|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
AMD vs InteL :)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: JANNA
My personal choice for ease of use/performance to price ratio is hands down intel. especially if ur building ur own comp. i just upgraded Vin's comp with a new P3 1000 128 ram and a intel i815 chipset that includes on board sb chip and intel pro 10/100 lan interface. i know some folks are fond of built in RAID chips that u often see on AMD boards but im kinda hesitant to go with that since i still prefer getting a quality add-in board if u want RAID. honestly counting only cooling case PS memmory and cpu and MB there is like no difference in price between intel and AMD. the big disadvantage with AMD in my POV is the constant search that u must maintain for appropriate driver updates and bios revisions for their worse than average chipset. AMD likes to quote their price of CPU alone but with that CPU u have to buy 4-5 cooling fans and a very highly rated UL listed power supply which almost no case manufacturer supplies so that is again an extra cost. P3 run on just about any PS and case config so u have a lot more freedom in picking and choosing and arent restricted either to hi-end specialty cases or forking over an extra 60-120$ for a high end PS. AMD run much hotter and seem to have more trouble when new revisions of things like directx come out and new revisions of drivers. the latest snafu with AMD chipsets and SBLive cards come to mind.
U can get silly with either CPU choice and run a comp into the 2k$ range pretty quick. right now tho the P3 1k are dirt cheap and very solid performers especially if u have a intel board. I run a 1ghz P3 ona AOpen board since mine is slot 1 and at the time the intel slot-1 boards didnt have all the features i wanted. AMD ur stuck with agp 2x P3 will do AGP4x. Memmory for standard pc133 ram is nearly free with the prices i paid 29$ for 128 megs of ram made by samsung for vin's comp. fricken crazy. Ive run my P3 side by side with a RAID0 enabled AMD T-Bird 1.3ghz with 256 ddr ram and the T-Bird choked on my favorite flite sim which is MSCombat Flite Sim2 when about 25 japanese zero's jumped my flite. running the same scenario on my P3 it crunched along just fine with playable framerates. i saw similar things happen when the graphics got intense in other games. the AMD just plain choked when running my personal torture test of 500 open word documents at once. it choked at around 80 my P3 chokes at about 150. i have a couple of AMD here at work that are being replaced because they just arent reliable enough and are constant sources of problems.
I think AMD are fine if ur one of those people that likes to do all their own trouble shooting and likes to constantly be solving problems. Me i prefer reliabilty over hype. this wont preclude me from sometime in the future building a AMD but right now in my work and personal life i depend on Intel to keep my comp running and i really like the feeling of not having to do the boot-up-miracle dance that i used to have to do when i owned a AMD.
just my opinion tho 
<FONT COLOR="#D5E6E1" SIZE="1">[ May 22, 2001 01:50 PM: Message edited by: JANNA ]</font>
Posted by: Canis Lupus
No offense, but too much mention of AMD's inherent unreliability is the HYPE itself.
I been using both systems at home and at work (two P3-500's and Tbird 1GHz at home, and a P3-450 at work), and as far as I could tell, there is no difference whatsoever, except maybe the name and the type of hardware.
I haven't had my Athlon choke on ANY game, then again I don't play flight sims so maybe I could give JANNA a benefit of a doubt, but what I am saying here is to not believe everything you hear, because mileage varies from person to person. I had shitloads of problems with my P3-500 on an Abit BE6-II, mostly on the videocard side of things, but then again people will just say it's a problem with the video card. I have had problems with my video card on my 1GHz Athlon on an Abit KT7-RAID, but people say it's a rpoblem with the processor or the chipset, when in fact it was a problem with the video card (AGAIN).
So what I am saying here is that YOU (De Freak) would have to experience building or owning both systems in order to make an unbiased and reliable opinion. Merely listening to people who owned them or built them before is not enough to make a truly reliable decision.
