So I'm planning on upgrading...

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-01-20 07:24am

After several years of watching the world's technology go whizzing by while I squeeze every last bit of life from the old clunker I'm currently using, I've finally decided that it's time to upgrade to something that can compete on a level with modern PCs. While the old E26 has lived up to and beyond its expectations, there's no denying that the thing is a piece of shit, and I want to start getting into everything I've missed out on thus far.

I've managed to save up a fair cache of cash from various points of the last few years - birthdays, holidays, graduation, and other special events - and by the end of this year, I should have enough stored away, and might even be able to coerce a front loan or two, for me to pick up one of the cheapo units from one of the major dealers. Since the most taxing thing I'll probably be doing with it is light to moderate internet gaming, It's not as though I'll be in need of anything cutting-edge, anyway: the only real abilities that I'm explicitly looking for is broadband (Roadrunner, Adelphia) and network (TCP/IP college types) compatability.

Of course, the problem I find myself in is that while I understand a good amount of the technical information offered on the models I'm thinking of getting, I don't have a single idea on how or how much the variations in the specifications between each model would actually impact the activities I have in mind for its use. This, of course, then works itself into determining which model I'd get the most efficiency out of for the money I spend on it - while I do want to try and get the cheapest model I can find, I'd willingly get a unit more expensive if the strengths over the initial unit are worth the cost.

I'm stuck in a three-way between the economic computers offered by Gateway, Dell, and IBM: they're all fairly reasonable in price (the Dell is a shade under five hundred) and the specifications they give seem to match the amount spent on each in a fairly steady fashion as the price rises. Again, of course, the gaps between ability are pointless if I don't know just how much they're going to be affecting things.

IBM ThinkCentre A

Gateway 3200SE

Dell Dimension 3000 (Bargain Version)

Since the residents of this board are infinately more knowlegable in the capabilities of current computer hardware and software, I thus beseech you all for advice: which one would be the best for gaming and internet surfing, and are there any other models/dealers I might not have thought of that could work out well?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-20 08:55am

Don't buy IBM desktops, they aren't worth it.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2005-01-20 10:46am

Damn, all three of those computers suck ass.

Well one thing is certain, DO NOT BUY THE IBM.

Aside from that, Make sure whatever you end up getting, AT THE VERY LEAST make sure it comes with:

A)CD Burner.

B)A hard drive no smaller than 80gigs

To be without a CD burner in this day and age is just sad IMO. Hell even being without a DVD drive sucks now.

Also, in the age of Broadband internet and fast downloading, you will more than likely find yourself quickly running out of Hard drive space, getting a system with anything less than an 80 gigabyte drive is not a wise decision IMHO.

EDIT: Go to Tigerdirect.com You will find MUCH better selection and deals on systems there. In fact, Check THIS one

Its got an 80Gb Drive

512 Megs RAM (double that of most other systems in this price range and this is really what you need now if you are into gaming)

An AGP slot in case you want to upgrade your video card later on(something the other systems you listed DO NOT have)

DVD Writer drive (something you wont find anywhere on the other bigname PC's unless you pay more and these also burn standard CD's too)

All this and its still just $499 US. The only thing your missing here is a monitor which you don't necessarily need to get since you could just keep using the one you have.

Terr Fangbite · Post by **Terr Fangbite** » 2005-01-20 12:38pm

In this day an age whatever you get make sure you get a computer with:

ethernet port
Dvd drive (many games, programs are going to dvds instead of cds now adays)
at least 512mb ram (unless you not into gaming)
at least 64mb video ram (128 much better though)
at least 40gb hd (I've been fine with this, although I have a tendency to delete or burn alot of stuff fairly frequently. Again the more is better)
at least 2gb or cpu power (my 1.7 is starting to show its age and that depresses me)

If you get those at least you got a computer that can move a couple of years. As always, try to get the most possible for your buck. My brother made the mistake of getting a real cheap pc and ended up buying a new one a year later because it could no longer compete.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-04-21 02:45am

[Palpatine]Rise...[/Palpatine] (Makin' a new thread seems awful wasteful, given the circumstances)

All righty, folks: it's getting to the end of April, my bank account is glutted from a college grant leftover, and it's time to make the call. It's down to two absolute contenders, one of which will feel the sweet warmth of ownership, the other the cold lonliness of sitting in a box in a warehouse.

This was the candidate Icehawk introduced me to, and has been the one I've been focusing on thus far. It's a slight bit lacking in processor power, but makes up for it with room for several video cards, primarily of interest being the AGP slot.

