Sounds interesting, care to give us a link?
I searched all over the net and into many stores about one month ago, no one sold a mobo that supported PC800 and had an 8x AGP slot. How can I link to that?
I saw the board at frys. I still don't remember the exact name of the board, though, I will be back to reply as soon as I find it.
8x AGP is not a big deal. It provides little to no performance boost over 4x. Even more significant is that AGP will soon be replaced by PCI Express. It won't happen immediately of course but I suspect it'll be in use quite a bit come next spring. Nvidia's roadmaps point to NV40 being the last high-end AGP by them. They are planning to switch their entire lineup to PCI Express.
Having an 800MHz FSB is great, but 8x AGP is nothing to go crazy about.
I did a search at www.newegg.com and came across a number of boards that support both 800MHz FSB as well as 8x AGP. A few do not support an 800MHz FSB but the rest do. They all have support for 8x AGP. However, we know that performance increase of running the AGP at 8x is negligible in most games.
Yes, I know they sell them now. It was about 1 month ago or so when they didnt.
I'm the kind of person who has to have those slight performance increases. Exactly why Intel is what I like.
I got confused by the whole DDR800 thing
i wish x, you would get your head out of your @ .....64 bit is here.....they've been benchmarking 3.0 p4's against xp 2700+ with 800 fsb boards ......as for the memory these boards use, Papa, it's DDR 333/400 2700/3200 ram, 800fsb.........and the performance gain is about 10 to 20 fps "maybe" in most games against a 2700+ w/333 fsb.............not even the 400fsb...........now with hammer, here, i can't even believe we're dicussing this bs.........x, go right ahead and get a p4 cpu............it will not be long before we hear you cryin' hammer or prescott..........and, your response regarding acids comment on AGP...tell me what that has to do with what you're sayin'.............he gave you a specific statement regarding agp, so how did that equate to it's availability...............all he said was the 8x agp slot has nothing to do with utilizing an 800fsb...................what's your beef :rolleyes:
In all honesty ladies and gents, I'm better than both AMD and Intel........and thats the truth!!
There have been several times when I planned a new system that I wanted to try a P4 but the price was always more than a Athlon XP. I've never built a XP system yet that was junk. The XP is a very good processor. I would recommend it to anyone. I've have several of them and all have been very stable. The heat issue is easily resolved with some good thermal compound and a decent heatsink/fan combo. I had one cpu that was getting hot and sent for a Dynatron hs/fan at 5500 rpm. That cooled it quite a bit.
I can't say much about Intel chips because I haven't had one, but for a budget-minded computer the xp is great.
Re: you know
Whoa calm down... I've got no beef here with anyone. In most benchmarks I've seen, a 3000+ doesn't match up to a 3.0GHz. The Intels have the slightest advantage. 10-20fps is a pretty good increase, IMO.
God, what is up with you guys and the 64, it's not gonna take over the 32 bit world for a couple more years at least, or even more (I gotta add a IMO before I get accused of false or misleading information, just like everyone likes to point out before hearing me out).
I know 8x AGP has NOTHING to do with 800FSB or even PC800 if thats what you meant. It's the fact that no one sold a board that supported PC800 and came equiped with an 8x AGP slot (take note that I used the word sold, in past tense). I've been trying to state that and restate that ever since I replied up to acid.
I already have an AMD, too late.
My bad, PC800.
x, i'm not attacking you
just don't get defensive........the new 64 has an 800 fsb with hyper transport...........read the link on the new opteron 64 motherboards, currently available OMFG! http://www.via.com.tw/en/k8-series/k8t800.jsp
and, over at extreme tech, the lowest rated opteron the 144 @ 1.8 gigahertz kicked the p4 3.4.........currently the proceesors are the same price, but amd is reducing their processors now by 34% and, that includes opteron
Ok, so you're going to tell me you're going to go run out to the store and buy a 64, before they have been developed well and the need isn't there. There's not even that many mobos for the 64... what's the big idea? No selection. Well... that's just you... go buy a 64.... the need isn't there... 64 didn't take over yet and won't take over for a while.
yeah, i'm gonna do it
the prices for the mobo are around 200, and the 144/240 is around 250 and available, and that about the equivalent to a 3.2 p4 with 64 scalability, and, backwards compatible......and the p4 alone is 650,not including the mobo...... come on, you'd buy this?......but, not that......i will buy that low a level processor, .......as i can afford to aim higher than that........i am waiting for the next tier of games to arrive so i can completely convert my system, videocard, et all................with money not an object
That's just you go for it... there's not that much selection.
