I despretaly need a better computer, so i'm going to build one. I don't want it to be too expensive, meybe around $500(if possible). I also want it to run Battlefield 2(I got it yesterday). So massassians list the hardware you think I should get!

No


>.>

You should probably check out the tech forum.

But for your convenience I'll list out:

CPU: Most would recommend AMD Athlon 64, for the cheaper price. But P4's in the $200-400 range are comparable. Make sure you get 64-bit (Athlon 64s, P4 6xx series), and either Socket939 for AMD or LGA775 for P4.
Motherboard: You want PCI-Express (nForce4 for Athlon64s, don't know about Intel)
Memory: You can get by with 512mb, but go for 1 GB... RAM's fairly cheap at the moment.
Videocard: A DirectX 9 series... the standard today for a good rig is probably at least an Radeon X700 or Geforce 6600 (or higher). If you can afford it, go for a 256mb card, with at least 12 pipelines.
Hard Drives: make sure it's 7200rpm and 8mb cache. Other than that, anything works pretty much okay (not too much of a difference between SATA and PATA, so you can go with PATA if it's cheaper). Shoot for 3 gig per $1, and don't settle for less than 2 gigs per $1. Check out store ads (CompUSA, OfficeDepot, Fry's), they usually have good rebate deals.
Optical drives: 16x dual-layer DVD+RW. Lite-On is a good brand. Should be able to find for $50 or maybe even $40.
Audiocard: Integrated works fine for most people, but Audigy 2 ZS can be had for around $50.
Case/PSU: It's your preference for this one.. the case doesn't matter so much as you get a reliable power supply. Antec, Raidmax, are good and cheap brands, although there are lots of others out there. 300watts or 350watts may do fine, depending on what you're running, but shoot for 400w, if you can. If you're trying to run an SLI rig, you'll want to get a very reliable power supply rated maybe nearer to 500watts.

I'd recommend:

CPU: Athlon64 3000+ ($145)
Motherboard: nForce4 Ultra ($90)
Memory: 1 GB DDR400 ($90)
Videocard: X700, 6600 - there are lots of different cards, so look around. ($150)
Hard Drive: 160GB ($50)
Optical: 16x DVD+RW ($50)
Case/PSU: Raidmax 400w ($50)

That'd run about $625. To cut it down to $500, you could go with 512mb of RAM and buy another 512mb at some later time (saves about $50). There are a few of the older types of videocards (Radeon 9550 and 9600 and such) for sub-$100, although they're considerably slower than the newer models.

Check out http://www.newegg.com . [url]www.tigerdirect.com[/url] and ww.zipzoomfly.com are also good sites, but newegg is probably the best, especially as a price reference if you shop around at other places.

Thanks man, I am getting one, the price will be roughly $600.

I am getting all of the stuff from newegg. i was going to get a 64 bit processor, but i decided to get an amd athlon 64 , instead of and athlon 64(saves like $150) My graphics card will be a nvdia gforce 6. I am inheriting a moniter, and the mouse and keyboard i got at a great deal Check it out!. Case was Cheap($24!), and my bro is giving me his sound system with a audigy card.

Mm... they look like good choices. Be aware that there's a $16 shipping on your APEX case, so it'll end up costing you $40, not just $24. You may be better off buying a case from a store somewhere. The keyboard/mouse is decent, but you can find a lot of keyboard and mice for sub-$10 each.

I would recommend that you get an Athlon64, not the AthlonXP you have listed. It will cost you only about $75 more, and give you access to among other things:

PCI-Express mobo: There aren't any motherboards for the AthlonXP (Socket A) that support PCi-Express, so if you go with the XP, you'll be stuck with a simple AGP slot. Okay for now, but future cards will all be in PCI. It'd be like buying a motherboard that had no AGP slot, and only PCI - you'll be severely handicapping what video cards you can buy in the future.

