Announcement

**Asher** · February 5, 2003, 23:01

Re: Recommend Guynemer some computers

Re: Monitors
LCDs and good CRTs are on par with image quality for the most part. Lots of LCDs aren't great for gaming though, their response rates are too low which results in "tearing" in fast paced games, like first person shooters. If your current monitor works fine I'd stay with it. LCD prices are coming down all the time, when your current one bites the dust it'll be good to upgrade.

Basically, you've got two routes to go down for most components. You've got the Intel and AMD route. AMD may be a little cheaper, but they don't offer parts as fast as Intel's. Since you want to run the top games for a couple years, you should aim for high-end.

Intel: There's two breeds of Pentium 4s out right now in general availability: the fastest is the 3.06GHz Pentium 4, and it has a special feature called "HyperThreading" which allows the processor to run two threads at once, instead of one like the previous Pentium 4s and AMD's processors. Most games get a decent performance boost (+10% or so) out of this now, but when it's specifically targetted in upcoming games the boost will be greater. For that reason, I recommend you get the 3.06GHz Pentium 4. It's somewhat pricey, though, the cheapest available is $623. A much better deal is the 2.8GHz P4 (no hyperthreading) for $367.

I'd recommend the Intel route simply because then you can use an Intel motherboard. In my experience, Intel makes the best motherboard chipsets in the market, and will save you quite a bit of headaches that you may get with the Via and SiS chipsets which you must use on the Athlon.

AMD:
The Athlon XP 2800+ (roughly the speed of a P4 2.8GHz) is about $405 right now. The 2600+ is ~$254.

I'd still go with Intel, AMD's processors above 2500+ aren't any cheaper for a comparable Intel.

Motherboards and memory:
Basically, you want DDR333 (PC2700 DDR) no matter what system you get. There are "dual channel" versions available or shortly available for both AMD and Intel, and those are your best bet for highest performance. Instead of one memory channel, they've got two -- it theoretically doubles memory bandwidth.

If you get an Intel, the dual-channel chipset is called the Intel's E7205. It's the best chipset for DDR you can get right now, but I also don't know its pricing. If you only need single-channel, the cheaper i845E is available from about a dozen manufacturers.

If you get an AMD, I'd personally recommend a Via KT333 or KT400 based system. I've got a KT333 and it's pretty good.

Video card
Hmm. How soon are you getting this computer? Prices on ATI's Radeon 9700 are supposed to be dropping within a couple weeks as Nvidia's GeForce FX becomes available. They perform around the same, and the Radeon is MUCH quieter.

However, in March, the Radeon 9700's successor is due out.

But if I had to buy a card right now, definitely the Radeon 9700 Pro. Realllllly fast, fully DirectX 9 compatible.

CD Drives
Not sure what you mean. You probably want to get one of those combo drives, DVD-ROM & CD-RW in one, then you can do everything. You probably don't need or want a DVD burner...

**Guynemer** · February 5, 2003, 23:07

Great load of help, Asher. Thank a bunch.

Re: CD drives, just wanted to know what the best option is without DVD. I have no interest in watching movies on my computer, and I'm not aware of any other used for DVD-ROM... as I said, not up on hardware and tech stuff very much.

**Asher** · February 5, 2003, 23:09

DVD-ROMs are beginning to get popular for data too. Lots of games coming out these days are on 2-4 CDs, and a dual-layer DVD can hold 9GB rather than 700MB on CDs.

The only software I know of readily available in DVD format is some linux distros.

But it's really optional, you can always get one later for cheap if you need it.

In this case, a simple CD-RW drive will suffice, since it can read and write CDs.

**Guynemer** · February 5, 2003, 23:13

Again, many many thanks. You've given me much to consider.

As an expression of my appreciation, I'd like to ask the hockey gods to continue to bless the Flam... um... nevermind.

