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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Asking for recommandations on CPU & Mainboard
Hello,
The last time I have built a PC was all the way back in last century, 1997 to be exact, and after a short and very brief surfing on the web, I have come to realize there had been soooo much change in the PC industry since then, which actually wasn't that much of surprise. I am just overwhelmed. Anyway, the fastest PC in my house is PII 266. Believe or not, this guy is still good enough for the most of the stuff I do (I don't play games that much, in other words). However, recently I've been running quite a few MPEG encoding jobs. I collect animations and after downloading AVI files, I need to convert (encode) them to MPG so that I can put them on CD (Video CD). So, I thought now maybe I can use a little bit faster computer. I'm not trying to get a super duper mega power PC. As a matter of fact, I would like to spend less than $200 for CPU and Mainboard (and possibly case and memories if I must get new ones for the new CPU and Mainboard). I know some people will consider it as a total waste of money - spending any money to build such a sub par system. However, I am quite certain this $200 (or less) system will outperform my current computer by a huge margin, and that's all I want. The probelm is that there are so many different types of CPU's; Xeon, Opteron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Duron, Pentium 4, Pentium III, Pentium II Xeon, Celeron...... And I have no idea which one's right for me. So, which CPU and mainboard should I get? Also, would there be a web site that explains what all these CPU types and models are and nicely compare them? Thank you very much. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:03:26 -0500, "_Jung"
wrote: Hello, The last time I have built a PC was all the way back in last century, 1997 to be exact, and after a short and very brief surfing on the web, I have come to realize there had been soooo much change in the PC industry since then, which actually wasn't that much of surprise. I am just overwhelmed. Anyway, the fastest PC in my house is PII 266. Believe or not, this guy is still good enough for the most of the stuff I do (I don't play games that much, in other words). However, recently I've been running quite a few MPEG encoding jobs. I collect animations and after downloading AVI files, I need to convert (encode) them to MPG so that I can put them on CD (Video CD). So, I thought now maybe I can use a little bit faster computer. I'm not trying to get a super duper mega power PC. You will in fact get a "super duper mega power PC" for insignificantly more money than the very bottom stuff. Some Duron/Celeron (budget) solutions can make use of PC133 memory, but since you need new RAM anyway, and PC2100, PC2700 isn't more expensive, get a 'fullsize' CPU. You can get something like this: Athlon XP 1700+ T-bred $42 (Without cooler) Shuttle AK38N KT333 (VIA KT333) $47 Samsung DDR333 PC2700 CAS 2.5 256MB $44 You might need a new case/PSU, ATX format? And I think you need a new OS, unless you can find all the correct patches for your W95? If you have W98, try install it and then immediatly go to Windows Update, before installing mobo drivers, and install all system stuff. Might work. I don't know. As a matter of fact, I would like to spend less than $200 for CPU and Mainboard (and possibly case and memories if I must get new ones for the new CPU and Mainboard). I know some people will consider it as a total waste of money - spending any money to build such a sub par system. - NOT AT ALL! - It won't be a sub par system. And on the contrary, I consider spending money at the cutting edge, $650 for 3.2GHz P4, cpu alone, a 'not-usefully-more-powerful-cpu' "as a total waste of money". However, I am quite certain this $200 (or less) system will outperform my current computer by a huge margin, and that's all I want. The probelm is that there are so many different types of CPU's; Xeon, Opteron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Duron, Pentium 4, Pentium III, Pentium II Xeon, Celeron...... And I have no idea which one's right for me. So, which CPU and mainboard should I get? Also, would there be a web site that explains what all these CPU types and models are and nicely compare them? Simple: Intel P4 and AMD Athlon XP are the two 'fullsize' desktop cpus. Everything else is either castrated budget versions, server cpus, or obsolete. Xeon: Intels 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Opteron: AMDs 64-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Athlon: Obsolete, spare part at prices as high as much better cpu's. - Ignore! Consider very good deals on secondhand T-bird (Thunderbird), socket mounted 800MHz upwards. ************ Athlon XP: - This is the one you want! Supports SSE. Comes in three generations. Palomino. T-bred (Thoroughbred), same but smaller chip uses less power. Barton, same as T-bred but bigger level 2 cache. The Athlon XP is very efficient per clock, so AMD are not using clockspeed to rate them, as that would make a poor impression against Intels high, but impotent, clockspeeds. An Athlon XP is performance rated with a number that isn't its clockspeed. The number corresponds well to theoretic MHz of a PIIIe, of similar performance, except for floating point math, where the Athlon