If you absolutely need to choose, then go with what you think you'll be comfortable in building. If this is your first-time building a computer, choose an Intel, they're for those who don't want to do much legwork in building a system, and you can use any hardware with it. If you're more on the adventurous side, choose AMD. You'll learn more about the inner workings of a computer if you build an Athlon.
The question of reliability is lost on me, since I haven't had any problems with either systems. Frankly, I didn't know there was an issue at all. Whatever calculations were made for pricing on the Athlon and the Pentium, it's all a matter of preferences.
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. You get the point.
If worse comes to worse, toss a coin. If price/performance is basically the same, as JANNA once pointed out, then you won't lose with any choice.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Moving this thread to the Hardware Forum <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">
Posted by: Chako
Da Freak, all I can say to you is to visit all the hardware sites, read all the reviews, become as knowledgeable as possible before you jump in and buy your components to build your system wisely. I think if I was to build a system today, I would read, read, read, and compare components. It is best to find out about incompatibilities before hand and not after you have built your Uber puter. I would also think you should shop around and see what your local prices are etc. I would think the cost factor to be important unless you have lots of $$$ to spend. Make system list with prices to see what gives you the greatest bang for your buck, and run with it. I am beginning to see Janna’s point of view (at least why he likes Intel so much anyhow) and may have dealt with him harshly in his other posting today. I still think Via or Intel, both are good, just make sure you know what your doing.
There is a lot of info out there, but here are some good links
Tomshardware
sharkyextreme
anandtech
maximumpc
hardwarehell
This is a very very short list of some very good sites. Happy hunting and whatever you decide, I am sure you will be happy with it.
Posted by: Null Actor
One thing to consider is that if you buy an Athlon socket A board, you won't have to change the board for a long time... everything on AMD's roadmap right now is socket A.
Another thing is, that when the Athlon 4 hits, cooling won't be an issue. Neither will power usage. And you don't really have to do any crazy cooling stuff unless you want to overclock. If you plan on running default clock speeds, then the fansink that comes with any retail athlon will be fine.
 Quote:
|
AMD run much hotter and seem to have more trouble when new revisions of things like directx come out and new revisions of drivers. the latest snafu with AMD chipsets and SBLive cards come to mind.
|
Janna, I'd like you to qualify that. The only snafu I can think of right now involving soundblaster cards is the issue with the via 686b southbridge, which is not an AMD chipset. Not to mention that there is a fix out for it already.
So far, the AMD760 chipset has no reported problems, and the VIA platform is getting quite mature. Of course you have to install drivers for things, but if you are afraid of installing drivers, then you really shouldn't own your own computer anyway.
Another thing to consider is the fact that the new athlons will be SMP capable... so if you are ever thinking about building a dual processor machine, you might want to keep your options open. By all signs, the Dual Athlon 4s will hit before the Dual Pentium 4s.
Just some food for thought.
Oh yeah, just don't go with anything RDRAM based, whatever you do.
Posted by: Bishop
The last two machines I've had (including this one) have been amd's.
I've never had a problem with my cpu that wasn't my own damn fault, and I've been using amd machines for the past 4 years.
so maybe I'm just lucky, but as laggy said, no one will be able to tell you the differences.
you have to see for yourself.
best bet is to accept half true from each of the people who give you the specs from either side.
judging which half is up to you.
^^
Posted by: Freak
Going to build a computer in the summer, and I'd like to hear some serious and well thought out suggestions from you wise masters of electronics. I'd like to hear a summary of the higher clock rate economy chips (Duron 700, Celeron 750) and the medium end of the P3 and Athlon. A little bit of info on the A4 and P4 would be very much appreciated also. I understand also that the new T-birds run on Socket A mobos, while the old ones you plug in? That kinda confused me.