This is the one I found recently on the same site and creates the crisis at hand. It's faster, comes with a more extensive keyboard, is more energy-conservative, has duel-layer DVD-RW capabilities, and is seventy bucks cheaper - it lacks, however, the AGP slot from the unit above.

It thus comes down to this: is the loss of the AGP slot worth the gains in the other areas? Can the ~330 additiona megaherts of processing power, combined with any upgrade cards I decide to put in, make up for the potential slack the unit might gain due to the lack of said slot and its support?

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2005-04-21 04:13am

I dont think you would notice much if any performance difference between a Pentium 4 2.6 and a Celeron 2.9. IIRC The P4 would probably be at least equal due to it having twice the cache that the Celeron would have.

The Dual layer player is about the only real advantage the other one has and in all honesty you probably won't make much use of that capability. I own TWO 16X DVD writers that can do dual layer and I have yet to use any dual layer discs in them. It just isnt necessary unless you absolutely need the burning space. You can always pick up a dual layer burner later if you want one. They are only like $50 american now.

Having the AGP slot gives the computer much greater longevity in the games and graphics it will be able to play. Being able to throw in a shiney new Geforce 6600GT will let you play any new game at 1024x768 res with pretty much full graphics options enabled and at a good and steady frame rate. You will not get anywhere near this level of performance out of that other computer unless you only play games that are 3 or more years old. Even then, that "64MB Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics" crap gets its memory from your RAM so you actually technically DO NOT have 512 megs of RAM but only 448 in that other machine.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-04-21 04:25am

I highly recommend a customized AMD system from ibuypower.com.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-04-21 10:20am

about how much cash are you looking to spend? if it's anywhere between $500-$1,000, you could probably check out ibuypower, like someone mentioned earlier, as well as cyberpower inc.. both companies have relatively good selections at cheap prices.

Datana · Post by **Datana** » 2005-04-21 12:32pm

I'll agree wtih most of Icehawk's analysis, and clarify a few points.

The Celeron is ass, even at higher speeds. The Pentium 4 will easily outperform it despite the slower clockspeed.

With an Intel Extreme 3D graphics chipset, you'll be wanting to upgrade very soon for either machine, making the AGP port essential. Performance is lousy on the Extreme 3D. For instance, the one time I tried loading the final mission of Homeworld (the original, not 2!) at minimal graphics settings on a machine similar to the first you're looking at, the game was reduced to single-digit framerates. [EDIT/Clarification: This is using the Extreme 3D's OpenGL capabilities; software rendering reliant on the CPU was playable, but many modern games don't give this option.] When I stuck in an old Voodoo Banshee AGP card into the system, the same mission ran at full speed without missing a beat, plus I was able to bump the resolution and graphics options up a few notches. Video chipset makes a huge difference in performance.

Dual-layer media is rather expensive at the moment ($5-10 per disc) and is nearly impossible to find in most stores, so you're not likely to be using it. You can upgrade the drive cheaply if it's essential, but right now, there aren't any real applications for dual layer except for movie creation.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-04-21 01:04pm

Icehawk wrote:I dont think you would notice much if any performance difference between a Pentium 4 2.6 and a Celeron 2.9. IIRC The P4 would probably be at least equal due to it having twice the cache that the Celeron would have.

err, no. pentium 4s are far superior to celerons, due to their larger FSB. celerons are effectively stripped down pentiums, in order to cut costs and offer a chipset at a lower price.

If anything, i'd suggest going with an AMD chipset. they offer far greater performance for your buck than Celerons, and most often can compete par per course with the latest batch of pentium. iirc, pentium 4s are also notorious for overheating issues.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2005-04-21 03:59pm

I honestly don't see what's wrong with getting a Dell if you aren't going to play modern games. In other situations, building your own system is better (though sometimes headache inducing, ugh) and won't be too expensive, especially if you don't need a new monitor.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-04-21 05:56pm

The one big problem at hand is that I'm strapped for the amount of money I can put to it - $600 is the most I can afford to spend, and many of the models I've looked at and tweaked have gone over that limit.

