Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Badass Computers for cheap, go with AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 11, 2002 6:45:54 PM

I know, I know, most people out here want the MOST ROCKING computers on the market. Right now, that's probably Intel.

BUT!!!!!!!!!!! If you want a rocking PC for the Below Average, Average, and Slightly Above Average User, AMD Kicks major butt.

I have built tons of computers now for family and friends for UNDER $800. These are computers that will last them for a long time, and make their friends majorly envious.

I'm playing Morrowind in 1024 resolution beautifully with a AMD 1600+, Gigabyte 7VTXH(266) Mobo, and 768MB PC2400 CAS2 DDR.

For about $1K, you could even throw in 2 MAG 986FS 19" Monitors(0.25mm Dot Pitch) to go along with a Radeon 7500 Video Card. Best Buy tends to have these after rebates for the $130 - $150 range if you pay attention to their sales. You'll have to have a friend grab the second one, since they won't allow 2 rebates in 1 household.

All of these computers have been...

AMD 1600+ - AMD 1800+ Processors
Maxtor 40GB ATA133 7200 RPM HD's
Gigabyte 7VTXH(266) - Gigabyte 7VRXP(333)
NVideo GeForce 2 MX400 - Radeon 7500(cheap with dual display)
OCZ Technology 256MB - 512MB, PC2400 - PC3000, CAS 2 DDR Memory
16X DVD Rom
No Burner - 48x CD Burner(usually Lite-On)
Floppy Drive
Workstation Tower(Antec or Chieftec)
300W - 400W Power Supply(normally the bigger now, Allied or Antec)

you get the basic idea...

I usually upgrade my PC every few years - 5 years. I have a 1600+(1.4Ghz) right now with 768 PC2400 CAS2 DDR and a Gigabyte 7VTXH Mobo.

The next time I upgrade will be whenever the AMD 2500+ or whatever puts me close to 2Ghz and is around $140 or cheaper. I have nothing against Intel EXCEPT FOR THEIR DAMN HUGE PRICES.

I think their processors are good and alot are superior right now, but way too expensive. Most people(except HUGE gamers and HUGE 3D Modelers) need to go with AMD.

<i> If you buy a pre-packaged pc, shame on you </i> :wink: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jflongo on 08/11/02 01:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a c 96 à CPUs
August 11, 2002 7:44:32 PM

Do you even have a clue to what an Intel processor would cost today if AMD wasn't in the picture? This time last year AMD was king and Intel couldn't touch them, and looking back on AMDs history, its not over yet. From my past Navy experiences, I learned a long time ago, Its the silent ones you have to worry about, the loudmouths and boasters are just trying to scare away the competition. Thumbs up on your post. 4ryan6
August 11, 2002 7:54:32 PM

Intel won't be expensive for long. They are cutting prices by 63% on Sept. 1st. The P4 2.4b will be $193.00 USD and the 2.53b will be around $230.00 USD. Also, with the new SiS 648 that supports DDR 400 and AGP 8x it will be cheap to build an Intel comp like the AMD comps. I doubt that AMD can afford to lower their prices to the extent that would allow them to significantly compete with Intel. An intel computer with a 2.26b and 533 fsb thrown together with a stick of DDR 333 or 400 will blow away any AMD comp. Rambus is also getting cheaper so more people will be able to afford it. With intel about to lower prices the only thing that looks bright in AMD's future is the Hammer. Without it, AMD would be in some deep doodoo right now. I just wish that they had a processor with a 400 mhz fsb that has a rating of 2600+ or higher. Then I would buy an AMD comp.

Right now, AMD may be the best performance-price ratio, but next month things might change a little bit. I am anxious to see how the new Thorougbreds with the 333 fsb perform. I don't really know how much of a difference that would make in performance. I want to see how AMD is going to handle their prices next month, hopefully they will lower them enough to make it really cheap to make a sweet system.

