Comp Specs What You Think?
- Thread starter XtR-X
- Start date
- Status
acidosmosis
Posts: 1,310 +0
You mean RDRAM doesnt perform as well as DDR? (making sure I understand that sentence correctly) ;-)
I actually had a conversation with the owner at work today about a new PC that I am to build. He wanted some spec's for a new computer to use as a stand-alone FTP server and WebHosting server. He asked me about RDRAM and I told him it just wasnt practical to use it and doesnt perform as well as the MHZ would imply that it does. I also feel that it would be very limited to its performance due to current system speeds even if it did actually 'perform' at the quality you would think it did because of the MHZ that RDRAM is listed as.
I actually had a conversation with the owner at work today about a new PC that I am to build. He wanted some spec's for a new computer to use as a stand-alone FTP server and WebHosting server. He asked me about RDRAM and I told him it just wasnt practical to use it and doesnt perform as well as the MHZ would imply that it does. I also feel that it would be very limited to its performance due to current system speeds even if it did actually 'perform' at the quality you would think it did because of the MHZ that RDRAM is listed as.
XtR-X
Posts: 829 +0
Guys, sorry to say, I'm switching back to Intel. I've just finished reading a review at THG, and Intel totally dominated Athlon XP in the latest processors.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.html
Also, in this review, http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20011031/ , AMD proves to be dominant over Intel, SO, if you plan on purchasing a computer from the 1500+ to the 2000+, AMD is the way to go. Over that, it's pointless, AMD sucks compared to the HT and FSB enhanced processors by Intel.
I don't mind spending 100 bucks more for better performance. It's a little part to whole.
I play new games this day and age, I've gotta have the performance and the near latest, well working technology, as I like to buy a computer every 3 years.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.html
Also, in this review, http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20011031/ , AMD proves to be dominant over Intel, SO, if you plan on purchasing a computer from the 1500+ to the 2000+, AMD is the way to go. Over that, it's pointless, AMD sucks compared to the HT and FSB enhanced processors by Intel.
I don't mind spending 100 bucks more for better performance. It's a little part to whole.
I play new games this day and age, I've gotta have the performance and the near latest, well working technology, as I like to buy a computer every 3 years.
Nic
Posts: 1,519 +1
You'll pay hundreds more for performance increase that you'll hardly notice. Intel CPUs and mainboards are much more expensive than AMD based products, and slower when running older non-SSE2 enhanced software. The nForce2 platform is the most stable platform currently available for any system and its cheap. The money you'll save by choosing AMD will pay for better graphics/hard drive/etc. But you should choose whatever makes you happy, as its your cash at the end of the day, so don't listen to anyone else, then you have only yourself to blame.
acidosmosis
Posts: 1,310 +0
Don't believe everything that you read. In the past it is known that reviewers have accepted payoffs to lie. Just as Nvidia cheated on its benchmarks which is a large part of what reviews are based on.
Also the point that Nic made is a good one. You must ask yourself, should I sacrifice stability for a system that cost MORE, and performs only slightly better than the competitor? I would say no but that is just my opinion.
Stability is obviously more of an issue for companys running servers and hosting valuable data, etc., but if your going to be running a CS server than stability will also be an issue for you..
Something to think about.
Also the point that Nic made is a good one. You must ask yourself, should I sacrifice stability for a system that cost MORE, and performs only slightly better than the competitor? I would say no but that is just my opinion.
Stability is obviously more of an issue for companys running servers and hosting valuable data, etc., but if your going to be running a CS server than stability will also be an issue for you..
Something to think about.
XtR-X
Posts: 829 +0
I've heard otherwise on stabability to Intels than what you guys have to say.
Also, with all due respect, acidosmosis, and everyone else out there that has the same view, I think you're just being ignorant remembering how good AMD was back in the 1500+ to the 2000+ range that you've carried that information engraved in your head to right now.
I think I can say (for the most part) that THG is a respectable site with little to no problems or lies (that I've heard of).
Though, I will read some more articles and the vast majority determine all. Plus, if they got payed to lie, I'm very much positive that alot of people will know that by now.
CS server, no. As I've said earlier, those benchmarks proove AMD dominating Intel on the 1500s to the 2000s, though, it may be another lie since you don't trust your reading (something to come back at you). If I do buy a CS server, it WILL be within the 1700s to the 2000s, AMD.
Also, with all due respect, acidosmosis, and everyone else out there that has the same view, I think you're just being ignorant remembering how good AMD was back in the 1500+ to the 2000+ range that you've carried that information engraved in your head to right now.
I think I can say (for the most part) that THG is a respectable site with little to no problems or lies (that I've heard of).
Though, I will read some more articles and the vast majority determine all. Plus, if they got payed to lie, I'm very much positive that alot of people will know that by now.
CS server, no. As I've said earlier, those benchmarks proove AMD dominating Intel on the 1500s to the 2000s, though, it may be another lie since you don't trust your reading (something to come back at you). If I do buy a CS server, it WILL be within the 1700s to the 2000s, AMD.
XtR-X
Posts: 829 +0
I also just designed 2 identical systems and changed the MOBO, Processor, and cooling, and this is what came up. This is no joke and this is accurate.
