advice required

hi all

my bro is looking in to building his own computer but he wont listen to me when I tell him that he would be better to just save his $$$$ and go to some company that does custom build computers like dell for instance and buy a whole new computer and we are looking for a few objective opinions as to what would be better

see currently his computer has some issues with performance especially when his computer has been on for a long time it tents to become very jumpy and takes for ever to do anything and in wondering if this issues is caused by his cpu overheating or if its caused by insufficient ram or a combination of both

currently the specs of his computer are an althon 2400+ 2ghz 128mb sdram and a 64mb gforce 2 graphics card

now he wants to build a system that will run all the latest games flawlessly

he wants to upgrade the ram to 512mb ddr a new graphics card thinking about a gforce 4 128 to 256 mb

and a new 80gb hard drive and a new mobo with a faster more powerful processor

which brings me to my next question which processor is best AMD or Intel ??

now I here that Intel processors in general are better because they don't run as hot and have better overall compatibility with Intel being a mainstream company but are more expensive and that although power wise althons and Pentiums are evenly matched althons don't do as well because of heat issues is this true ??

 

It's very possible that he's experiencing heating issues. You could take the case off and put a house fan blowing on it to test the theory.

As far as AMD or Intel, AMD usually performs better on games and multimedia stuff, Intel generally does better w/ apps. There really isn't that big of a performance gap between the two, however. Either way, he should get plenty of cooling going, and should be fine. I do recommend using the silver thermal paste, though.. it does make a difference. Getting a good energy efficient power supply can help all this as well.. it won't create as much electrical noise or heat (usually more audibly quiet as well.) Also remember that 120mm fans move more air

I would highly recommend going to http://www.tomshardware.com/ and reading some reviews before choosing any particular component, though. He also has good reviews on CPUs.

 

hi all

what is the minimum ram speed for a 2ghz CPU i herd frome a frend that if the ram is to slow for the CPU that curs a pothormans hit

 

gaming = amd64 (hands down)
no gaming = intel prescott handsdown
overclocking = amd64 but no dell/compaq/hp/... cause they make their own cases, they modify everything and I have seen like 100 computers like that become useless, very hard to upgrade: dell even has his own custom made bios which is not good for Overclock settings and special tweaks

Personaly I got myself amd64 last week, nforce4 and it is a very good choice...much better then Intel: less heat, more gaming power, excellent with pictures.

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=23363

 

hi all

Is it worth getting a new hard drive and a ram upgrade with them specks or get a new pc?

 

if you got a 2000+Ghz, you should be good if you're not a hardcore gamer or do extensive tasks...a good ram upgrade (dual channel) and some extra gigs can never hurt

 

I upgraded my RAM to 1GB just to be confident that I can play all the games

AMD64 is best for gaming as Optimizer said (Hey Opt. Please optimise Far Cry for NV3x )

For good gaming performance you should have a good graphics card - Something like a GeForce 6600GT at the minimum. If budget allows, go for 6800GT or better.

Also, if you are going for the PCI-Express platform, the Radeon X800XL graphics cards offer excellent value for money and blazing fast performance.

 

For gaming the graphics card is going to be the most important aspect and a GeForce 4 isn't going to cut it. The 6600GT isn't a bad mid-range card but you may find the X800 adds a lot more performance for a little more cash. However both Nvidia and ATI are due to be launching their next generation chips imminently (the G70, aka GeForce 7800 and R520 respectively) so there may be some discounts further down the chain when that happens.

As for CPUs, AMD is a no-brainer for performance (up to 20% faster compared to the equivalent Intel model). Intel have had the edge on running multiple applications with HyperThreading but AMD's X2 model is outperforming them here also. I'd suggest going for a lower frequency Athlon X2 since you will almost certainly see a greater benefit with online gaming (where you would be running firewall and anti-virus/trojan scanners also).

Memory - don't bother with the fastest, the expense is considerable and the performance boost marginal (due to the CPU's cache). Choose memory a couple of levels below the "gamer" products to hit the sweet spot. 512MB should be a minimum but Windows XP (32-bit) may have problems handling more than 2GB, so 1GB should be a happy medium.

Hard disks - RPMs are more important than cache, look for a 7200 RPM model (10,000 plus are available but tend to have noise/heat problems). Look for drives supporting NCQ (Native Command Queueing) since this appears to make a big difference (10-15% improvement on disk-based benchmarks).

 

not exactly correct P2K (no offence!!), x2 or amd's dual core is not exactly the same as hypertreading...we are talking about effective 2 cpu's. while hyperthreading isn't real but virtual. amd's dual core will not be better then hyperthreading...both are two different things...if you want to compare hyperthreading (Intel) with something from Amd it will be hypertransport (amd's "equivalent" to Intel's hyperthreading) BUT in this case Intel wins handsdown ONLY in no games related tasks, like coding, defrag, music,...
amd is only better in games. In the rest of situations, they are equal (but like I said most of the time Intel wins in no games :lol).
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/3800Venice/7
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2429

the upcoming x2 is AT THE MOMENT of no importance and will be at the top when xp 64 bit will be out and software will be made especially with dual core in mind.

Sincerely

/edit: the new cards from ati are the ones to watch out for...just like now lol cause sli is cheating...

 

I'm aware of the technical differences and would agree that X2 is a technically superior solution, but for those less interested in intimate details about shared memory buses and registry contention, "X2 > HT" should suffice.

I'd suggest checking out Digit-Life's X2 benchmark results (Flash plugin required to view graphs). I'd say it was pretty relevant from these.

I'd be interested also to see if CrossFire avoids the problems that have plagued SLI so far (incompatibility with dual monitors and some widescreen displays, limited game support, Windows XP only).

 

thanx for the Link P2K!! It's always a pleasure to read your posts

Andy

/edit: Ohh my god the x2 4800

there are situations where Intel definately is better, your graphs are showing this too.

But AMD is clearly the better choice imho. If they just hire a good sales rep cause if one this Intel is better too is sales and commercials if you know what I mean...

Take care

 

Another link of some relevance about Battlefield 2 - since it mentions that the GeForce4 cannot run the game without patching (which then gets you kicked off PunkBuster servers):

Battlefield 2: You won't need a new PC

 

the link you mention is with low end graphic cards...it's impossible to play those games with full details and anti aliasing 4X or 8X ... therefor you'll need an x800 or 6800 ...

but if you don't play games at full resolution an 6200 or 5900xt would be good enough. It's all a matter of choice...what are we using our machine for...