Thanks in advance. later
Posted by: JANNA
my thinking on building a comp is that when i build one i should not have to continously be looking for motherboard drivers when there is a new update to DirectX or a new piece of hardware i wish to install. thats a major beef with me and AMD. But unless u are running win2k or nt4 and have proggies that can take advantage of dual cpu then u are probably wasting ur money on something u dont need and cant utilize. Nova its not a fear of installing drivers its the pain in the butt factor  only drivers i care to install are new ones to run new hardware. the thing i see with AMD chipsets is the constant issuance of driver revisions for the motherboard and chipset. this is telling that there are problems and the constant revision process does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling with AMD. i still firmly beleive that AMD's one major flaw is their inability to make a chipset and thier reliance on VIA and ALI to make em for them.
my preference is undoubtedly for intel right now as i do not have the money or time to experiment with AMD systems. that will change in the very near future and i may in fact buy a AMD in the next year for a guest computer and experiment with that. but i am hesitant to do so based on prior experience with both the K6 line and K7 line of computers. my distrust of AMD systems stems from the chipsets and astoundingly bad motherboards that have plagued the market designed to run the AMD CPU. there is nothing wrong with the cpu itself but that is by far the least of the worries when building a comp. its all the other stuff that goes into a system any one of which can turn either an AMD or an Intel into a blue screen wonderland. AMD chipsets just happen to be more sensitive to that sort of thing.
the thing AMD afficianados like is that as you ramp up the speed on a AMD the cost doesnt ramp up as fast with those CPU. they are relatively easy to overclock which i highly recomend against doing. overclocking is a major cause of computer failure purely because of the extreme amount of extra heat generated by the CPU, true for both Intel and AMD. cooling is a severe issue with AMD k7 series and some folks have gone to the extreme of even installing water refrigeration systems.
As for RDram or rambus ram the new P4 utilizes that type of memmory and the cost has declined greatly since it was first released it is now in the 100$-135$ for 128megs of rambus. PC133 is in the 39-55$ range and ddr ram is a bit more in the same price area as rambus.
one last thing for this little rant here is the motherboard upgrade theory. i cant remember the last time i kept a motherboard past the current CPU i was using at the time in fact i change motherboards more frequently than i do CPU. and when buying a new CPU i do not buy them thinking that i am going to be using that same board when the next uber chip is ready to be bought.
but i am in total aggreement with DrB at the end there about taking about half of what u read toss the other out and then only take 1% of whats left with a lot of salt. as for the hardware sites i would be extremely cautious in what i read from them concerning their opinions since the top 2 tom's hardware and anandtech are both driven by the desire to get even more free stuff from the various companies they review so they really slant their viewpoints a LOT. with anandtech in particular u can go back and find all the articles there pertaining to the P# 1ghz and the AMD 1ghz and each will be slanted a different way to achieve different ends. if u take anything from those sites take away a larger knowledge of whats available and what is out there to build comps with. when i am on the look for a new board cpu or ram or whatever computer related. i look at anadtech toms and other hardware sites to see what my choices are then i go from there and pick maybe 3 that have all the features i want. from there i go to the respective sites of the companies and get their info. then i read up to about 4 different reviews and go off what i may or may not know about a particular company's history in hardware before i make a choice as to which new doo-dad i buy. When i do go to make an AMD puter i will do a lot of research into what is the best board with the features that i want. to me stability is most important since today cpu speed is really irrelevant once u get to 1ghz. there really isnt anything out there that or even on the horizon that would make me want to buy a P4 1.7 or a AMD4 1.7
so the question u have to answer before u can even begin debating AMD vs Intel is what are ur needs and wants?? do u want to overclock, is money a real factor, are u primarily a gamer or are there other considerations as well.
but there is truly little difference between the two once they are built properly. i have no doubt that if i sat down and spent the time and effort to make a K7 run i could do so and have it be as stable and problem free as my intel. it all depends on how much effort and time u care to put into picking the system u want. but i can gurantee that no matter where u are in the world the local comp stores are not going to have everything u need and u will have to order the parts u want. dont let the store owner try and sell u stuff off the shelf if it isnt really what u want. if the comp store u use isnt willing to order for u and there is no other store nearby then ur stuck ordering online and all the hastles that come with mail-ordering goods. my preference is to pay the extra 5-10$ and have a local comp store order stuff for me because then they are responsible for returns if it does not work right. but whether u go intel or amd, get quality parts.
