I have over 3 thousand dollars to spend, and I was thinking about getting a new computer. My current one is

Dell
Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.60GHz
1.59GHz
256 MB of RAM

It's also 2 years old, and it's got a 15" monitor and a crappy soundcard. My friend from work builds computers. He says that given the Specs, my computer probably has a 200 "something" motherboard... which restricts how fast it can be. He said he has one that is 800 "something" motherboard, and he can build me one like it for $700... He's coming by today so we can start pricing things... I was just wondering if there were any suggestions...

------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|

He's probably referring to 800 MHz fsb capability. Which would indicate he wants to build an intel system for you. I would reccomend getting a new Athlon 64 FX if you've really got the change to spend.

------------------
I resent that.

If you willing to spend a crap load

2GB RAM
Radeon X800
3.0Ghz


But that would last you for like ever, and cost a lot.

Graphics Card ATi > NVidia

Processor AMD > Pentium

------------------
Haggis: "For God's sake, snap out of it man! That bottle is empty! It's been empty since the first day we got to this godforsaken place and you drank it all! You're losing touch with reality!"
Otter stares at Haggis, a suspicious expression on his face.
Otter: "You just want my whiskey! I'm on to you!"

For like ever translating into a few years.

------------------
If you can read this, you need better glasses.

I've had my PC for 7 years, I've only upgraded twice. I've never been really out of date. My PC could always run the latest games. Then again now it really is different. Technology is getting better before games even come out. People need new graphics cards yearly, it's just stupid and insane.

BTW, wouldn't the X800 support Unreal 3? Or am I mistaken. If so, that PC would last up until maybe 2007! Then you'd just have to update the graphics card.

------------------
Haggis: "For God's sake, snap out of it man! That bottle is empty! It's been empty since the first day we got to this godforsaken place and you drank it all! You're losing touch with reality!"
Otter stares at Haggis, a suspicious expression on his face.
Otter: "You just want my whiskey! I'm on to you!"

[This message has been edited by SAJN_Master (edited July 18, 2004).]

9800 Pro > geForce FX *

geForce 6800 > x800

AMD > Intel

If I were you I'd get a socket 939 mobo with dual channel ram support. I would also see about getting a 19" CRT monitor (not lcd... overpriced + dead pixels + native resolution is bad for gaming). Some good speakers can also do alot of good.

------------------
Ω of 14

I'd recommend an Athlon 64. Take a look at the prices (they range from kinda cheap to outrageously expensive) and decide how much you want to spend.

Video card, if you can afford it, X800. If you dont want to spend that much, 9800 XT or Pro, again depending on how much you want to spend.

Get a gig or RAM, make sure it's a good brand.

Motherboard, well that really depends on which CPU you get. Just try not to pay extra for things like wi-fi unless you're actually going to use them.

Soundcard, cant go wrong with an Audigy 2.

Got a boring old beige case? You might want to consider unleashing the geek within and getting something with a side panel, lots of indecipherable displays, and most importantly, hundreds of cold-cathode lights.

Oh, and I have an LCD monitor and love it. So far it's better than ye olde CRT in every single way.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

ARGH not FX! Over priced. Plus the 939, wich are the future of AMD are comming out. And they're faster. Ok, so maby they're expensive too, but at least you will be able to upgrade in 2 years. Get that. Then get your self, a PCI Xpress card, with two PCI Xpress slots on your Mobo so you can do duel cards later if you need to. Then get a 21 inch moniter, 1.5 gigs of PC 4500 RAM, and a nice Segate 200MB HDD with an 8mb cashe.

And while you're at it, buy Microsoft. Cause apparantly there is no limit to your money!

------------------
I resent that.

WTF. Newegg's new search engine SUCKS.

BTW, here are the things I suggest


2x75 GB Western Digital RAPTOR Hard Disk Drives.

1x250 GB Maxtor Hard Disk Drives

AMD 64 Athlon FX-53

Asus nForce3 motherboard

1 Gig of PC-3200 RAM (I think it HAS to be buffered, but it may be per mobo)

X800XT done by any vendor you wish, the more expensive, the more software/games/features you get.

Case of your choice, with 400-500 WATT PSU

Audigy 2

5.1--7.1 Surround Sound system, can't reccommend any brands but shop around. It's going to be used a LOT more.

Dual Layer DVD burner 12x

DVD-ROM and/or CD-RW. CD-RW mainly because DVD burners usually come with 24x CD burners.

BOSE headphones

after all that you should still have another thousand at least leftover, so go for either a 21" LCD or you can try to go for a 21" CRT which is better for gaming, at least a lot less expensive. 500 or so. I'd suggest giving 2500 for parts and reserving 500 for assembly cost. Not because it'll cost 500 to get assembled, but because it's always better safe than sorry. Hope that helps.


By the way, don't worry about PCI-Express. It's useless unless you've got OC-3 lines or better coming into your computer, mainly because it only gives like a small small percentage gain in performance for your video card.

And if you're hearing that the 6800 is better than the X800, they're partially right. With Anti-Aliasing and Anistropic Filtering off, raw FPS is better. But when you up the resolution, AA and AF, then the X800 shines.
------------------
There is no signature

[This message has been edited by Dj Yoshi (edited July 18, 2004).]

