Karolus des Reyches197 wrote:
| I thank you for the fine feedback. I needed just that. I was leaning
| first to INTEL, then AMD 3000, but reading above I am now almost
| certain to go to AMD 2400, 1 GB of PC 2400 RAM and see how that is
| with the existing Graphics card. You are right. The price drop is
| tremendous this way. Almost half.

You're welcome.
Suggest you go for a good quality m/board and the fastest memory it will
take.
There is no need to worry about running memory at the same speed as the
processor FSB on modern m/boards - they can handle the difference without
introducing wait states.
Kevin.

| Thanks
|
| Karl
| "Kevin Lawton" wrote in message
| ...
|| Karolus des Reyches197 wrote:
|| | Thanks a lot for the fine explanation.
|| |
|| | I presently have the AMD 1100, 512 MB SDRAM, two 80 GHZ drives (1
|| | internal, 1 external) CD reader, CD writer,Cardreader.
|| |
|| | Windows XP, word, OE, and various programs to process digital
|| photos | and movies (the latter in the very beginning stages).
|| |
|| | I have a Radeon 5000 card (18 months old) and would need to
|| upgrade | that too.
|| |
|| | Most of my time is spent in
|| |
|| | E-mails
|| | Newsgroups-computers and computer related
|| | Stocks and analysis
|| | Word
|| | Doing newsletters for voluntary org..
|| | Excel
|| | Image photo processing
|| | and editing, printing of final photos.
|| |
|| | That is not all but quickly comes to my mind.
|| |
|| | NOW, what is it you recommend?
|| |
|| | Thanks in advance
||
|| You'll probably find the AMD 1100 fine for most of your Apps
|| except for the image processing which is likely to be s--l--o--w.
|| I tend to upgrade my main machine to be one step behind 'leading
|| edge' as that is where the best value for money comes in.
|| Currently, you can get an AMD XP2400 plus a decent suitable m/board
|| (Gigabyte, Asus, etc) for less than half it would cost you to go 3
|| GHz. In practise, you won't really notice much difference between
|| them unless you spend your whole life benchmark testing. Give it
|| something like 1 Gb of PC2700 333 MHz DDR RAM and you'll have a
|| system which can edit photos with the best of them. Should be more
|| than adequate for getting started with video editing when you want
|| to try that as well. Your Radeon 5000 might be far from 'leading
|| edge', but that doesn't mean it won't do the job.
|| Most of the latest ATI and nVidia graphics cards give you
|| fantastic 3D acceleration - but you're not using 3D, so why pay for
|| it ? Might be best to see how the Radeon performs in a better
|| system, and find out what you need to improve about it.
|| If you don't need 3D, then image quality and a choice of outputs
|| might be your priorities. My own preference in this case would be to
|| look at the Matrox range, as these have some of the finest 2D
|| quality you can get. Nice stable drivers, too.
|| I notice that you are using Windows XP. This can use a significant
|| of system resources - and thus soak up some performance - if you
|| have all the bells-and-whistles and eye-candy enabled. Configuring
|| XP to run 'lean and mean' without so much of the extras can help
|| performance. Kevin.