64-bit Windows: The next generation of Windows and software will all be based in 64-bit. By getting a 32-bit AthlonXP, it basically means that in 2 or 3 years, you won't be able to use ANY of the software (including games) that's released, and likely there won't be a 32-bit version of the Windows that comes out after Vista/Longhorn.

So, if you want to be able to use video-cards in the future, and if you want new software to be able to run on your computer at all in the future, you need to get an Athlon64.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537

Ditch that AMD Athlon XP and get the AMD64 chip as recommended. That 2600+ is starting to show its age already, you'll only be punching yourself in the face a year from now when you have to upgrade your CPU and MOBO again.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Ditch that AMD Athlon XP and get the AMD64 chip as recommended. That 2600+ is starting to show its age already, you'll only be punching yourself in the face a year from now when you have to upgrade your CPU and MOBO again.[/QUOTE]

Not really. My 1800+ overclocked like mad still keeps up. But yeah, the 64 will do you better. No guarantees on that 2600+. If you get the 2600+ and an AGP card, you will be kicking yourself in the *** over and over and over again.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Not really. My 1800+ overclocked like mad still keeps up. But yeah, the 64 will do you better. No guarantees on that 2600+. If you get the 2600+ and an AGP card, you will be kicking yourself in the *** over and over and over again.[/QUOTE]


I had a 2400+ and was fed up with the performance of it already. I've already upgraded it.

So uhh, yeah.

Well at stock speeds, yeah, they're not that great. But nobody runs AMDs at stock speeds, unless they're just not computer literate at all.

I thought you had to get an unlocking kit for the AthlonXP? I don't have too much experience with AthlonXP.

I'd agree that performance-wise, they're just fine... I have an 1800+, running at stock, and it's served fine, even for almost anything I throw at it today. But if you were to build one, I think you would have to go for the Athlon64, simply for 64-bit and PCI-express, on top of the performance advantage

Man, rakishi made a good guide.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Well at stock speeds, yeah, they're not that great. But nobody runs AMDs at stock speeds, unless they're just not computer literate at all.[/QUOTE]

I dunno what you're thinking, but unless you spend some good cash on cooling, they really don't overclock that well. And if you are gonna spend some cash overclocking, you might as well get a far superior processor.

I've got a 2600+, it's getting out-dated, trust me.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]I dunno what you're thinking, but unless you spend some good cash on cooling, they really don't overclock that well. And if you are gonna spend some cash overclocking, you might as well get a far superior processor.[/QUOTE]

Stock HSF and Fan, overclock 500mhz.

You have no idea what you're talking about

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Stock HSF and Fan, overclock 500mhz.

You have no idea what you're talking about[/QUOTE]


Stock HSF, overclock 25-50mhz.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

(Loller no sources rule!)

I like how you base your 1800+ OC'ing ability as the ability of the 2600+. Because they are damn near completely different chips. New core, higher clock, etc etc.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Stock HSF, overclock 25-50mhz.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

(Loller no sources rule!)

I like how you base your 1800+ OC'ing ability as the ability of the 2600+. Because they are damn near completely different chips. New core, higher clock, etc etc.[/QUOTE]

...no they're not. Mine's an 1800+ Thoroughbred 256k cache (and this is my processor that's overclocked 500mhz btw, I AM the source). The 2600+'s are either Thoroughbreds which are the same as mine, and I've seen a few Bartons which stomp the hell out of mine in overclocking. The only thing needed to push mine to OC a bit better was a voltmod, and those aren't hard at all. I'd say go with Semprons though--they're supposedly the **** for overclocking.

Matty--you didn't spend much time with AMD's last generation did you?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]...no they're not. Mine's an 1800+ Thoroughbred 256k cache (and this is my processor that's overclocked 500mhz btw, I AM the source). The 2600+'s are either Thoroughbreds which are the same as mine, and I've seen a few Bartons which stomp the hell out of mine in overclocking. The only thing needed to push mine to OC a bit better was a voltmod, and those aren't hard at all. I'd say go with Semprons though--they're supposedly the **** for overclocking.