AMD XP 3000+ 400FSB: $1874 - $112 dollars less, performance less than P4.
Intel P4 3.0GHz 800FSB: $1986 - $112 dollars more, more performance
Prices are final including shipping and tax and excluding cents.
Effectively, the difference is a hundred dollars, to be exact, it is $112 dollars, thats not hundreds. You get what you pay for.
I, in fact, designed but of these top notch systems trying to not pass my $2000 limit and trying to save every buck I could.
Who knows... I may even purhcase the AMD, just because I've never really owned one, or I may purchase the Intel, just because I love the stability and I've used it forever.
I encourage you guys to try this yourself, and prove to yourself the difference. My price is a bit high because of case and tons of accessories. Yours will be undoubtedly lower if you don't have accessories. Accessories such as Audigy 2 Black Bezels, an extra CDROM, a set of 5.1 speakers, cold cathodes and led fans, etc. Not accessories to items like extra USB ports, firewire, etc.
JSR
Posts: 564 +0
and, we don't really give a rip
what way you go..........this is just a stop gap system before the hammer arrives.........the amd processor is 150 cheaper, can be run in dual channel, and can overclock like a demon........a gig over it's stock speed......but, it's all good..........get what you want and be done with it :grinthumb
what way you go..........this is just a stop gap system before the hammer arrives.........the amd processor is 150 cheaper, can be run in dual channel, and can overclock like a demon........a gig over it's stock speed......but, it's all good..........get what you want and be done with it :grinthumb
acidosmosis
Posts: 1,310 +0
Haha. This is funny. Dude... millions of people say lots of things are right that just aren't, but go ahead. Majority does NOT always rule.
acidosmosis
Posts: 1,310 +0
No, but the point is actual realtime use is what counts. These reviews go by benchmarks most of the time.
Also, I've stated before that everyone that wants to learn about computers has to learn to go by their own knowledge instead of some sites reviews. Or if you trust someone elses knowledge then let that be your guide.
That is just me though. I dont trust reviews that well, even though I'm sure they are pretty legit (most of the time). Especially in the case of benchmarks -- reviews just arent useful really. They are to an extent, but they never weigh on my final decision to buy something. In some cases Ive went by reviews but only things other than performance reviews, etc.
Also, I've stated before that everyone that wants to learn about computers has to learn to go by their own knowledge instead of some sites reviews. Or if you trust someone elses knowledge then let that be your guide.
That is just me though. I dont trust reviews that well, even though I'm sure they are pretty legit (most of the time). Especially in the case of benchmarks -- reviews just arent useful really. They are to an extent, but they never weigh on my final decision to buy something. In some cases Ive went by reviews but only things other than performance reviews, etc.
Nic
Posts: 1,519 +1
Most reviews are accurate, you've just got to read between the lines as they don't tell you the reasoning behind the results, which are therefore open to interpretation are are often misleading.
As regards P4 vs Athlon, the P4 is faster currently just because Intel play a large part in providing compiler optimisations for their CPUs, so all recent software is optimised for the P4.
The P4 is actually inferior to the Athlon and this is seen when running older software that hasn't been optimised for the P4. The specific optimisations are for SSE2 instruction set, which Intel have not yet licenced to AMD (I think, though maybe AMD aren't prepared to implement the changes to their CPUs at this time - the Athlon64 does have SSE2 support and its own specific compiler optimisation, and is looking really fast right now), leaving AMD at a disadvantage when running newer software.
As to price difference between equivalent P4 and Athlon systems, I can't really comment on the prices sourced in the US, but over here in the UK the equivalent P4 3.06 and Athlon 3000+ CPUs would be separated by about £200 ($300), which is quite a bit of money.
Also, the Athlon XP 1700+ JIUHB core CPU can reach 3200+ speeds when over clocked, and can be bought for a mere £50 ($75), while Intel have the highly overclockable P4 2.4 GHz 800 fsb which can overclock to 3.2 GHz also, but costs an additional £100 ($150) more than the Athlon 1700+.
P4 mainboards are LESS stable (though still very stable) than nForce2 mainboards and also tend to cost about £30 ($50) more for similar specs in the UK.
As you can see, a P4 system is likely to cost around £130 ($200) more for a low end system that you can overclock, and around £230 ($350) more at the higher end (P4@3.2GHz/Athlon@3200+). Thats quite a bit of cash, but if it is much cheaper in the US, and you can get an equivalent P4 for only $112 more, then go for it. It will be slightly faster.
However, most of us here support AMD simply because without them we would all be paying significantly more for our PCs, and just now AMD are not doing too well, whereas Intel are doing very well, despite their underhanded tactics to destroy any competition they have. Intel sucks!
As regards P4 vs Athlon, the P4 is faster currently just because Intel play a large part in providing compiler optimisations for their CPUs, so all recent software is optimised for the P4.
The P4 is actually inferior to the Athlon and this is seen when running older software that hasn't been optimised for the P4. The specific optimisations are for SSE2 instruction set, which Intel have not yet licenced to AMD (I think, though maybe AMD aren't prepared to implement the changes to their CPUs at this time - the Athlon64 does have SSE2 support and its own specific compiler optimisation, and is looking really fast right now), leaving AMD at a disadvantage when running newer software.