Yeah, most likely this is the result of AMD being a major thorn in Intels side. So intel is trying to seriously hurt AMD by lowering it's prices so much, along with the new 2.8 or whatever they are coming out with. This only helps out everyone who is trying to build a computer. I think it's great that I will be able to save a few hundred bucks instead of paying unGodly prices for a stupid processor.
Related resources
August 11, 2002 7:57:57 PM

Yep I have a clue.

Currently let's compare the Intel 1.8Ghz Versus the AMD 1800+.

Intel 1.8Ghz Retail $161
AMD XP 1800+ Retail $ 93

If AMD wasn't in the picture.

Intel 1.8Ghz Retail $240 :-)

<i> If you buy a pre-packaged pc, shame on you </i> :wink:
August 11, 2002 8:05:03 PM

Yeah I do agree with the majority of what you are saying. If Intel does do a major price cut, AMD will still beat Intel in the lower processor range. You could probably still build a AMD 2000+ for cheaper than an Intel 2.0Ghz, we will see when it happens. But then Intel will start dominating the 2.2Ghz and up more than likely. They might start converting some AMD faithfuls if AMD doesn't come out with 2600+ and up soon. AMD needs to start supporting SSE2, i have a bunch of friends doing 3D Modeling and the lack of SSE2 support, may convert them to Intel soon.

<i> If you buy a pre-packaged pc, shame on you </i> :wink:
August 11, 2002 8:42:16 PM

about upgrading computers:
5 years??? im sorry but thats BS. i bought my computer about 3 years ago. it is a Pentium III 600 MHZ with 25 GB hdd and 128 MB of ram, and 32mb tnt2. Let me tell you that that was one of the BEST computers u could buy at the time. haha, i thought "yea this is gonna last me a good 4 - 5 years" NOT!. 2 years ago i upgraded my memory to 384 mb. and now this computer is almost a p.o.s. and u know it. i think i can barely reach 1000 marks in 3dmark...lol. imagine if i kept this computer 2 more years. what im gonna do is a little upgrade and wait a year for the NV30 and prescott to come out (i hope they come out in time, i doubt it).
another point that i wanna make is:
-you spend more money on a 2.53 MHZ P4, thats true, but that computer is gonna last you more and its gonna give you more performance during the time you have it than the new AMD xp 2100. and since the P4 is gonna last you more, you dont have to upgrade as much and as often as you would do on the XP. maintaining an XP up to date would cost more.. so it almost ends up being equal price
bottom line = P4 is more expensive, but gives more satisfaction and upgrades less.

correct me if im completely wrong, but those have been my experiences.

and for god sakes, we have heard ur kind of arguments over and over again. you are kinda late on that buddy. dont wanna start another war

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
August 11, 2002 8:47:16 PM

It's not cuz there is no SSE2 support that a program's i.e. graphics will start looking jaggy, ya know what I'm saying?

Most FPU intensive programs STILL run better on Athlons, so if the app is FP intensive, and it has SSE2 support but still runs better on Athlons, would your friends still flock? My point is that sometimes we fuss so much about SSE2 that we forgot if the app even benefits THIS much from it, and if the price is justified.

So far, as almost any sane neutral-to-CPU companies fellow enthusiast would do, you get a P4 system ONLY if you OC. Otherwise you are a fanboy because the price is big nevertheless. It is almost a book or even history fact that AMD's CPUs will always be below Intel's on a price/performance stock speed factor, or PR vs P4 MHZ price (AXP 1600 vs P4 1.6GHZ, major difference in $$$).
In September, perhaps the BEST price here will be the 2.26GHZ P4. By goly, the price will be a 1.8A's current price, and can OC in most cases to 2.8GHZ safely at a high bus! Can you imagine how gaming must be then? Or video encoding? Coupled with RDRAM at high speeds, it is a sure way of getting the ultimate gamer system for a low cost. I do hope RDRAM PC1066 will lower in price though, cuz modern gaming systems, especially WinXP ones, need 512MB, and this ain't no freebie on P4 setups. Perhaps DDR400 can deliver similar performance for so much less, I am not sure.