Matty--you didn't spend much time with AMD's last generation did you?[/QUOTE]


I've never had anything but AMD (Except maybe back in 1994). And I am telling you, not a single chip I have run into in the XP series was great in stock oc'ing.

(And I am the source, I had a 2400+ for... well... since it came out. As did my friends, one of which has a watercooling unit in his PC)

A. They are a different core than yours. While still called "Thoroughbreds", they are hardly anything alike. The 2600+ sported a much more tolerable under-load temperature. This was done by adding 100k more transistors, and increasing the die size. They also added an additional layer of metal for to avoid interference.

B. Even with a damn good Thermaltake HSF on the 2600+, HardOCP was only able to get it to OC about 300mhz. I'll take their word over yours.

C. If that chip, which was supposed to be superior than yours in OC ability, only does 300mhz on a damn good HSF, I have trouble believing your 500mhz stock OC claim.

Despite all this, picking a 2600+ would be a very bad decision, sorta like picking a Geforce FX 5x00 series video card.

Why would I lie about my overclock? I got it at 1.53ghz, 1800+, and it's now at 2.03ghz. I don't have the box, and neither would you believe it's the real box anyways, but I don't care. It's all about 2 things--one: air flow through the case. [H] usually only has two case fans...which is bad. I have 3 on my case, one in my PSU. And two: if you're willing to voltmod it. Voltmodding can increase stability, decrease temperature (a bit) and allow you to push the chip further.

Also, if his chip is supposedly better than mine...wouldn't that make it MORE overclockable?

I seriously think you don't know what you're talking about. Every enthusiast in the...er...business will tell you that XP's are THE overclocking chip to have (except Palominos). I mean, honestly, visit hardforum once in a while.

Also, if you've ever tried to OC on a gigabyte board then your results are nullified automatically. Almost ALL gigabyte boards are known for their lack of OC'ing ability (except some of the latest NF4 models).

And it's not nearly comparable to getting a 5500. More like getting say...a 9600XT or a 9800 pro. It'll still run just about everything at a good framerate, but it won't run windows -quite- as smoothly, and it won't have all the bells and whistles (939 goodness, etc) and all that. I'd suggest a Sempron over it almost, because like I said I hear they're GREAT overclockers (heard of a guy pushing one a ghz on air. ****'s insane.) but it's all just speculation as I've not seen any 'official' articles on their overclockability

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Why would I lie about my overclock? I got it at 1.53ghz, 1800+, and it's now at 2.03ghz. I don't have the box, and neither would you believe it's the real box anyways, but I don't care. It's all about 2 things--one: air flow through the case. [H] usually only has two case fans...which is bad. I have 3 on my case, one in my PSU. And two: if you're willing to voltmod it. Voltmodding can increase stability, decrease temperature (a bit) and allow you to push the chip further.

Also, if his chip is supposedly better than mine...wouldn't that make it MORE overclockable?

I seriously think you don't know what you're talking about. Every enthusiast in the...er...business will tell you that XP's are THE overclocking chip to have (except Palominos). I mean, honestly, visit hardforum once in a while.

Also, if you've ever tried to OC on a gigabyte board then your results are nullified automatically. Almost ALL gigabyte boards are known for their lack of OC'ing ability (except some of the latest NF4 models).

And it's not nearly comparable to getting a 5500. More like getting say...a 9600XT or a 9800 pro. It'll still run just about everything at a good framerate, but it won't run windows -quite- as smoothly, and it won't have all the bells and whistles (939 goodness, etc) and all that. I'd suggest a Sempron over it almost, because like I said I hear they're GREAT overclockers (heard of a guy pushing one a ghz on air. ****'s insane.) but it's all just speculation as I've not seen any 'official' articles on their overclockability[/QUOTE]

Ah, so apparently HardOCP doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. Okay, argument is over. There's no more to say. If I can't take an unbelievably credible source and show how you are wrong, (Even a source that you yourself think is a decent site) then there is no way I could ever get you to concede.

