New PC

totokan · Post by **totokan** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:08 am

Yeah, my current PC has been obliterated, as I cannot use it anymore without <s>praying for the souls of those who lost their lives building it</s> it freezing up. So, I've bought a new Mobo, recieved a nice, 64bit 3.40 Ghz hyperthreading Intel Pentium 4 for my birthday, and got a <s>nice</s> 'ub3r 1337' case. Now, the motherboard I purchased has one PCI-E and one AGP slot, so I can continue using my AGP card. But I wish to upgrade to a higher-quality card that will not on the one hand overshadow my CPU, or on the otherhand, force my CPU to do all the work. Which video card should I get? As stated, I have both PCI-E and AGP. I have anything less than $300. Please give me a newegg link. Also, on the topic of gfx cards, whats the best one out now? Best as in 'single card, insane preformance, lotsa RAM'

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:58 am

Best from Nvidia: Geforce 7950GX2 ($609) (1GB memory- OH MY GOD)
Best from ATI: X1900XTX ($569) (512MB)

Best Deal Nvidia: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814127098
Best Deal ATI: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814161016

Note: Those links and selections represent my opinion and instinct, not hard facts.

Post by **Triton** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:12 am

best budget agp card hands down is the HIS hightech x1600pro 256, and after rebates and shipping its less than 110$

totokan · Post by **totokan** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:38 am

Thanks guys. I would also like to note the specs of my PC, if for no particular reason other then to ask what should/could be better:
CPU: Intel Pentium 4: 3.40 Hz 800 MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache (supports hyperthreading, em64t compatible)
RAM: 2 sticks, 512MB PC3200 DDR400 PNY
Motherboard: ASRock model 775Dual-VSTA (Product Page: http://www.asrock.com/product/775Dual-VSTA.htm)
Gfx card: Yet to be determined, old one that will be used when parts come is ATI RADEON 9550 AGP (Diamond Multimedia distributed, model 'stealth S120')
Hard Disks: Maxtor SATA 100GB, Western Digital EIDE/PATA 80GB
Drives: DVD RW/R/DL/ROM CDR/RW/ROM drive and one regular CD drive
also one 'Bay freezer' device, two heat-removing 80mm fans in one drivebay. Floppy and ZIP drives are other ones.
Thats about it. The case will be pictured as soon as it comes. Probably on monday.

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:27 pm

What could be improved? Everything. But namely:

You could have an AMD cpu instead of an Intel

Two SATA hard drives in Raid (a pair of 160GB's are rather economical, and leaves you with a cool 320GB)

You could have fewer fans. I'm a silence freak, so the noise from fans drives me mad. My PC contains a grand total of three fans: the PSU fan, the CPU AMD stock fan, and the X1800XT fan (unfortunately). At least the thing stays whisper quiet while I'm not gaming.

You could have put it in a more elegant case, such as a Micro-ATX mini tower.

Yeah, most of those just express my own opinion and my own setup

But the hard drive suggestion is serious.

Extreme_Jesus · Post by **Extreme_Jesus** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:31 pm

teraflop122 wrote:Best from Nvidia: Geforce 7950GX2 ($609) (1GB memory- OH MY GOD)

jeepers, thats more than my RAM alone

sigh, looks like im falling behind the curve

totokan · Post by **totokan** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:40 pm

teraflop122 wrote:What could be improved? Everything. But namely:

You could have an AMD cpu instead of an Intel

Two SATA hard drives in Raid (a pair of 160GB's are rather economical, and leaves you with a cool 320GB)

You could have fewer fans. I'm a silence freak, so the noise from fans drives me mad. My PC contains a grand total of three fans: the PSU fan, the CPU AMD stock fan, and the X1800XT fan (unfortunately). At least the thing stays whisper quiet while I'm not gaming.

You could have put it in a more elegant case, such as a Micro-ATX mini tower.

1) CPU-wise, this one was free, and AMD processors cost money and confuse me. They don't flat-out SAY what its processing speed is (in my experience, anyways)
2)SATA in RAID I've considered, and I think you're talking about RAID 1. Still, that requires me to purchase another HD.
3) I don't mind the noise, it's shut out by the mobos built in 7.1 output

4) I like the case, that's why I chose it. Also, how would a regular ATX mobo fit into a micro-ATX tower? Thats like that clowncar trick

Also, by what could be better, I meant in terms of PCI and AGP/PCI-E(whateverthehellversionthismobohas)X cards. Or, ya know, what you said too is good. Although my counterpoints all have to do with <$, and I contradict that by spending up to $250 on a video card, I think my rig is pretty good. Since I have a LGA775mobo which supports 1066MHz FSB, whats the best processor that's not a Pentium Extreme, the most pointlessly priced set of cpu's on Earth?

timmeh87 · Post by **timmeh87** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:22 pm

intel dosent say anymore either. they have their numbers now too. like 520 and 605 and stuff.

anyways. the new intel line of chips will cause them to rock amd once again

xelion · Post by **xelion** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:07 pm

timmeh87 wrote:intel dosent say anymore either. they have their numbers now too. like 520 and 605 and stuff.

anyways. the new intel line of chips will cause them to rock amd once again

You wish, AMD pwns all!

And he meant raid 0, 1 is for backup, thus two harddrives = 1harddrive +1 backup. 0=files split in half and half sent to each drive=faster with more potential for data loss.

What COULD be better on your computer? Most of it, what NEEDS to be better? To most it would be a fine computer unless you are planning on doing like hardcore gaming or something, and for that you would just have to totally start over. If your mother board supports it, I'd suggest getting some dual channel ram, OCZ and Patriot are both good brands. The harddrive thing would help as well, and I'd die with only 180gb of space, I have about 500gb and like 5gb is free...

