New System Coments...

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2005-07-19 03:06pm

So, I'm building a new machine for my parents in the next week or so, and I've put a list of components together. I'd like to hear any comments anyone might have as to my choices. FYI: My primary goal's are stability, quiet operation, and upgradability, not performance....

Abit AX8: S393/VIA K8T890 (Alt: MSI NEO4-F: S393/NForce4: has active chipset cooling, which I don't like)

AMD A64 3000+ w/ Thermalright XP-90 + Panaflo 92mm

OCZ Performance Series 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Unbuffered DDR 400 (PC 3200) 2-3-3-6

MSI NX6200TC-TD64ES Geforce 6200TC Supporting 256MB DDR PCI Express x16 Video Card (cheapest PCI Express vid card -- more than my parents need + passive cooling)

Maxtor DiamondMax 10 6L120M0 120GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive (with Command Queuing)

Antec PERFORMANCE TX635 Beige Steel ATX Mini Tower Computer Case 350W Power Supply

Miles Teg

Tiger Ace · Post by **Tiger Ace** » 2005-07-19 03:19pm

I'd try to find something in the NF4 range that has passive cooling.

EDIT: Link deleted because I was blind.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-07-19 03:43pm

Might I suggest that instead of going AMD, you go for one of Intel's entry level dual cores? Sure they are a little more expensive ($225 for the 820), but your parents will appreciate how fast their computer feels with the extra core. I've used these systems and the feeling of not having a virus scanner or other background task interefere with your workflow is quite nice.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-19 03:54pm

Isn't an Intel dual-core quite expensive at this point? An AMD 3000+ processor is pretty cheap, and runs cool.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-07-19 03:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:Isn't an Intel dual-core quite expensive at this point? An AMD 3000+ processor is pretty cheap, and runs cool.

Nope, Intel suprised everyone by releasing the entry level 820 (2.8 Ghz per core) for under $250. They can be had now for about $225 online.

I was going to suggest you use one for the new board server, but you'd already made the selection by the time I saw the thread.

EDIT: BTW, that's two cores, 1MB cache per core and 64-bit addressing.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2005-07-19 04:17pm

The Kernel wrote:Might I suggest that instead of going AMD, you go for one of Intel's entry level dual cores? Sure they are a little more expensive ($225 for the 820), but your parents will appreciate how fast their computer feels with the extra core. I've used these systems and the feeling of not having a virus scanner or other background task interefere with your workflow is quite nice.

Any idea how that 820 compares (for average use incl. surfing/email/etc. with virus scanners and firewall) to a 3000+ (and also to a 3500+ which is roughly the same price as an 820?)? The plan was to get them a rig that I'd be able to drop and X2 into in a couple of years without having to replace anything else. Their current machine is a Duron 750, so a 3000+ will be a remarkable upgrade for them as it is...

Miles Teg

Tiger Ace · Post by **Tiger Ace** » 2005-07-19 04:26pm

Miles Teg wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Might I suggest that instead of going AMD, you go for one of Intel's entry level dual cores? Sure they are a little more expensive ($225 for the 820), but your parents will appreciate how fast their computer feels with the extra core. I've used these systems and the feeling of not having a virus scanner or other background task interefere with your workflow is quite nice.
Any idea how that 820 compares (for average use incl. surfing/email/etc. with virus scanners and firewall) to a 3000+ (and also to a 3500+ which is roughly the same price as an 820?)? The plan was to get them a rig that I'd be able to drop and X2 into in a couple of years without having to replace anything else. Their current machine is a Duron 750, so a 3000+ will be a remarkable upgrade for them as it is...

Miles Teg

I'd actully suggest looking at benchs, its not the preformance(their using high end hardware), but the feel, no more PC stuttering during AV, doing 3-5 tasks at the same time is smooth.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2005-07-19 04:49pm

Is the Celeron D the Celeron equiv of the Pentium D, or is intel being stupid with naming schemes? If they are, wow.. Dual core for sub $100...

Edit:

Nope, Intel is just being dump with naming their processors...

Tiger Ace · Post by **Tiger Ace** » 2005-07-19 04:56pm

Miles Teg wrote:Is the Celeron D the Celeron equiv of the Pentium D, or is intel being stupid with naming schemes? If they are, wow.. Dual core for sub $100...

Edit:

Nope, Intel is just being dump with naming their processors...