I did just find a decent-looking rig over at cyberpower (Thanks, Zod) and figure that this might be it:

* Xplorer 420W Case (BLKBLU)
* (754-pin) AMD ATHLON64 2800+ CPU w/ Hyper Transport Technology
* (754-pin Socket) eVGA nForce3 250 Chipset SATA RAID AGP8X w/GbLAN,USB2,&5.1Audio
* 512 MB PC3200 400MHz DDR MEMORY
* 80GB 7200 RPM ATA 100 HARD DRIVE
* NONE - 2nd Hard Drive
* NVIDIA GF4 MX4000 128MB AGP8X
* NONE - CD/DVD
* NU DDW081 DVDRW/CDRW DRIVE (BEIGE)
* NONE - MONITOR
* 3D WAVE ON-BOARD 5.1 SOUND CARD

I don't mind having to turn down visual settings in order to keep the thing from crashing, and I'm probably going to hold myself to older games like Diablo 2, Freespace, the original Counter-Strike, and so on until I get an income and can afford to upgrade. All I need to know is: will this work with the right moderation?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2005-04-21 06:30pm

You'll want a better card than a GF4MX, even for older games. A GeForce2 GTS or Ultra would best that piece of crap.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-04-21 08:48pm

Hamel wrote:You'll want a better card than a GF4MX, even for older games. A GeForce2 GTS or Ultra wWhat aout the 6200ould best that piece of crap.

What about the 6200? That's about as far as I can push without breaking the barrier.?

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2005-04-21 09:04pm

Yes, definitely go for the 6200. It's not as good as the its bigger brothers the 6600 and 6800, but it beats the pants off that POS GF4MX.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-04-21 09:34pm

Executor32 wrote:Yes, definitely go for the 6200. It's not as good as the its bigger brothers the 6600 and 6800, but it beats the pants off that POS GF4MX.

And everything else, will it be able to hold its place? The processor's speed seems a bit low (1.8 gHz) compared t the pentiums.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2005-04-21 09:43pm

With the 6200, you have two options. You can get the very cheap Turbocache model which is 64 bit. Or you can get the normal 6200, which runs at 128 bit and has a high chance of unlocking to a 6600 with Rivatuner.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-04-21 09:57pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:AMD's processors all run at a slower clock speed than their Intel counterparts, but the AMD's almost always outperform them in actual service.

The 2800 at the end of the Athlon's name means it should equal a 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 in performance. In actuality, the AMD processor should do even better than that.

So the processor will be quite fine. And a better video card is usally more bang for the buck than any other part.

Wow...I guess I know what I'm getting, then.

Thank you, all of you: you really helped me out here, and I'm not going to forget this.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-04-22 03:02am

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Sharpshooter wrote:
Executor32 wrote:Yes, definitely go for the 6200. It's not as good as the its bigger brothers the 6600 and 6800, but it beats the pants off that POS GF4MX.
And everything else, will it be able to hold its place? The processor's speed seems a bit low (1.8 gHz) compared t the pentiums.
AMD's processors all run at a slower clock speed than their Intel counterparts, but the AMD's almost always outperform them in actual service.

The 2800 at the end of the Athlon's name means it should equal a 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 in performance. In actuality, the AMD processor should do even better than that.

So the processor will be quite fine. And a better video card is usally more bang for the buck than any other part.

Des, Once that was true, but today, AMD's number rating is stand alone, not compared to its equilivent in Intel GHZ's.

Datana · Post by **Datana** » 2005-04-22 09:56am

Ace Pace wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote: AMD's processors all run at a slower clock speed than their Intel counterparts, but the AMD's almost always outperform them in actual service.

The 2800 at the end of the Athlon's name means it should equal a 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 in performance. In actuality, the AMD processor should do even better than that.

So the processor will be quite fine. And a better video card is usally more bang for the buck than any other part.
Des, Once that was true, but today, AMD's number rating is stand alone, not compared to its equilivent in Intel GHZ's.

IIRC, the rating is scaled against the Duron 1 GHz -- an Athlon 2800+ should perform as well or better than a theoretical Duron 1 GHz chip running at 2.8 GHz. The rating was roughly equivalent to the Pentium 4's speed in clock cycles as well, but with hyperthreading, long pipelines, and other P4 quirks thrown in, a given Athlon is sometimes faster and sometimes slower than the "matching" P4. Generally, though, you get better performance for your money at a given rating.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-04-23 04:43pm

You might want to go for a larger harddrive. The price gap between an 80gb harddrive and a 120gb harddrive is damn trivial.

And it requires repeating;

A Geforce4 MX is a POS.
There is a large difference between a Celeron and a p4.
512mb of ram minium(preferable as a single RAM DIMM, not 2).