is 40% faster. It's more difficult to correlate against the P4, since the P4's performance is so erratic. P4s are generally less efficient (per clock) than PIIIs, but have SSE2 instructions that they use with very good effect on some apps. Athlon XP rating and P4 MHz correlates well on games, where the P4's low efficiency and SSE2 advantage cancels each other. On oldfashioned apps, the Athlon has a solid advantage, while the P4 is better on newer media apps and some other SSE2 apps. ************ Athlon MP: AMDs 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Athlon64 : Future 64-bit '86 cpu. Supports SSE2. Launched soon now... Outside your budget. -Ignore! Duron: Semiobsolete budget cpu. Kicks Celerons ass, but you get a real Athlon XP for the same kind of money. Duron pro: Don't know anything about it. I guess it's a new Duron based on the Athlon XP core rather than the old Athlon core. Could be just a 're-marketing' trick to avoid MHz comparisions with the Celeron-P4, though. Pentium 4: Poor value if you're on a budget. Supports SSE2. Cheap P4s are more expensive and slower than cheap Athlon XPs. Easier to build though. And the 2.4GHz P4C 800FSB-HT at less than $200 isn't too shabby. P4s are nice if you intend to spend $180-$700 on the cpu alone. Otherwise, forget it. And it's the 800FSB variants you want. (I'm kinda keen to try the 2.8GHz800FSB, which I believe is fast and affordable, but I already have an old slow 2.4GHz and a XP3000+, so I think I'm gonna wait for the Athlon64.) Pentium III: Nice, but obsolete spare part. Spare part prices. Consider very good deals on second hand 600-1000MHz, though. Supports SSE. Pentium II Xeon: Original Xeon. Longlifed, brilliant, in its time, but now obsolete 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Celeron: Obsolete budget version of the PII. - Ignore! Celeron Tualatin: Nice, but discontinued budget cpu, contemporary of late PIIIs and early P4s. Doesn't support SSE2, but otherwise as fast as later P4-Celeron, despite much lower clockspeed. Celeron P4: Poor value "budget" cpu from Intel. Cheaper Athlon XPs ****s all over it! Main reason for its existance is that Intel have figured out that the world is full of fools that buy MHz instead of performance. ancra |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wow... what a comprehensive response. I really really appreciated it.
So, I guess I will spend about $150 on CPU, mainboard, and memory. On top of that it looks like I will have to spend a little more on the case/PSU. My current PC is in an ATX case, but I didn't like it that much because it's kinda too big anyway. It probably will put me above the original $200 budget a little bit, but I think that's still very reasonable. Thank you very much!! One more question; Now that you mentioned a new OS, do you mean Win 9X won't be able to take advantage of the full power of new hardware? Or, did you mean worse - Win 9x won't even run on a new machine??? I am running Win 98 on my old PC. I haven't upgraded to new versions because I never felt a need. Maybe, I actually got "a reason" to upgrade now! I know Win 2K is NT and Win XP is 9X family. There have been a few compatibility issues between NT and 9X, especially playing games and stuff. Is it still true with Win 2K and Win XP? "Ancra" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:03:26 -0500, "_Jung" wrote: Hello, The last time I have built a PC was all the way back in last century, 1997 to be exact, and after a short and very brief surfing on the web, I have come to realize there had been soooo much change in the PC industry since then, which actually wasn't that much of surprise. I am just overwhelmed. Anyway, the fastest PC in my house is PII 266. Believe or not, this guy is still good enough for the most of the stuff I do (I don't play games that much, in other words). However, recently I've been running quite a few MPEG encoding jobs. I collect animations and after downloading AVI files, I need to convert (encode) them to MPG so that I can put them on CD (Video CD). So, I thought now maybe I can use a little bit faster computer. I'm not trying to get a super duper mega power PC. You will in fact get a "super duper mega power PC" for insignificantly more money than the very bottom stuff. Some Duron/Celeron (budget) solutions can make use of PC133 memory, but since you need new RAM anyway, and PC2100, PC2700 isn't more expensive, get a 'fullsize' CPU. You can get something like this: Athlon XP 1700+ T-bred $42 (Without cooler) Shuttle AK38N KT333 (VIA KT333) $47 Samsung DDR333 PC2700 CAS 2.5 256MB $44 You might need a new case/PSU, ATX format? And I think you need a new OS, unless you can find all the correct patches for your W95? If you have W98, try install it and then immediatly go to Windows Update, before installing mobo drivers, and install all system stuff. Might work. I don't know. As a matter of fact, I would like to spend less than $200 for CPU and Mainboard (and possibly case and memories if I must get new ones for the new CPU and Mainboard). I know some people will consider it as a total waste of money - spending any money to build such a sub par system. - NOT AT ALL! - It won't be a sub par system. And on the contrary, I consider spending money at the cutting edge, $650 for 3.2GHz P4, cpu alone, a 'not-usefully-more-powerful-cpu' "as a total waste of money". However, I am quite certain this $200 (or less) system will outperform my current computer by a huge margin, and that's all I want. The probelm is that there are so many different types of CPU's; Xeon, Opteron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Duron, Pentium 4, Pentium III, Pentium II Xeon, Celeron...... And I have no idea which one's right for me. So, which CPU and mainboard should I get? Also, would there be a web site that explains what all these CPU types and models are and nicely compare them? Simple: Intel P4 and AMD Athlon XP are the two 'fullsize' desktop cpus. Everything else is either castrated budget versions, server cpus, or obsolete. Xeon: Intels 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Opteron: AMDs 64-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Athlon: Obsolete, spare part at prices as high as much better cpu's. - Ignore! Consider very good deals on secondhand T-bird (Thunderbird), socket mounted 800MHz upwards. ************ Athlon XP: - This is the one you want! Supports SSE. Comes in three generations. Palomino. T-bred (Thoroughbred), same but smaller chip uses less power. Barton, same as T-bred but bigger level 2 cache. The Athlon XP is very efficient per clock, so AMD are not using clockspeed to rate them, as that would make a poor impression against Intels high, but impotent, clockspeeds. An Athlon XP is performance rated with a number that isn't its clockspeed. The number corresponds well to theoretic MHz of a PIIIe, of similar performance, except for floating point math, where the Athlon is 40% faster. It's more difficult to correlate against the P4, since the P4's performance is so erratic. P4s are generally less efficient (per clock) than PIIIs, but have SSE2 instructions that they use with very good effect on some apps. Athlon XP rating and P4 MHz correlates well on games, where the P4's low efficiency and SSE2 advantage cancels each other. On oldfashioned apps, the Athlon has a solid advantage, while the P4 is better on newer media apps and some other SSE2 apps. ************ Athlon MP: AMDs 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Athlon64 : Future 64-bit '86 cpu. Supports SSE2. Launched soon now... Outside your budget. -Ignore! Duron: Semiobsolete budget cpu. Kicks Celerons ass, but you get a real Athlon XP for the same kind of money. Duron pro: Don't know anything about it. I guess it's a new Duron based on the Athlon XP core rather than the old Athlon core. Could be just a 're-marketing' trick to avoid MHz comparisions with the Celeron-P4, though. Pentium 4: Poor value if you're on a budget. Supports SSE2. Cheap P4s are more expensive and slower than cheap Athlon XPs. Easier to build though. And the 2.4GHz P4C 800FSB-HT at less than $200 isn't too shabby. P4s are nice if you intend to spend $180-$700 on the cpu alone. Otherwise, forget it. And it's the 800FSB variants you want. (I'm kinda keen to try the 2.8GHz800FSB, which I believe is fast and affordable, but I already have an old slow 2.4GHz and a XP3000+, so I think I'm gonna wait for the Athlon64.) Pentium III: Nice, but obsolete spare part. Spare part prices. Consider very good deals on second hand 600-1000MHz, though. Supports SSE. Pentium II Xeon: Original Xeon. Longlifed, brilliant, in its time, but now obsolete 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore! Celeron: Obsolete budget version of the PII. - Ignore! Celeron Tualatin: Nice, but discontinued budget cpu, contemporary of late PIIIs and early P4s. Doesn't support SSE2, but otherwise as fast as later P4-Celeron, despite much lower clockspeed. Celeron P4: Poor value "budget" cpu from Intel. Cheaper Athlon XPs ****s all over it! Main reason for its existance is that Intel have figured out that the world is full of fools that buy MHz instead of performance. ancra |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then took
quill in hand and carefully composed... | I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too big"! A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is! Larc §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Larc!
I looked again to see where Jung said he had a 28" High case and could not find it. Just what is the height of his present ATX case? "Larc" wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then took quill in hand and carefully composed... | I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too big"! A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is! Larc §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:47:27 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then took
quill in hand and carefully composed... | I looked again to see where Jung said he had a 28" High case and could not | find it. | | Just what is the height of his present ATX case? | | | "Larc" wrote in message | ... | On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then | took | quill in hand and carefully composed... | | | I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too big"! | | A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is! Hi Alvin, I was just having a little fun commenting in general. The compartment in my computer desk happens to be 22" high, so the only way I could get a 28" tower in would be to knock the bottom of the compartment out. Anyway, my case is just a bit over 17", so I have room to spare. :-) Larc §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
thanks Larc for explanation.