Listen to Dj Yoshi. He's right about this.

And man just get an OEM motherboard and assemble it yourself. It's very easy. It's all color coded and whatnot, so you can't go wrong.

------------------
I resent that.

quoted for truth


------------------
What once was...

The 6800 sucks unless you don't use AA and AF

------------------
There is no signature

Quoted for lies

x800 > 6800. In price, and performance. So win/win.

------------------
"The future is not determined by a throw of the dice, but is determined by the conscious decisions of you and me."
I am addicted to ellipses!!! AHHH!!! ...
Make Sorrowind Worthwhile... join it! http://sorrowind.net

Matty's right.

ATi x800XT
Audigy 2
I don't know about CPU's now. We have all intel's in our house, and we love them, but, I'm hearing a lot of good things about the Athalon 64...

------------------

"Bantha's are filthy animals.......I don't eat filthy animals."

"Laugh it up Fuzzball!"
-Han Solo

Intels WERE good, but the latest Prescotts are JOKES. While they perform well enough, they cost too much for their performance, and they run WAY WAY WAY too hot. I mean like nuclear reactor hot. It's laughable.

------------------
There is no signature

<3!!!!!

I laughed and almost choked to death at that.


------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

If you're going to mod your case, at least do it yourself. Start with a plain case, go buy a can of spraypaint and a hacksaw. Have fun.

------------------
I figure that one day I'll either be famous, or in prison. But I guess if I'm going to prison, I should probably try to do something that would make me famous anyway.

They cost within $10-$15 of their Northwood counterparts, don't expect them to be leaps and bounds ahead. Their performance bonuses are more apparent at the high clcok speeds, but it would help if there was more SSE3 stuff to take advantage of them having SSE3 support. The larger cache helps in some areas still though.

They are a little warm, and they don't overclock as well, but hardly "laughable."


It's really simple how to decide. If you want nothing but gaming performance, get something AMD. If you do/plan on doing lots of more processor intensive things like video encoding, 3D rendering, etc. you're better off with a P4. Especially when it comes to multi-threaded applications or when you want to multi-task while doing something really intensive. Either way, the differences as far as gaming goes are so small that you're not going to hurt yourself going either way, but when it comes to stuff like MPEG2 encoding, a P4 will save you lots of time.

Intel's getting off the "purely high clock speed" horse, and is taking the "more work per cycle" route they took with the Pentium M and that AMD took. Prescotts are probably their last line of processors to follow that philosopy. I'm curious to see what they come up with.

[This message has been edited by Darth (edited July 18, 2004).]

FX-53 > P4. On anything. Imagine OVERCLOCKED.

But yeah, they're laughable. And last I checked they were a lot more than 15 dollars ahead of Northwoods.

------------------
There is no signature

Games and some other aspects, but far from everything.

DiVX encoding, MPEG2 encoding, etc.

To say on anything is laughable, especially in those aspects that can actually take advantage of high clock speed and multiple threads.

And no, not a lot more than $15.

2.8E $178, but it's on sale, but not much lower than normal

2.8C $182

3.0E $218, on sale

3.0C $219

3.2E $279

3.2C $277


Oh no, biggest price difference is $2 more. Those are all retail, but you won't find much difference in OEM either. The LGA775 ones are a little higher in price, but that's more because they're pretty much brand new. Still not more than $15 difference though.


[This message has been edited by Darth (edited July 18, 2004).]

Okay I was wrong about price, but yeah the heat difference between an AMD64 and a Prescott is humongous, especially since the P4's crap out at lower temps than AMDs. And the FX-53 outperforms the Prescott even for that, sorry. The only chip that MIGHT outperform the FX-53 is the 3.4EE. Doubtful though.

------------------
There is no signature

[This message has been edited by Dj Yoshi (edited July 18, 2004).]

*yawn*

I do tons of encoding with P4's. I have friends who do lots of encoding with AMD chips. Even they'll admit that Intel definitely wins in that area.

And some more...

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040318/athlon-fx53-19.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040318/athlon-fx53-20.html

Note the black one is overclocked, where apparently none of the P4's are.

I don't hesitate to acknowledge AMD's lead in gaming, but in encoding, it's a different ballgame.

[This message has been edited by Darth (edited July 18, 2004).]

Tomshard...AHAHAHH. They're horribly biased for Intel and nVidia. They HAD to admit the X800 outperforms the NV40 though. But I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow fixed the benchmarks for Intel--it's not unheard of at ALL. You keep forgetting, the FX-53 is the most advanced chip currently out.

------------------
There is no signature

I was expecting that "argument." The bias game is played so much that it's sad. I could just as easily spit out a list of sites that's "AMD biased."

Just because something may be the "most advanced" doesn't mean it's the best at everything. It's foolish trying to claim everything. Same as it's foolish to claim everything in the ATI vs. NVidia topic when it depends on the API being used. The fanboy attitude doesn't work out. Rarely is there a situation when one thing wins in every aspect over its competitor.

Do you even do any video encoding?