Celeron D is not duel core.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-07-19 10:58pm

Like Ace said, forget about the benchmarks and consider the "feel" of the system. It's slower than the A64 on a lone thread, but the dual cores will make the entire computer seem a lot faster.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2005-07-20 04:16pm

Anyone have any info on the potential upgrade paths of the P-D platforms? One reason I was initially looking at the S-939 was to to able to do a large, but inexpensive, upgrade by putting in an X2 chip in a couple of years.

I've read that Intel's current dual cores are pretty much a stop-gap until they can get a better dual core solution (more like AMD's). I don't want to have to replace a bunch of parts (MB + Ram) in two years to upgrade their CPU.

Miles Teg

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-07-20 04:58pm

Miles Teg wrote:Anyone have any info on the potential upgrade paths of the P-D platforms? One reason I was initially looking at the S-939 was to to able to do a large, but inexpensive, upgrade by putting in an X2 chip in a couple of years.

The situaton for AMD isn't much better than Intel, S-929 is due to be phased out early next year for the M2 socket. They will also be switching to DDR-2 at probably the same time.

I've read that Intel's current dual cores are pretty much a stop-gap until they can get a better dual core solution (more like AMD's). I don't want to have to replace a bunch of parts (MB + Ram) in two years to upgrade their CPU.

Miles Teg

That's always a risk you run, but at the very least Intel isn't likely to change sockets soon. The problem is, we don't know if Yonah (Intel's next-gen dual core) is going to be using the same chipset at all (probably not since Intel is talking of moving to an integrated memory controller not long after Yonah).

Truth is, with either AMD or Intel, the upgrade path is going to be difficult.

Tiger Ace · Post by **Tiger Ace** » 2005-07-20 05:21pm

I think you mean 939

And AMD has stated that support will continue for 939 after M2 rolls out, except for losing some features.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-07-20 05:27pm

Tiger Ace wrote:I think you mean 939

And AMD has stated that support will continue for 939 after M2 rolls out, except for losing some features.

Don't believe a word they say. AMD changes their roadmap every other week, and I don't believe for a second they can be trusted about this.

Besides, if they really are moving towards a unified platform for their chips, then they'll want to ditch S-939 ASAP.

Besides, support does not necessarily mean a steady stream of faster/more advanced chips.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-07-20 07:31pm

If that were true, why hasn't Socket 754 been abandoned yet?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-07-21 12:22am

Uraniun235 wrote:If that were true, why hasn't Socket 754 been abandoned yet?

Because S-754 is designed to be the lower end platform for AMD chips. M2 is supposed to replace them all.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-21 12:40am

I've never understood the importance of the "upgrade path" on a motherboard. I've occasionally upgraded a CPU (I swapped out the old Celeron 2GHz chip on one board with a new P4-3000), but more often than not, I swap the motherboard and CPU together. Oftentimes there's something else at work too, like a new standard for videocard interfaces or faster RAM to go with the CPU etc. I've found that "upgrade paths" for motherboards are quite overrated. By the time I need to upgrade, if I want real performance improvements I need to deal with the HD, the CPU, the RAM, and the MB. Otherwise I'm always jerking around with something that's got an old crappy component in it somewhere, slowing it down.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2005-07-21 05:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:I've never understood the importance of the "upgrade path" on a motherboard. I've occasionally upgraded a CPU (I swapped out the old Celeron 2GHz chip on one board with a new P4-3000), but more often than not, I swap the motherboard and CPU together. Oftentimes there's something else at work too, like a new standard for videocard interfaces or faster RAM to go with the CPU etc. I've found that "upgrade paths" for motherboards are quite overrated. By the time I need to upgrade, if I want real performance improvements I need to deal with the HD, the CPU, the RAM, and the MB. Otherwise I'm always jerking around with something that's got an old crappy component in it somewhere, slowing it down.

In the past, I haven't worried too much about it, if only because of the knowledge that I almost never upgrade a chip just in Mhz. I always wait until the next gen of processor to upgrade (or more -- right now I have "only" a first gen Althon 1Ghz). However, with the NF4 and Socket 939, there's a unique opportunity to put a substantial upgrade in chips later on (from a 3000+ to probably something beyond the current X2 4800+. Futher, since the memory controller on AMD systems is on the CPU, there is quite a bit of potential upward mobility with Ram speed as well (not to mention hard drive speeds are pretty much at a stand still, so I don't worry about that too much). Maybe it'll work out, maybe it won't (probably not since I am almost positive I am going to go with the Intel solution now anyway.. dual core now is hard to pass up =)

Miles Teg