Posted by: Arta
snafu?
Posted by: Null Actor
The only extra work required to make an AMD machine run properly is a double click. That's all it takes to install the chipset drivers.
And when new directxs come out, you need to reinstall your vid card drivers anyway, which is a way bigger problem than chipset drivers. And for the most part, once you install your motherboard drivers, you never have to do it again. But if you want to, it only takes a double click.
As for RDRAM, DDR ram is about 5% more expensive than PC133, which is still significantly less than RDRAM. And RDRAM is pretty crappy on the performance side, comparatively. There have been exhaustive amounts of research done by a lot of sites, and none of them determined RDRAM to be anything good.
The ONLY thing you need to worry about nowadays when building an AMD system, is to get quality parts. Go for an Abit motherboard. Get good ram (crucial/micron comes to mind). If you are looking for a real budget system, then you don't want AMD. AMD machines are performance systems, and you don't cheap out on performance systems.
If you get the good parts, you'll never have any problems with an AMD machine, and no voodoo is required to set one up.
I bought my Athlon 700 system march last year, when everything was mostly new. I didn't have to worry about anything when I set it up. I just installed everything, and it was happy. No problems.
And really, this is the common story for most people who build athlon systems.
Posted by: JANNA
Rdram being not much better is true for P3 based systems but not for P4. but since moving to intel chips and chipsets i havent had to reinstall my vid drivers or any other driver after updateing directx or any other windows related updates
when i upraded Vin from a P2 400 to a P3 1ghz i used pc133 ram from samsung if im not mistaken of the maker. i had seriously considered getting her an AMD 1.33 or 1ghz but the intel including new board and ram was cheaper by about 10$ so i went with that for her.
and nova i really am considering a new AMD system but there just isnt a need for me to upgrade since neither intel or AMD has hit the 2ghz mark yet. i want an AMD i want to be convinced of their goods after all the bad experience i have had with AMD stuff.
just dont cheese out on the vid card get a card from a quality maker even if u dont get quite the fastest card u wanted it will serve u better running if u can afford one than a faster one that gives ya blue screens if u have to buy one that isnt quite quality
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by JANNA:
<STRONG>Rdram being not much better is true for P3 based systems but not for P4. but since moving to intel chips and chipsets i havent had to reinstall my vid drivers or any other driver after updateing directx or any other windows related updates <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">
</STRONG>
|
Then your video card is probably seriously suffering in performance, since you need new video drivers with each direct x update in order to have access to hardware specific direct x features.
Not to mention that video performance usually increases with each driver update.
Posted by: Lord_Buttplug
Crucial has DDR the same price as SDRAM. 41 bucks for a 128 megger or 79 bucks for 256 megs.
Posted by: Chako
I tend to change CPUs more frequently then motherboards. I have never had to install VIA drivers on my system. Everything works fine and it is super stable, and before you ask, it is a an AMD K6-3 400 with an EPOX MVP3-G5 with 2 megs of lvl 2 ram on board. Installing video card drivers is more of an issue then updating drivers for the motherboard chip sets (at least for me). Janna, you are correct when you state that you must read things between the lines and take everything with a grain of salt, but then I expect everyone knows this and hope nobody believes everything they read on the net. The first place to look though are hardware review sites. They are an excellent launching pad for research. Never start with the manufacturers unless you are trying to get a road map of what they offer because they will always say it is the best product on the market. After all, they are trying to sell their hardware.
Video drivers have nothing to do with what CPU or motherboard chip set resides on your system. Nova is right, you do not gain extra functionality with each new direct X version by not upgrading the drivers….but then, if you do not do much gaming, then you don’t need to upgrade them very often.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Intel stuff also. However, in my part of the country, you can get an AMD system a few hundred cheaper then an Intel system of equal speed, and that alone would lead me towards AMD just based on the value point.