[This message has been edited by Darth (edited July 18, 2004).]

Nope, but hey let me give you this, the P4EE is greater than the FX-53 by a few seconds. But it's also more expensive by a few hundred dollars. Let's see now, do we want an overexpensive, overheating processor, or one that's better for what he's going for (which I assume is gaming mainly) and is also just less expensive and runs a lot cooler.

Also, there's a reason the bias card is played. Because anyone and everyone knows they're biased.

Besides, there's a reason to be biased towards AMDs, they perform better for a lot less.

------------------
There is no signature

Not in every aspect, which is a concept that you don't seem to be able to grasp. This isn't about what's best for him, I stated quite a while ago that he should go AMD if he wants to do primarily gaming.

And you didn't answered my question...

And a few seconds is a big deal in an encoding benchmark. When you start getting into movies that take hours to encode, a few seconds on a 5 minute encode turns into a bigger gap. When you do days and days worth of encoding, a few seconds turns starts turning into hours. It wasn't just the EE ahead in those either, there were EE's, prescotts, and northwoods ahead.

[This message has been edited by Darth (edited July 18, 2004).]

I answered your question first off.



But yeah, they do outperform them overall for the price. Personally I don't like paying 25-100 bucks more for something that might give me an extra 10 minutes of my time on the computer after encoding a video.

------------------
There is no signature

Oh, sorry, didn't notice the nope.

Encoding's a big deal, especially with the DVD burner market being so good. It generally takes advantage of high clock speeds, so the Intel lead makes perfect sense. HT helps out as well, with things that are mutli-threaded (though some aren't, like DiVX). I wonder if some of the DiVX benchmarks are affected by the problem DiVX has with HT. You actually have to either disable HT or set affinity to one logical processor with a DiVX encoding program, or the HT will actually cause quite a dip in performance.

Encoding might be a big deal, but I can't justify spending a hundred bucks to save ten minutes. Really.

------------------
There is no signature

Umm, if you're talking about just the FX-53, it's going to cost a lot more than 3.4E when the 3.4E will beat it in encoding... The regular 64's when compared to C's and E's are pretty comparable in price as well.

If you're talking about XP's, then that depends on what you want to do, but I'd definitely pay more for my encoding benefits. Especially since the differences in P4's and XP's in encoding are really big.

64's outperform C's and E's like nobody's business in overall computing (read overall computing, not in encoding maybe but in your average everyday computing) and it's not even a 64-bit system yet. The 3.4EE is 1000 dollars, what are you on? The FX-53 is merely 800, I think you can even get it down to 700 OEM.

------------------
There is no signature

I just felt like posting to break the endless tide of Dj Yoshi/Darth posts.

Never was I referring to the EE's... In some cases they're beat by 3.4E's though(like DiVX 5.1.1, which uses SSE3).



By the time 64-bit software actually becomes big, Intel will have 64-bit processors out. Right now they don't have any reason to, other than to use it as a marketing gimmick.

Or not? XP 64 is already being tested. Intel says 64-bit will come NEXT YEAR MAYBE, for companies only, along with dual-cores. It'll take another 6 months-a year for them to become affordable for the general community, although I feel strange calling an Intel affordable.

------------------
There is no signature

XP 64's been in testing for a long time, no telling when it will actually be out. Then there also has to be software for it, since just having the OS being 64-bit but still running 32-bit software isn't going to help much.

Intel's not going to wait to take advatage of that market when it becomes big.

But 64-bit crap isn't the issue I was referring to. Encoding was, something I actually have experience with and have done lots of research on performance relating to it.

In terms of speakers, I can personally vouch for Logitech Z-640s. 5.1 surround. I got mine last week for 60 bucks at BJs. I love them. From what I've read, they're rated pretty highly for mid-range price speakers. The only downsides I've seen mentioned repeatedly is that the cables on the front and rear satellites aren't long enough (easily fixable with a trip to RadioShack) and that there isn't enough seperation of really high range and really low range sound, making them sub-par of listing to things like Classical music.

Right now, I'm using them on a computer that doesn't support 5.1. My loss right now becuase of it? No rear speakers, and technically no center speaker. However, they came up with a way to emulate sound for the center speaker by combining the left and right channels. Anyway, in another week and a half, I'll have my new PC and then I can use all speakers with true 5.1. From what I've read, they reaally show their colors then.

Someone else can probably recommend better, but for 60ish bucks, these are very, very good in my opinion.

------------------
Put me in the hospital for nerves and then they had to commit me,
You told them all I was crazy,
They cut off my legs now I'm an amputee, God damn you.
============
Frogblast the Vent-Core!

Alright, here's what I got....

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=11-147-001& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-150-042& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=29-102-166& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-152-010& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-121-187& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=27-151-042& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-170& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=36-116-136& catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1

for $1004.00

------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|

[This message has been edited by Spiral (edited July 19, 2004).]

That does not seem cheap...

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

Lite-On > Samsung

Spend under $1000..save the rest for a car, college, or whatever.

I'd rather have a $1000 computer (or $1k in upgrades) every 18 months than a $3000 computer to last four years.

------------------
The Truth about Bowling for Columbine