If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Lawton" Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.hardware,microsoft.public.w indowsxp.hardware Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Whet /Drsytone comaprisons? Karolus des Reyches197 wrote: | What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100 computer gets | around 4000 Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000? You'll probably notice that the Expensive new Pentium-IV feels a little quicker and smoother in everyday use compared to the old-and-cheap AMD 1100. How much of a difference this makes in practise, and how important it is to you, depends on what sort of thing you are doing. Anything to do with fast graphics, 3D, rendering and that is likely to benefit from running on the better machine. If you are just doing a bit of e-mails, web surfing and letter-writing, you'll probably find the old AMD quite good enough. If you are considering what to buy, then an AMD 1100 could hardly described as 'future proof' - it is already below what could be considered entry level. However, unless you really need to push the limits, the 3 GHz Intel could be overkill at the moment - though probably still more than adequate for a few years to come. I'd suggest you might find the best price/performance comprimise somewhere in the 2.5 GHz AMD XP chips, coupled with plenty of memory etc. Kevin. "Kevin Lawton" wrote in message ... Karolus des Reyches197 wrote: | What is the real life significance if an AMD 1100 computer gets | around 4000 Dry stones and a IntelP4 3.0 GHZ gets 9000? You'll probably notice that the Expensive new Pentium-IV feels a little quicker and smoother in everyday use compared to the old-and-cheap AMD 1100. How much of a difference this makes in practise, and how important it is to you, depends on what sort of thing you are doing. Anything to do with fast graphics, 3D, rendering and that is likely to benefit from running on the better machine. If you are just doing a bit of e-mails, web surfing and letter-writing, you'll probably find the old AMD quite good enough. If you are considering what to buy, then an AMD 1100 could hardly described as 'future proof' - it is already below what could be considered entry level. However, unless you really need to push the limits, the 3 GHz Intel could be overkill at the moment - though probably still more than adequate for a few years to come. I'd suggest you might find the best price/performance comprimise somewhere in the 2.5 GHz AMD XP chips, coupled with plenty of memory etc. Kevin. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
BTW, 80 GHZ drives???
Maybe 80 GB drives! "Ralph Mowery" wrote in message ... | | 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? | | | For all but the last almost anything would have done. Once the photo | edditing comes into play you need a fast computer with lots of ram. If you | have to cut back a little on the processor go with all the ram you can for | the vidio edditing. | | | |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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? For all but the last almost anything would have done. Once the photo edditing comes into play you need a fast computer with lots of ram. If you have to cut back a little on the processor go with all the ram you can for the vidio edditing. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Right, 80 GB drives of course.
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message ... BTW, 80 GHZ drives??? Maybe 80 GB drives! "Ralph Mowery" wrote in message ... | | 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? | | | For all but the last almost anything would have done. Once the photo | edditing comes into play you need a fast computer with lots of ram. If you | have to cut back a little on the processor go with all the ram you can for | the vidio edditing. | | | |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I was thinking about the ASUS A7N8X Deluxe MB.
Any better suggestions? Karl "Kevin Lawton" wrote in message ... 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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Karolus des Reyches197 wrote:
| I was thinking about the ASUS A7N8X Deluxe MB. | | Any better suggestions? I haven't used ASUS m/boards so much in the past, but they are well known all over for quality (3-year warranty !). The A7N8X seems to have loads of very good features and will take up to DDR400 = PC3200 RAM. Their 'Q-fan' fan speed control idea seems a good one as well. It looks like it should serve you well for the future as well with 8x AGP and serial ATA. The nVidia chipset has had plenty of good reviews. If you have had good experiences with ASUS in the past, or have had a few recommendations, then I'd say 'go for it' - even though I tend to use the Gigabyte GA-7VRXP and GA-7VAXP myself. Kevin. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Whet /Drsytone comaprisons? | Karolus des Reyches197 | General | 18 | January 20th 04 05:50 PM |