De Freak, don’t skimp on the motherboard, and power supply, no matter what you put in there for a CPU. Those are the components most people tend to overlook. As for memory, I have used generic memory in the past with no problems. You may be able to save on this (I could be wrong with today’s DDR ram, etc). I personally would try cheap PC133 with no fear, but then that is me.
I am not as current with the newer hardware as I wish. I tend to let my knowledge base get old until I go into upgrade mode, then I super research everything and get reacquainted with the newer CPUs, memory, hardware, etc. That is the way I am, I guess, and I would say planing the new system is half the fun. So I apologize De Freak for not answering your questions outright. I leave such things to others who do work in the computer industry such as Janna and Nova for example.
Posted by: JANNA
nova, when a new version of the detonator comes out for my gforce2 thats when i do my updateing of vid drivers im kinda lazy in that respect since im not particularly interested in getting that last 1 fps when my system already runs Half life at 75 and my monitor only has a 75mhz refresh rate. im interested in image quality and any improvements that will give me that little bit better picture <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> so sometime in the future maybe xmas ill be going to a better vid card maybe gforce4 by then???? no matter what our individual opinions are on hardware i think we are all in aggreement not to skimp on certain things and do ur research on what u want before u leave the house to buy parts <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">
Posted by: KickingBird
And the debate rages on...
Intel vs AMD.
The trick is stick with a mature motherboard as much as a mature chip and chipset.
I too, have had HUGE issues with Abits BE62 (Intel).
I have ALSO had trouble with abits KT7 raid boards (AMD). Essentially the same as a Be62 in terms of features. An in terms of crankyness.
Problems with AMD or Intel chips depend as much on the guy(s) that design the motherboard as much as the chipset used with a particular cpu.
AMD boards (socket A) are now VERY mature. Issues with SB live, I suspect, are more the fault of creative and VIA (chipset manufacturer) than AMD.
Up until recently I have been building more P3 systems than AMD systems.
Now it is the other way around. There are GOOD boards out there for both. Read reviews on the SMALL sites that have to BUY the boards themselves, rather than getting them as 'gifts' for a good or scewed review. (not ALL big sites are like this, but hey, how do you tell?)
PERSONALLY, I have settled on ASUS boards for both my P3 AND T-BIRD/DURON systems. CUV4X-E for my intel stuff, and A7V133 for my AMD stuff.
Once the systems are setup, in the cases (Same case w300 watt supply for BOTH systems. 7200 rpm drives, DVD players, burners, usb stuff and three or four fans in newer systems NEED more juice. Even Intel boxes. (Sorry Jann.)
With the VIA 4in1 drivers I have to install for BOTH systems, I can see no real difference in daily use without a benchmark program. Even with SB live cards which ARE cranky.
In fact I like the AMD system a bit better BECAUSE it (The board *I* use) has built in PROMISE raid 0 controller. I LIKE having 8 IDE channels in a system <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> (Abit uses A different controller, name escapes me right now, but it USES 2(!) IRQs up. Me no likie that.
So, Freak, if you are confused yet try this out:
Asus A7V/133 with 128 megs or 256 megs of Crucial cas 2 ram. One (Or two) IBM 7200 rpm Deskstars. Slap ANYTHING from a Duron 700 on up to a 1.33 ghz Axia T-bird on there. It will take it. This board (With a Bios flash SHOULD take the new Palaminos (Athlon4) as well.
*Just don't bet cash on it running the palamino though. <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> We ALL know how fast hardware specs can change. AMD *HAS* said they will stick with the socket 462(socketA) interface through the Morgan chip, and beyond. (Intel made changes to support the flipchips too, so it's NOT just an AMD thing.) But THATS somewhere around Q3 in 2002.*
Or grab a P3 1 gig as Janna suggested and slap it on an nice board. Either way, you WILL get satisfaction.