"Larc" wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:47:27 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then took quill in hand and carefully composed... | I looked again to see where Jung said he had a 28" High case and could not | find it. | | Just what is the height of his present ATX case? | | | "Larc" wrote in message | ... | On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then | took | quill in hand and carefully composed... | | | I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too big"! | | A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is! Hi Alvin, I was just having a little fun commenting in general. The compartment in my computer desk happens to be 22" high, so the only way I could get a 28" tower in would be to knock the bottom of the compartment out. Anyway, my case is just a bit over 17", so I have room to spare. :-) Larc §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:34:58 -0500, "_Jung"
wrote: Wow... what a comprehensive response. I really really appreciated it. So, I guess I will spend about $150 on CPU, mainboard, and memory. On top of that it looks like I will have to spend a little more on the case/PSU. My current PC is in an ATX case, but I didn't like it that much because it's kinda too big anyway. It probably will put me above the original $200 budget a little bit, but I think that's still very reasonable. Thank you very much!! Keep the case! Big is good. One more question; Now that you mentioned a new OS, do you mean Win 9X won't be able to take advantage of the full power of new hardware? Or, did you mean worse - Win 9x won't even run on a new machine??? I am running Win 98 on my old PC. I haven't upgraded to new versions because I never felt a need. Maybe, I actually got "a reason" to upgrade now! I'm fairly sure there's some documents and websites that describe how to patch and run W95 on a modern machine. I seem to remember things like that, flashing by occasionally. W98 is more promising. W98SE, should be few problems. You will need to 'update' it though. There's tons of new stuff, since your 266, needing support. 3Dnow, SSE, USB... Then there's a few timing things as well. On W98 it's only some timing with HDs and disccaches, but on W95 there might be some cpu thing too. The cpu also needs to be set up with its cache arrangement and the RAM to do caching right. There's also differences in registers that require different shedulers. Libs supporting extended instructionsets, etc... OSes have some sort of hierarchical identification of the cpu. Like, 'it's at least this' and 'it's even this' and so on... But obviously it's better if it succeeds in identifying the cpu exactly. This it can only do if the CPU's specs existed at the time the install CD went to print, or if the OS is patched. It can go completely wrong, if it for some reason misidentifies it as something it isn't. I've never heard of Windows doing anything like that though. But it seems to happen to other OSes. I know Win 2K is NT and Win XP is 9X family. No, wrong on both accounts. Win9X = 95, 95OSR, 98, 98SE, ME, are built on the 'Chicago' technology. IMO, very nice. Prior to ME, they were extremely backwardscompatible. Uses FAT16 and FAT32 filesystems. 9X are single cpu and strictly '386-class cpu OS. NT are built on the 'Cairo' tech and completely different. Only backwards compatible with original 8086 DOS and 'clean' Win16 apps that only use the API and no own devices. NT protects itself a little better against ****ups. Has a 'theoretically' 'better' memoryprotection and a safer filesystem NTFS, that has the concept of filesecurity. NT's design is also built up from a 'microkernel' to allow it to be ported to other cpus (and indeed it was ported to DEC's Alpha). And to support multiple cpus. W2000 is a new rewrite. A new "modern" secure OS, that is supposedly better built than NT. The ******* that lead the project is obsessed with corrupting all existing non-MS standards (to make them MS-only) and 'charging' extra for everything, so W2000 goes some way to provide for both. XP again, is another new OS. It has inherited much of W2000's kernel though, but has a new hardware interface and a new shell. XP is faster on hardware than W2000 and NT, and thus better for media and games. It also includes a new sinister hegemonia technology called "dot net". XP can use both FAT32 and NTFS, but trust me, - use only one, and use NTFS. There have been a few compatibility issues between NT and 9X, especially playing games and stuff. Is it still true with Win 2K and Win XP? Today, XP is (considering the start) remarkably compatible. You have to tinker a bit and everything won't ever work, but I'm amazed. XP can run a Windows app (that won't immediatly work in XP) in something called compatibility mode, four different, 95, 98, NT4, W2000. Works some of the time. But with some extra 3'rd party utilities, even more is possible. VDMS and GLIDOS allows you to run some old non-DirectX DOS games as well. Like 'Tombraider'. VDMS intercepts DOS-SB16 sound and redirects it to Windows sound device. GLIDOS captures old DOS Voodoo '3dfx' 3D-commands and redirects them to Windows OpenGL device. It actually works. Microsofts Sidewinder game hardware (W98) also works flawlessly with XP. (that info is not readily available though!). Forget W2000. A good deal newer stuff works, but there's very little interest or work in making it compatible. ...And keep one old 95/98 PC. ancra |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AthlonXP 2000 on MSI KT4AV with (VIA KT400A) chipset Mainboard has Speed Complexity | LongBow | Overclocking AMD Processors | 7 | May 2nd 04 12:23 AM |
Mini-ITX Power-supplay and AMD K6/2 Mainboard | Noozer | General | 3 | April 16th 04 03:13 PM |
Serial Number on MainBoard Intel ! | RustiK | General | 7 | February 19th 04 03:23 AM |
Asus P4800 mainboard - What's the -E difference? | Phrederick | General | 6 | December 14th 03 09:02 PM |
Searching for MicroStar MS6117 Mainboard description | Peter Paul Jansen | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | July 9th 03 04:39 PM |