However I recommend to anyone who still favors AMD overall, to keep an open mind to Intel's solutions.

--
You are about to witness crazy, mindless, eye-gagging, naive programming, welcome to FOX!
August 11, 2002 8:49:14 PM

Not entirely true on the P4's upgrades less statement. Go tell that to the poor ones who got a P4 1.5GHZ when at their time it was the top of the line. Ain't really a long time investment now isn't it?

--
You are about to witness crazy, mindless, eye-gagging, naive programming, welcome to FOX!
August 11, 2002 9:00:38 PM

yea but whatever was available in the AMD market was even less. the 1.5ghz P4 wasnt a long time investment, thats true, but AMD didnt have better at the time either. maybe u dont get what im trying to say...

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
August 11, 2002 9:01:31 PM

5 years was true. I had a PIII for that long. Will I keep my AMD 1600+ for 5 years or more, YES, but not as my main computer probably. Like I said in the post if they have something like a AMD XP 2500+(about 2Ghz) for $140 or less in the next couple years, that's when I will upgrade. That will probably mean I used my 1600+ as my main machine for 2 years.

Not sure why you think Intel lasts longer, AMD has had Socket A for a LONG time now, supporting Duron, TBird, MP, and XP and probably more soon. Intel in the past has screwed people over by changing chipsets constantly. Maybe those times are changing but in the past they have pissed alot of people off.

I was very happy with my PIII 500, but then my mother needed a new PC(she had a PII 200), so I gave her mine. That was a major upgrade for her, and then I built an AMD 1600+ system for $800, that was a HUGE upgrade for me. I have now had that for 8 months and still love it. I could easily see having this for 2 years. Heck, pretty soon for around $100, I could probably upgrade to a AMD XP 2000+ OEM. That's comparable to a 400 or 500 Mhz jump in Intel. I'm sure that would last me another year.

As far as wars go. I don't hate Intel chips, they are good performers, I just hate Intel prices. They advertise way too damn much, keeping their prices too high. AMD could learn from them a little and Intel could learn from them a little. I still think AMD engineers build better chips, but Intel can just pump them out faster.

<i> If you buy a pre-packaged pc, shame on you </i> :wink:
August 11, 2002 9:13:38 PM

im sure an upgrade to a xp 2000 is nice, but u have to spend $$$. thats what i meant, say u bought a maybe a 2.53, no, not even, say u bought a 2.4, you would have to upgrade for 4 years.... you bought your xp 1600 and 8 months later u are wanting to upgrade to xp 2000. and you make it seem like 100 bucks were pocket change, but for some its money thats not so easily earned. you might as well spend 100 more bucks and having a top of the line computer that will last u 4 smooth years without having to upgrade and still have a rock solid machine, than buying a computer, and then thinking about upgrading again 8 months later.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
August 11, 2002 9:37:15 PM

I guess you missed this part. For starters, the system I built which has rocked for that last 8 months only cost $800. It has been good enough for the games I play and for video editing with Pinnacle. It will be good enough for the next year and 4 months or longer, putting me over 2 years. Somewhere down the road I could throw in a 2000+ for only $100 or less. That would still put me at $900 or less.

In all honesty most people don't need to upgrade as much as they do. I could probably keep this 1600+ system(or 2000+ system if i throw a oem chip in) for another 2 or so years and still be very happy with it. That would mean I would have this for about 3 years. Most people upgrade because there is bigger and badder stuff out there, not because they need it. There are exceptions of course.

I didn't say I was going to upgrade now, so having my xp 1600 and upgrading 8 months later is not what i'm doing.

Intel may be getting better, but try building one 8 months ago for under $1K and then do a 400 or 500 Mhz upgrade for $100 a year or so later. In the past, you might not even be able to upgrade a Pentium system because of incompatibility, and on top of that, finding a chip for $100, would be hard to find.