Posted by: KickingBird
One last thing. Duron is *ALLWAYS* a better pick over a celeron in terms of performance and value for cash spent on the CPU. Janna IS right about average costs for either system being pretty much the same (aside from the power supply thing. 300 watts minimum for ANY system)
T-bird or P3 is a better pick over a duron or celeron.
P4 costs WAY more than ANY of the above, and honestly does not perform that well compared to a T-bird 1.2 ghz whci cost a LOT less to set up. (RDRAM costs big cash. Still.)
Athlon4 is AMD playing off of intels HUGE P4 compaign. All the consumer will hear is *mumblemumble-->FOUR!!!<---*
The A4 is the Chip codenamed PALAMINO. (On sale now in some notebooks allready. Desktop flavour to follow in a coupla months) Smaller die size, less power used yadda yadda. Oh. And SSE instruction set. (NOT SSE2, just SSE).
Morgan will have SSE2.
Posted by: Chako
Kickingbird, any experiences with DDR Athlon system building. I am asking because I fear I may have the upgrade bug once again. How are the motherboards, chipsets, etc. Are they worthwhile, with a thunderbird, and how is the stability issues with them?
Posted by: KickingBird
I've avoided the DDR stuff. Cost VS perfromance thing. From what I have read the AMD 760/761 chipset is pretty much the only game in town for DDR. And no one uses the chipset for much. The boards are out there, try to find one in stock. The KT133a performs allmost as well(SDR chipset) and costs a lot less.
Reviews aside, I look at the number of motherboards made using a specific chipset vs other chipsets. When I see two or three boards made with one chipset, and only one made from another I question the reason WHY. Often cost is the biggest factor.
I was interested in a link to an article I saw on this site about the new single chip chipset SiS has in testing right now. Looks REAL good according to the article. The chipet in question GREATLY outperformed any other set available right now in terms of latency.
Right now DDR is getting close to SDR prices, and motherboard designers will make more and more boards that will use it.
What I see right now is this:
I can slap a 90 dollar duron on a 200 dollar motherboard with 128 megs of ram worth 50 bucks. Couple that with a 140 dollar Geforce2MX chip, and a 230 dollar IBM 30 gig drive. 60 dollar case with 300 watt supply, and a 50 dollar cd rom. 50 dollar soundcard.(prices Canadian)
So for about a 1000 bucks, I can build a system that SCREAMS with FPS games.
If I use DDR parts it adds over 250 bucks to the cost of the system for a 5-20% performance gain.
Now I Can take that 250 bucks and whap a full version geforce 2 card in there with a 266 mghz fsb t-bird and gain 20-50% performance in FPS games.
TODAY this is the case. In a month or three things will change. I still view DDR as bleeding edge tech for motherboards. It's around, designers still playing with it, you can buy parts that use it. Give it another few months.
I myself am using a p3 600E running at 800/133 mghz. I really see no point in spending 500-600 bucks to replace motherboard and ram and cpu. If i *DID* (system does all I need and more. Really. Honest.) I would get myself a 1.2 gig T-bird, an Asus A7V/133 and keep my current pc133 ram.
1.2 gig chip good for price at stock speeds. 1.33 costs a bit much.
Hell, yields on T-Birds are so good, if you can find a 1 gig AXIA core the odds are good that a 6B pencil will get it to 1.3-1.4 gighz. If you don't mind overclocking.
I remember when 3500 bucks would buy THE LATEST fastest stuff. (It still does. I CAN blow 3500 bucks JUST on a box, no monitor.) I remember it cost 2900 bucks for the OLDEST junk at the same time. Often the difference between the two in terms of performance was about 133 mghz and 32 megs of ram. Don't even TALK to me about prices around the 386-486 era.
Today with a bit of care 1400-1600 bucks can come VERY close in terms of performance to those 3500 dollar systems.
Posted by: Lord_Buttplug
Why does it cost 250 bucks more for DDR? I lost ya somewhere in there.
Posted by: Null Actor
errr... it doesn't. Not sure where KB buys his parts, but here it costs 30 bucks more for the motherboard, and maybe 5-20 bucks more for the ram.