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:50 pm

timmeh87 wrote:intel dosent say anymore either. they have their numbers now too. like 520 and 605 and stuff.

anyways. the new intel line of chips will cause them to rock amd once again

Not so fast.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32589

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=amd ... rthreading

Harshboy · Post by **Harshboy** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:23 pm

Get the cheap (yet very good) Nvidia 6800 Its old, but its very good. Its only 256 MB, but i have yet to find a game which wont run perfectly (speed and gfx) on full settings (like shaders, engines, etc)

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:30 pm

(Gasp)

Yeah, I was just messing around with most of those suggestions. ~_~ I wasn't trying to start an AMD vs Intel war either. I was only serious about the SATA RAID1 setup, just because it's cool and pretty cheap now.

Post by **bicostp** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:21 pm

My current setup suits me just fine:

3.0 ghz P4 or Celeron (I forget which)
1 gig PC3200 DDR 400mhz RAM
MSI PM8M-V Motherboard
160 gig (I think it's a) Western Digital IDE HD
52x CD-ROM
DVD-RW DL drive
ATI Radeon 9200 128mb graphics card (AGP)
ViewSonic VG800b TFT LCD
Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP1a
Floppy drive (the oldest thing in the PC, it's from 1995)
Wacom Graphire4 Tablet
Really basic-looking ATX full tower case (I don't care; it lives under my desk and it has a ton of drive bays:P)

I'll probably get an additional hard drive soon; my cousin owes me 50 bucks for fixing his Dell. (removed a couple trojans and a crapload of spyware). I guess I should get a SATA? I don't want to add an IDE drive because it might hamper data transfer rates between them to have both drives on one IDE channel.

I don't follow what's bleeding edge for gaming hardware, since I mostly do graphics and media and I don't really care about the latest games anyways. However I recommend getting a 3+gig CPU and at least a gig of RAM. I would have gone with an AMD but it just wasn't in my budget at the time when I built this PC.

DON'T SKIMP ON MEMORY! It's amazing how much it effects performance. My cousin's PC is a fancy Dell with Media Cenetr XP on it, but it only has 256 MB RAM in it. (My old PC had that much, and it was a P3 500!) It CRAWLED, even after I cleaned it out! You'll be set with a gig or more, but don't go less than 512 MB, no matter what you're doing. And don't use IE. Stay in school, drink your milk, get your 8 hours of sleep every night, brush your teeth... *blah blah blah nag nag nag*

MM007 · Post by **MM007** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:43 pm

First, you should try to get as much RAM as your motherboard and OS can handle, probably. Anything to shrink that blasted Virtual Memory.

Intel vs. AMD fanboyism seems to be starting in this thread, so I would like to say this:

Though IA-32/x86 and IA-64 compatible, the hardware is different enough for the chips to be better suited to different tasks. Speed isn't as much a factor as it used to be when you had AMD and Intel using the same motherboards and chipsets. It isn't easy to say one is better overall than another, and anyone who does is someone whose opinion I take with a grain of salt.

It may not have been like this 10 years ago, but nowadays, Intel and AMD are like comparing apples and oranges. Though they have some cross-compatibility, the way the chips work is just too different to make a good overall comparison. You have to see what is best FOR WHAT YOU WILL BE DOING. Also, you have to take into account that some supporting chipsets and hardware will come into play, and you should view them as potential bottlenecks as well. Since they use different types of incompatible systems now, they are even harder to compare. Even the speed comparisons don't mean as much as they once did, considering how different the chips can be.

In addition, two things that should be AT LEAST as much of a consideration as speed and processor type/brand when buying a processor are cache size and front side bus speed. Cache is like very fast RAM inside the processor, and it can effect just how well the processor can handle data and how much it can handle in a clock tick. Economy chips like the old celeron tend to have as little as 1/2, 1/4, or NO cache (in the case of the original Celerons) in some cases compared to the name-brand counterparts like the Pentium line. Front Side Bus speed is the speed at which the motherboard's components are based on, and processors run on multiples of this speed. These can make a BIG difference, bigger tham most seem to think

I once pulled a 900MHz Celeron chip out of my previous box, which ran on a front side bus speed of 100MHz on a 9X multiplier and had 128Kb of cache, and replaced it with an 866 MHz Pentium III chip with 256Kb of cache and ran at 133MHz FSB x 6.5. The Pentium II, though 33MHz slower, actually showed a quite noticable improvement because the cache was doubled, and the board was running 33% faster. You need to match your RAM up to your FSB speed though (there's another performance issue entirely)

In short, do not fall to fanboyism when choosing the components of your box.

(Also note that if you have an old Celeron 1 with no cache at all, that you might want to try cranking the FSB from 66MHz to 100MHz. I won't guarantee the results or pay for fried tech, but it's possible to crank 450MHz out of the Celeron 300A on stock cooling. I've done it. No cache seems to equal manic overclocking, at least on some models)

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/p3vc2/default.asp
This is a bit dated, but shows how important processor cache can be to a system.

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:17 am

Hmm. That's all very interesting.

It should also be known that the chaches in AMD and Intel chips are used differently, so 1MB in an Intel chip isn't necessarily better than 512KB in an AMD chip...

And 0KB in a specialized 1GHz Celeron M isn't really worse than 128KB in a 1GHz VIA C3

I miss those Intel Shelton Mini-ITX boards...they were so cheap and so fast! 78 bucks on eBay, and able to run UT2004 in a limited but playable fashion- on all integrated components!