Am I trying to start an AMD vs Intel war, NO, plenty of them out there already. Just pointing out how cheap you can build these AMD machines and keep most people happy for years. After the next Intel drop in price, you will be able to build Intels pretty cheap, but I think AMD will always have a slight edge on price, but Intel will always have a slight edge on speed, MAYBE. AMD has been known to come out with big breakthroughs, but they are lagging right now considerably.

<i> If you buy a pre-packaged pc, shame on you </i> :wink:
August 11, 2002 11:28:59 PM

Quote:
. An intel computer with a 2.26b and 533 fsb thrown together with a stick of DDR 333 or 400 will blow away any AMD comp.


Actually a 2200+ with a kt266a chipset will beat that. A 2100+ would probably beat it too.



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 11, 2002 11:41:07 PM

NOOO!!...Really?? That's what Biggist gets for trying to say too much. Sorry then, I just got into comps a few months ago. May I ask...why? Wouldn't the slower FSB on the Athlons create a sort of a bottleneck, the Athlons are running at 266 and the memory at 333 or 400. Wouldn't the Athlon only be able to access it at 266 mhz. I know the Athlons process more information then the Pentiums during one clock cycle, so is that the reason? The P4b's have a 533 fsb so this allows them to use the full bandwidth of the DDR memory, even more with the RAMBUS memory. I just kinda thought it would perform better because of the faster fsb. Thanks for correcting me though, I want to learn as much as I can about all this stuff.
August 11, 2002 11:44:43 PM

the slower fsb is begining to be a bottleneck, but the athlon dosent need data as fast as the p4 so it is not as much of a consideration.


also the cpu is not the only thing accessing the memory(which is why running the memory at 166 even with a 133fsb still yields performance gains((asides from better latency etc)).



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 12, 2002 12:04:34 AM

competition = good for us!


<b>Before visiting THG i was a clueless noob. Now im still clueless, but look at my nice title!<b>
August 12, 2002 12:05:04 AM

True, but the main reason is that the P4 has 533MHZ FSB giving out 4.2GB/sec while the DDR memory only gives a max of either 2.7GB/sec or 3.2GB/sec, so Biggist, you can see why Mat replied to that. Had it been that the 2.26GHZ used PC1066, it would arguably beat the XP2200 easily, due to its very high bandwidth and it being completly used.
Expect better competition with AthlonXPs using 333MHZ FSB and 333MHZ memory though!

--
You are about to witness crazy, mindless, eye-gagging, naive programming, welcome to FOX!
August 12, 2002 12:34:03 AM

Quote:
2.26GHZ used PC1066, it would arguably beat the XP2200 easily, due to its very high bandwidth and it being completly used.


Actually a 2.26 on pc1066 versus a 2200+ on 333ddr, I would put my OBJECTIVE money on the 2200+ system.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 12, 2002 12:37:33 AM

Well like I said, it will raise the competition, but whether it can beat it or not, is another story. I recall that the XP2100 could compete the 2.2GHZ, so the XP2200 should beat the 2.3GHZ which does not exist, however the 2.26GHZ being close, having from 10-30% boost in performance, has a good chance of maintaining a lead. We will have to wait and see, as I just thought of the small boost the XP2200 could get from 333MHZ FSB, and am wondering how the performance would THEN be against the 2.26GHZ.

By OBJECTIVE, do you mean that it could vary?

--
You are about to witness crazy, mindless, eye-gagging, naive programming, welcome to FOX!
August 12, 2002 3:16:26 AM

I meant not altered by any percieved fanboy beliefs.

I sincerely believe a 2200+ with 166ram would outperform a 2.26 northwood with p1066.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 12, 2002 3:19:57 AM

Ah!
Well then we'll just have to wait and see!
If you're right, AMD has once again striked back. If not, hope XP2600 has the new bus...

--
You are about to witness crazy, mindless, eye-gagging, naive programming, welcome to FOX!
!