As to price difference between equivalent P4 and Athlon systems, I can't really comment on the prices sourced in the US, but over here in the UK the equivalent P4 3.06 and Athlon 3000+ CPUs would be separated by about £200 ($300), which is quite a bit of money.
Also, the Athlon XP 1700+ JIUHB core CPU can reach 3200+ speeds when over clocked, and can be bought for a mere £50 ($75), while Intel have the highly overclockable P4 2.4 GHz 800 fsb which can overclock to 3.2 GHz also, but costs an additional £100 ($150) more than the Athlon 1700+.
P4 mainboards are LESS stable (though still very stable) than nForce2 mainboards and also tend to cost about £30 ($50) more for similar specs in the UK.
As you can see, a P4 system is likely to cost around £130 ($200) more for a low end system that you can overclock, and around £230 ($350) more at the higher end (P4@3.2GHz/Athlon@3200+). Thats quite a bit of cash, but if it is much cheaper in the US, and you can get an equivalent P4 for only $112 more, then go for it. It will be slightly faster.
However, most of us here support AMD simply because without them we would all be paying significantly more for our PCs, and just now AMD are not doing too well, whereas Intel are doing very well, despite their underhanded tactics to destroy any competition they have. Intel sucks!
XtR-X
Posts: 829 +0
I was planning on buying the Asus A7N8X Deluxe but that mobo looks horrible in this nice, slick, black case that I'm buying. The brown kills its.
Now, will this be a sufficient replacement for the A7N8X Deluxe? I'm loading it with a 3000+ 400FSB.
Aopen AK79D 400 MAX Motherboard for AMD Socket A
http://secure.newegg.com/app/specification.asp?item=13-137-035
I hope that link works.
Now, will this be a sufficient replacement for the A7N8X Deluxe? I'm loading it with a 3000+ 400FSB.
Aopen AK79D 400 MAX Motherboard for AMD Socket A
http://secure.newegg.com/app/specification.asp?item=13-137-035
I hope that link works.
JSR
Posts: 564 +0
yes, nic
here is the article to substantiate http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=536 and yet, that 3000+ 400fsb processor has fallen to around now about 250.....considering the 3200+ price as a 400fsb processor @ about a couple hundred more, he's saving .........or, as you suggested, he could go by the way of the bizarre'..........boy, can you believe that...............and, they have those processors in stock.....hehe.......boy, i've thought about it.....i've just not seemed to be able to pull the trigger on that approach..........and, you have to run dual 3500 ram, which is fine by me, but more costly..........if he would only drop that spec to the 333fsb 3000+, he could get an additional 100 off the processor, and get cheaper ram........which makes the overclock a stretch of an idea for me, as far as saving money..........and, you had better have a motherboard with a bios capable of making the ratio conversions in agp/pci as you crank up that fsb.
here is the article to substantiate http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=536 and yet, that 3000+ 400fsb processor has fallen to around now about 250.....considering the 3200+ price as a 400fsb processor @ about a couple hundred more, he's saving .........or, as you suggested, he could go by the way of the bizarre'..........boy, can you believe that...............and, they have those processors in stock.....hehe.......boy, i've thought about it.....i've just not seemed to be able to pull the trigger on that approach..........and, you have to run dual 3500 ram, which is fine by me, but more costly..........if he would only drop that spec to the 333fsb 3000+, he could get an additional 100 off the processor, and get cheaper ram........which makes the overclock a stretch of an idea for me, as far as saving money..........and, you had better have a motherboard with a bios capable of making the ratio conversions in agp/pci as you crank up that fsb.
agissi
Posts: 1,929 +15
WTF r u thinkin XTR? Your not buying one of the best mobos, cuz its brown? You gotta be $&#!ng me... To be honest though, u cant really tell the color of the mobo. Buy the time u got all the hardware hooked up, u cant even see much of the mobo. And its not like your going to be looking at the mobos PCB, you'll be looking at the cables, vid.card, cpu cooler,etc.
JSR
Posts: 564 +0
i believe
the gigabyte,abit, and asus boards were the better nf2 boards...............the gigabyte voted best overall, next, abit, for it's overclocking abilities(soft bios), and, of course the asus board........i'd want one with the onboard soundstorm......it's supposedly surpasses audigy..........you might consider the raid feature.......paired ram, and you're set :grinthumb yeah beavis.......hehe.....it's brown.......hehe
the gigabyte,abit, and asus boards were the better nf2 boards...............the gigabyte voted best overall, next, abit, for it's overclocking abilities(soft bios), and, of course the asus board........i'd want one with the onboard soundstorm......it's supposedly surpasses audigy..........you might consider the raid feature.......paired ram, and you're set :grinthumb yeah beavis.......hehe.....it's brown.......hehe
- Status
Latest posts
-
Astronauts aboard the ISS craft miles of technically superior optical fiber- Shawn Knight replied
-
Microsoft is rolling out new Start menu ads to all Windows 11 users despite backlash- ericlikeseatin replied