**reismark** · February 6, 2003, 11:23

*sighs deeply*

I hate to confuse you a bit, Guy, but Asher is wrong on one key point about the AMD processors. He speaks the truth when he says that going Intel is better in terms of the motherboard, but the fact of the matter is that AMD Athlon processors usually significantly outperform their Intel equivalents. You can check out several computer-interest websites (I use PCWorld.com, for instance) to see this for yourself. I, personally, am waiting until the new 64-bit Opterons to come out in September for both desktop and laptop systems to upgrade my current system (700 mHz original Athlon, one which I've never had a serious performance problem with).

Agree that if you're not interested in watching movies on your PC, that a DVD-ROM drive isn't necessary.

Additionally, make sure that any system you get comes with plenty of USB 2.0 ports. Most new USB devices coming out these days won't work on older 1.1 ports (2.0 is about, I think, forty times as fast as 1.1). You may also want to invest in some FireWire ports if you want to get involved in recording digital audio or video (most of the equipment for that won't be compatible with USB 2.0).

**Urban Ranger** · February 6, 2003, 12:44

Sure, Athlon and P4 are roughly the same price above 2400, but why bother? The increase in speed is marginal, and smart people of course maximise marginal value. So anywhere from 2000 to 2400 is good.

Another thing. The nForce2 chipset for Athlons is a mighty piece of work. Dual channels and everything. Check out the Asus A7N8X. That, my friend, is awesome.

**Asher** · February 6, 2003, 14:38

Originally posted by reismark
*sighs deeply*

I hate to confuse you a bit, Guy, but Asher is wrong on one key point about the AMD processors. He speaks the truth when he says that going Intel is better in terms of the motherboard, but the fact of the matter is that AMD Athlon processors usually significantly outperform their Intel equivalents.

"Significantly outperform"? AMD's been in the backseat for performance for many months now...

I really wouldn't say that the Athlons are "significantly outperforming" the Pentium 4s, really.

**reismark** · February 6, 2003, 14:42

Maybe in that arena, Asher, the Intels are faring better than the Athlons, but the new 3.0 GB Pentiums are doing MUCH WORSE in PCWorld benchmarking tasks, which include other things (like say, for example, using Windows Explorer, or word processing) besides playing games.

**Dinner** · February 6, 2003, 14:42

Why not just order a new system from Dell? The prices are good and the quality is the best in the business plus they'll explain all the different options to you over the phone.

**Asher** · February 6, 2003, 14:46

Originally posted by reismark
Maybe in that arena, Asher, the Intels are faring better than the Athlons, but the new 3.0 GB Pentiums are doing MUCH WORSE in PCWorld benchmarking tasks, which include other things (like say, for example, using Windows Explorer, or word processing) besides playing games.

PCWorld, first of all, is an absolute joke.

Second of all, what the hell are you talking about -- WORD PROCESSING and WINDOWS EXPLORER benchmarks on a Pentium 4 3.0GHz don't perform as well as an Athlon XP 2800+????

WORD PROCESSING???

You've been watching too much wrestling...

The things people need fast processors for are encoding/decoding, gaming, rendering, etc. Not word processing.

I want to see those benchmarks, by the way, since every single reputable independent hardware site would disagree.

The 3.06GHz Pentium 4s are accepted by everyone to be faster than the Athlons in the vast majority of applications...

**Asher** · February 6, 2003, 14:49

Here's the "extremely scientific" benchmarks you're referring to:

By the way, PCMagazine is the "ignorant consumer" version of ExtremeTech, where my detailed benchmarks came from...ZD publishes both.

**Asher** · February 6, 2003, 14:52

Here's the "Word Processing" benchmarks in detail.

The "Media Creation" benchmarks by the same people (where CPU speeds really matters):

**Guynemer** · February 6, 2003, 21:32

Save it for the ME threads, guys. Just computers we're talking about here.

Thanks again for the help...

**Urban Ranger** · February 6, 2003, 23:53

Interesting choice of software, I say.

Announcement

Recommend Guynemer some computers

Recommend Guynemer some computers

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment