never heard of it, I showed you that it is fact occuring, the reason is irrelevant, some people are topping out at 2.2ghz.

No. I said, and I quote, "I have yet to see anyone who could not get at least a 50% overclock with air cooling and some voltage tweaks." I maintain that to be true.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 28, 2002 1:54:17 AM

Ok ray.

go here

<A HREF="http://overclockers.cssftware.com/cpudb/index.cfm" target="_new">http://overclockers.cssftware.com/cpudb/index.cfm&lt;/A>

And select the nw 1.6a, and sort by voltage.

There are 3 or 4 instances of 1.7voltages resulting in max 2.17ghz p4's.

This nullifies your statement.


The reason I am challenging you on this, is because even the NW 1.6a is NOT a sure 100% bet, and for you to advertise it as such is IMO wrong and misleading.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 28, 2002 2:07:12 AM

They stopped at 1.7 volts. They can go up to 1.85volts if they have a decent motherboard. Do not blame a motherboard limitation on the processor.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 28, 2002 2:19:57 AM

Quote:
while the itnel chipsets always ran fine and never had to install software to make them work right. so there it is, that's why i like intel. maybe AMD has "changed" but if they have i don't even want to give them a try until they have enacted their change for atleast 5 years.

While I have no intention of trying to disuade you in your decision to stick with Intel - they make excellent products in most cases and are the primary CPU manufacturer in the world, I will take exception with your characterization of AMD. In the past 5 years or so, Intel has had huge problems with its products that affected far more users than any of the VIA/ALi difficulties that you mention. To name some of the major ones: Pentium FPU, i820 MTH, Pentium III 1133 and the current un-patched PCI bus issue (unlike the patched VIA bus). If you were to take a 5 year, no purchase, objective stance you would not be able to purchase any CPU vendor's product, especially Intel.

Back to the topic; I also recommend that in your situation purchasing the P4 1.6A, AIW 8500DV, Abit TH7II (raid or no) and Samsung PC800 RDRAM would be your ideal configuration.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
February 28, 2002 6:32:39 PM

What of the other processors which were running at 1.7 volts and getting 2.5ghz, There OBVIOUSLY is some kind of limit or lower yield going on there.

Blame whatever causal factor you wish, but the fact is those peoples p4's topped out at 2.1ghz.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 28, 2002 7:51:32 PM

No, the motherboard topped out at 1.7 volts for those people. The processor is sitting there waiting for more. I never said all 1.6A processors are capable of a 50% overclock at 1.7 volts or lower. That would be ludicrous. Thusfar, I have still not seen a 1.6A that could not be run at 2.4GHz at 1.85 volts. If your motherboard cannot go that high, then the limitation in your system is the motherboard, not the processor.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
February 28, 2002 8:04:15 PM

so is there any advantage of getting a 2.0A over a 1.6A? and if i do get a 1.6 i'm not usually too big on overclocking. what motherboard should i get to overclock a 1.6A reliably and cool, Abit or asus(i have had good experiences with asus but i hear a lot of people talking about abit now a days)? and what speed can i safely overclock to, i would like to avoid changing my voltage and running too warm if possible.

repeat after me, we are all individuals!
February 28, 2002 8:18:06 PM

Quote:
so is there any advantage of getting a 2.0A over a 1.6A?

It has a higher multiplier. This will allow you to get to higher speeds without pumping up the FSB quite as much. This allows you to achieve higher processor frequencies without needing the absolute best memory available. Of course there is also the fact that your processor is warrantied to run at 2GHz if you are not planning on overclocking.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
!