Heh... I find it useful in these situations to just be patient. Once 64bit CPUs hit mainstream market and the boards supporting them are the new hot item, within a month, the prices on all other AMD chips is going to fly down, at least from what I remember when the pentium hit the stores.
Then, building myself a nice dual athlon XP 2400+ system will be dirt cheap, a dual p4 system might even be within my reach. Then a year or so down the road when I feel getting a 64bit system is actually worth it (since by then a slew of apps will have been produced to take advantage of it in the windows environment), I not only have a kickass box I built for a good price sitting by my side, but I'll also be able to get new shiny cream of the crop stuff for half the price it was a few months before.
its just that
the prices are too close or even favor of the new platform, now.........two opteron 240's would be currently 500 bucks..............so, .....for the difference, why even pay for the 32 bit system...........even if it's less..................how much less?............a few buck differential and you're sporting 800fsb hypertransportn dual channel, backwards compatible...........windows xp 64 will launch q1 in 2004
It's still going to be a LONG time before opterons/athlon 64s even attempt to be mainstream though. We're stuck with AthlonXPs and lower end Opterons for a while.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
This is what I direct to JSR.
i know this, .......do i care?
i'm just not mainstream.....these things are built for gaming, i've seen the benchmarks......so, i'm gonna drag around the biggest gun,......... to compensate, for any inadequacies that i may have, as i blow your @ss out of the water
Re: its just that
Because for $500 I could build an entire system, including monitor. I will pay only around $100 for the CPU.
I personally have no intrest in the Opteron line for a personal/gaming system. I will wait for the Athlon 64...but I'll wait until the bugs are fixed and it's better supported and compliant with other hardware. I'll be using my 2600+ for a long time...even though I'd rather not.
not in an mp configuration
and who cares...........if i could get one for 50 cents.......i'm just not thinkin' 32 bit systems anymore.....any upgrade, especially considering the differential, just doesn't make sense to me to stay in .....i may wait for the q1 launch of longhorn, but, then,..... i'm in........
Re: not in an mp configuration
You're making it sound like you're jumping into a lifeboat whereas all the "32bit" people are staying on a sinking ship.
It isn't that big of a deal. Many people out there are still using pentium 2s, k6s, pentium classics, even 486 and 386 machines are still out there being used on a daily basis. It isn't that big of a deal and never will be, its just another very small step that won't make that big a difference.
Edited because of language - Mictlantecuhtli
AMD played the right card by making the Athlon64 both 64 bit and 32 bit. Considering most of us use Windows XP, and Microsoft is moving towards 64 bit, I think that many enthusiasts will jump onboard, especially since Athlon64 is also very fast running 32 bit apps, and there are no more 32 bit processors being developed (other than those already on the drawing board).
There is a lot of support for 64 bit, both in industry, and soon also for home users. I think we'll all move to 64 bit much quicker than the move from 16 bit to 32 bit, with windows 95.
It'll take a couple of years no doubt before the pressure to move becomes too great to ignore, but in the meantime there is nothing to lose by choosing an Athlon64 based system, as it will run current software faster than anything else that is currently available.
I just don't see why users would not jump onboard. Its not as if you need to buy new software, and you are at least covered for running future 64 bit software, including 64 bit business apps (available now) such as oracle, sql server, and 64 bit versions of linux.
There are also 64 bit versions of games due out using the new 64 bit unreal engine that is being developed, so you'll be able to run current and future tiltles on the same hardware.
Remember, we are only talking about a 64 bit processor, which can be used with all current software (32 bit) so the user doesn't even need to think about 64 bit, they are simply buying the fastest proccessor available, which is also able to run newer 64 bit apps when they do decide to upgrade later.
Only a fool would spend top money on a high end system that uses technology that is soon to be out of date, when similar money will buy the latest 64 bit technology that you won't have to replace when you do decide to move over to 64 bit.
Only budget systems will remain 32 bit, and they too will move to 64 bit once the cost of 64 bit hardware falls to a low enough level. That should take no more than a couple of years.
Just my $0.02 worth.