Posted by: Chako
Well, I just finalized my ordering. I ordered the ASUS A7V133 motherboard. I find I cannot get a boxed 1.33G 266fsb Thunderbird. They just don’t exist right now and are rarer then hens teeth. I can get OEM chips by the truckload but not the retail versions. So I had to settle for a 1.2G 266fsb Thunderbird. I don’t think I will notice the performance difference. I got my case, 2 sticks of PC133 256Meg RAM. In a few days, it should all come together.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Well, I've been reading this thread for a while and I am in agreement with Janna. I was holding off on saying anything until I took a new look at AMD's site. I used to be a big AMD fan because you really couldn't beat their price to performance. But, for the last three years I have been Intel all the way.
What Janna says about patches is correct. I joined this thread as soon as I came across one of those MOST necessary patches.
Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Patch for AGP Applications on AMD Athlon Processors
Sure, most people use Win 9x. But, I don't as a rule.
The other concern I have is the power consumption. I don't want the heater next to my desk that the Athlon provides. That much current on my motherboard just scares me. BTW, Merced, which should come out this month or so, runs at 120W. That's just nasty.
Nowadays, I stay very conservative and standardized. My new system I am accumulating consists of:
Motherboard: Asus CUSL2 Black Pearl (already in hand)
Processor: Pentium 3 (370), 600 Mhz - 1 Ghz; $110 ~ $190
RAM: 256-512 MB 133Mhz; $90 ~ $100
Hard Drive: ATA 100; $120 ~ $150
Video: Nvidia Geforce 2 MX; $110 ~ $120
ATX Case: No, I don't have one yet! hehe
Hopefully, it's going to be at least a couple of years before games are going to require anything faster than 1 Ghz. I think I'll be fine and happy with this. I'll add other peripherals as needed.
There is no projected upgrade path to a faster Intel CPU. That's ok. Because the peripherals will also need to be updated also. I decided that if I stuck to AMD's path, I would still need to upgrade the motherboard and the peripherals even if the socket stayed the same.
Instead of always having the fastest system, I've been more comfortable by waiting a bit and getting my component price points at less than $150 each. I don't want to pay more than that for any one piece. It makes me happy. 
Snafu = Situation Normal ... ... ...
Posted by: Chako
Kdr Kane, you may want to take a look at the Asus I-panel if you are going with that motherboard....I think it has the I-panel connector on it. Looks like a neat toy.
Posted by: Chako
Well I got all my stuff and put it all together. The operation was a sucess with a little hiccup. I had to clear CMOS the first time around. Other then that, all went very well. To go with all of it, I bought a Guillemot Hercules Geforc2 400 MX.
Posted by: KickingBird
Hee hee Chacko. I've used 3 of the herc cards so far. VERY nice and easy to use. (Never met a geforce 2 that wasn't though..)
Did you get the boxed version or the OEM version? The boxed version has slightly faster ram chips on it.
Posted by: Chako
I got the boxed version. I find that the oem stuff isn't much cheaper, and you really don't know what your getting.
Posted by: Freak
WOW
I really didn't expect so much input from you all.
A really really big thank you
After lots of thinking....I thought you all might be interested in my setup.........Please feel free to nitpick.
300 Watt ATX form factor (pretty standard stuff)
AMD Thunderbird \Duron 750 (still haven't decided)
Asus A7V (I'm pretty sure this motherboard supports both chips)
128 crucial SDRam
Plextor CDRW
Basic Floppy drive
IBM Desktar 75GXP
Creative Labs SB Live!
3com network card
17 inch Optiquest Q71
GeForce 2 MX 64 ram
Speakers Logitech Soundman Xtrusio DSR-100
Standard Keyboard
Lady mouse
The total $$$ is somewhat more than I was thinking of....but that happens when you get carried away
It goes to somewere around 1500....still a good deal I think.
|
|
|
|
|