A. No, it wasn't a Gigabyte board. Try the A7N8X. Gigabyte boards are the crappiest MOBOs in existance.
B. Wow, your arguing an analogy? Do you have nothing to do with your life? Good god man, it's a freakin analogy.
C. "Every enthusiast", I guess that doesn't include HardOCP. Wow. Just... wow. I guess you like Toms Hardware now for some reason?
D. And yes, his chip IS more overclockable, that's what I said. And I said that IT could only overclock 300mhz on great cooling.
E. XP line is hardly the chip to pick for overclocking.

And just because its so funny how this article completely contradicts what you said, here is a link: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzIwLDE=

It details how their 1800+ could not break 1.83ghz even with a great Thermaltake on it.

Oh, and just incase that isn't good enough: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/news6158.html

Another thread detailing the exact same thing, even going as far to say that raising the voltage wouldn't allow one to reach 2000mhz.

And another thread about the 2600+, stating how the XP chips aren't decent OC'ing chips. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon-xp-2600.html Also shows how the 2600+ fares, which isn't well.

I think I'll take those sources over your word, Yoshi.

Sucks to be them? My 1800+ 1.53 ghz Thoroughbred is sitting pretty at 2036 right now, and probably more when I get some more voltage to it. HardOCP only tests one chip, not multiple ones, not only that but they usually test the first in the line (which is far from the best of the best in overclocking). I'm not saying they're wrong, just that the articles are dated and they've got some outdated information. It's not usable in this er 'debate'. You forget these are all accounts of the first in the line, which this is not.

Gigabyte boards are great boards, solid, stable...just don't expect to move a MHz with one. Also, I wasn't arguing about the analogy, I was saying it's a poor analogy. I just gave a better one.

Really, Matty, these articles are years old. Not to mention HardOCP wasn't the most credible source when the 1800+'s and the like came out (3dmark2001 anybody?).

Drop by the hardforum and ask them, they'll tell you the exact same thing I'm saying (except the Intel zealots).

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Sucks to be them? My 1800+ 1.53 ghz Thoroughbred is sitting pretty at 2036 right now, and probably more when I get some more voltage to it. HardOCP only tests one chip, not multiple ones, not only that but they usually test the first in the line (which is far from the best of the best in overclocking). I'm not saying they're wrong, just that the articles are dated and they've got some outdated information. It's not usable in this er 'debate'. You forget these are all accounts of the first in the line, which this is not.

Gigabyte boards are great boards, solid, stable...just don't expect to move a MHz with one. Also, I wasn't arguing about the analogy, I was saying it's a poor analogy. I just gave a better one.

Really, Matty, these articles are years old. Not to mention HardOCP wasn't the most credible source when the 1800+'s and the like came out (3dmark2001 anybody?).

Drop by the hardforum and ask them, they'll tell you the exact same thing I'm saying (except the Intel zealots).[/QUOTE]

Well, except for the fact that the xbit articles AREN'T that old, sure. And completely coincide with HOCP, I might be able to agree with you. But I haven't found any good proof of a stock 500mhz OC, anywhere.

They're all 2002...

Also, I'm sorry you can't find a case of it. Maybe there's a first time for everything? Or maybe people just don't display their overclocks on XP's much anymore since it's not the 'new hotness'.

Well, personally I don't doubt that Yoshi has a 500mhz overclock. Individual chips vary wildly, and lower-end models usually have a higher overclocking ceiling. The guy has his own machine running, and so I'm not going to doubt his ability to read a display correctly. In any case, no need to get testy about it.

I think we can all agree, however, that OC'd or not, it's not such a great idea to go out and purchase an XP1800+ as the centerpiece for a new system that you're building.

Depends on if you've got LN cooling or not

What the hell? There are programs that will tell you what your computer information is.

Go here: http://www.cpuid.org/cpuz.php

Look in the top left and download that little 300kb program. It doesn't even need to be installed, you just unzip and run the exe. It comes out looking like this, and is more than enough for people to prove their overclocks: