New Christmas PC! Recommendations Please! :)

B

BillyJoBob

Spy
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
343
Reaction score
0
Alright I am building myself a new computer for Christmas but I need a little help on deciding what components to get I’m not real sure what the best are. I have about an 800$ budget, I’ve already Gotten my video card (radeon x800xtpe agp version) I just need help deciding on three main components. CPU, Motherboard and Memory.

Here is what I picked out!

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-461&depa=1

Motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-498&depa=1

Memory: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-145-310&depa=1

I want a computer that will run games very well on high settings this computer will be for gaming only.

So if there are any better components I can get and still stay in budget Id like to see em
Also if there is a better combination of parts tell me I don’t want to make a mistake spending this much money

Thanks
 
I would recommend getting a Socket 939 motherboard for better upgrading options.

Get a 3500+ 90nm Athlon 64bit processor, it is just before the price jump, and would be a great overclocker.

Unless you are planning on getting another stick of 1GB ram, I would get 2x512mb.




.. My 2-3 cents ..
 
BillyJoBob said:
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-461&depa=1
Motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-498&depa=1
Memory: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-145-310&depa=1
Click to expand...
Looks good except the memory and you lack a heatsink for the CPU. It's ECC REG memory and you want Non-ECC and unbuffered (Non-REG) memory. Also it's best to get 2x 512MB sticks over a single 1GB stick because they offer better timings.

Here is my alternate system for ya:
$272 Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (130nm) CPU - Socket 939 OR $345 A64 3500+ (90nm) - Socket 939 and a heatsink/fan (Best for OCing)
$140 MSI K8N Neo2 Plat. nForce3 Ultra - Socket 939 OR $130 Asus A8V Deluxe VIA K8T800 - Socket 939
$198 Corsair XMS 1GB Kit (512MBx2) PC3200 (2-3-3-6 T1)

The 3700+ is slightly overrated compared to similar AMD chips. 1MB L2 cache makes almost no difference and it is single channel memory. Socket 939 is dual channel memory. Also the last Socket 754 CPU is the 3700+, you would not be able to upgrade any further on that line. Socket 939 will continue to be until they switch memory from DDR.
 
Those are the exact suggestions I would say. If you were to get SOCKET 939, you should think about getting the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard. It is so good. You are easily able to overclock. Its very fast, and also its an ease to install.
 
Yes, with a fat budget like that, you should go for the 939 probably, and use dual channel. As mentioned, you will need dual channel memory... basically any regular DDR, except sold as a set of two. You will not be able to upgrade to more memory in the future without having a speed drop, but for gaming only, that shouldn't be a major issue for some time, since 1gb suffices very well. The advantage of dual channel, realistically, is ~14% performance, on benchmarks that use memory a lot. Games aren't really that, but it will speed loading time and will improve performance somewhat.

The best RAM you can have is any DDR400 that will run at 2-2-2-5 T1 This number is the latency. The 'T1' part is the command queueing (spell??) setting. It's usually not listed, but always will be T1 at stock speeds AFAIK.

If you overclock, this RAM will absolutely rock... If you don't, then it's the fastest you can get at stock speeds.
Here are some reviews for fast RAM, if your interested: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2226 ...and a followup: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2235

Also: here is the cheapest 2-2-2-5 memory you can get at newegg (I'm going to get this stuff I think, on my lower budget, since i'm an overclocker):
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-220-033&depa=1
here is one of the ones featured in the above review (second link I think):
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-141-148&depa=1
for comparison (at least I think this is the one in the review), this is the fastest memory money can buy, basically:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-146-890&depa=1

Unless you are overclocking, all three might be major overkill. Waste of money. Meh.

I'm no expert, really. If I confused you, just ignore me. :)
 
What would be easier if how long do you want to keep that new setting for (years). Second for what use(s).
 
Asus said:
Looks good except the memory and you lack a heatsink for the CPU. It's ECC REG memory and you want Non-ECC and unbuffered (Non-REG) memory. Also it's best to get 2x 512MB sticks over a single 1GB stick because they offer better timings.

Here is my alternate system for ya:
$272 Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (130nm) CPU - Socket 939 OR $345 A64 3500+ (90nm) - Socket 939 and a heatsink/fan (Best for OCing)
$140 MSI K8N Neo2 Plat. nForce3 Ultra - Socket 939 OR $130 Asus A8V Deluxe VIA K8T800 - Socket 939
$198 Corsair XMS 1GB Kit (512MBx2) PC3200 (2-3-3-6 T1)

The 3700+ is slightly overrated compared to similar AMD chips. 1MB L2 cache makes almost no difference and it is single channel memory. Socket 939 is dual channel memory. Also the last Socket 754 CPU is the 3700+, you would not be able to upgrade any further on that line. Socket 939 will continue to be until they switch memory from DDR.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the help guys I appreciate it. I have a few more questions.

My current system:

P4 2.4 GHz Non HT.
Asus P4S8X Motherboard
ATI Radeon x800xtpe AGP.
768mb 2700 cheapo ram.

If I were to get:

CPU:$272 Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (130nm) CPU - Socket 939

Motherboard: $140 MSI K8N Neo2 Plat. nForce3 Ultra - Socket 939

Memory: $198 Corsair XMS 1GB Kit (512MBx2) PC3200 (2-3-3-6 T1)

Would it perform better than the system I have?
I ask this because the Athlon 64 3500+ has a clock speed of 2.2 GHz And my current system is a 2.4 GHz, will the Athlon be faster because It’s a 64bit CPU? Sorry for the stupid questions Im new to all this.

Thanks :D
 
BillyJoBob said:
Thanks for the help guys I appreciate it. I have a few more questions.

My current system:

P4 2.4 GHz Non HT.
Asus P4S8X Motherboard
ATI Radeon x800xtpe AGP.
768mb 2700 cheapo ram.

If I were to get:

CPU:$272 Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (130nm) CPU - Socket 939

Motherboard: $140 MSI K8N Neo2 Plat. nForce3 Ultra - Socket 939

Memory: $198 Corsair XMS 1GB Kit (512MBx2) PC3200 (2-3-3-6 T1)

Would it perform better than the system I have?
I ask this because the Athlon 64 3500+ has a clock speed of 2.2 GHz And my current system is a 2.4 GHz, will the Athlon be faster because It’s a 64bit CPU? Sorry for the stupid questions Im new to all this.

Thanks :D
Click to expand...
yes that system would be faster. AMD 'model number's are a fairly good approximation of their performance compared to Intel CPU's. i.e. a 3500+ is about equal in performance to a Intel 3.5GHz CPU. They don't match up perfectly, of course, and AMD systems are better for certain applications, and vice versa - but they are fairly analogous.

If you haven't tried running HalfLife2 (presuming that's your reason for upgrading) on this system, you should. I would imagine you get pretty decent performance with it. Frame rates might not be steller, but it should be playable with basically all the effects on, I would guess. If you have played it and want faster, the system you've listed would be pretty good. The motherboard is a good option (mine is in-the-mail, in fact :D), and the CPU seems to be a very-well performing part. You could go with cheaper memory (down to ~$150, maybe, if you don't plan on overclocking at all), or get more expensive (their are nice 2-2-2-5 memories available for about 220-270 from newegg), but the one you have is a great brand and might be a good compromise. Corsair memory can sometimes be more expensive then some less-well known brands with equivalent timings, but they're definitely not the most expensive brand. OCZ might be that. They are the best for high-end memory, or so I hear, but are pricey.

All IMHO, remember... :)
 
Clock speeds for AMD are slower sue to the fact that AMD's have twice the transitors. I looked for a site to confirm this, when I find it I will post link.


Found an article on CNET, here is just part of it as it is kinda long:


The 1MB version--the chip that will contain 100 million transistors--will mostly be sold into servers and be marketed under the Opteron name, sources say. A smaller version with 256KB or more of cache and an integrated memory controller will be marketed to desktops under the Athlon 64 name.

Other chips with large caches and a high number of transistors include Banias, the code name of a notebook chip coming from Intel in the first quarter. Banias will contain 77 million transistors and 1MB of cache. The current Intel Pentium 4 sports about 54 million transistors.
 
RogueFox said:
Clock speeds for AMD are slower sue to the fact that AMD's have twice the transitors. I looked for a site to confirm this, when I find it I will post link.


Found an article on CNET, here is just part of it as it is kinda long:


The 1MB version--the chip that will contain 100 million transistors--will mostly be sold into servers and be marketed under the Opteron name, sources say. A smaller version with 256KB or more of cache and an integrated memory controller will be marketed to desktops under the Athlon 64 name.

Other chips with large caches and a high number of transistors include Banias, the code name of a notebook chip coming from Intel in the first quarter. Banias will contain 77 million transistors and 1MB of cache. The current Intel Pentium 4 sports about 54 million transistors.
Click to expand...
No, what you are referring to is cache sizes. These don't make a whole lot of difference in how well a CPU performs. The L2 cache is basically a small chunk of ultra-fast RAM (about 10x faster than system RAM, IIRC) that is built right into the CPU. It stores instructions and data that the CPU pops out and computes with.

Larger L2 caches can enhance performance for some tasks. I believe servers operate better with a large cache. However, regular CPU's don't necissarily run any faster. The 130nm Athlon 64 3200+, for instance, comes with a 1mb cache I think. The 3000+ version comes with 512k, and the performance difference between them is very small. Newer 90nm parts come exclusively with 512k caches.

The difference in clock-rates is due to differences in architecture. AMD cpu's perform more instructions and do more operations per cycle than an Intel CPU can. It's just the way they were designed.

Intel tried to use the big numbers as a marketing advantage, and AMD came back with model numbers, so they could make their CPU's sound as fast to the average consumer.
 
Phisionary said:
No, what you are referring to is cache sizes. These don't make a whole lot of difference in how well a CPU performs. The L2 cache is basically a small chunk of ultra-fast RAM (about 10x faster than system RAM, IIRC) that is built right into the CPU. It stores instructions and data that the CPU pops out and computes with.

Larger L2 caches can enhance performance for some tasks. I believe servers operate better with a large cache. However, regular CPU's don't necissarily run any faster. The 130nm Athlon 64 3200+, for instance, comes with a 1mb cache I think. The 3000+ version comes with 512k, and the performance difference between them is very small. Newer 90nm parts come exclusively with 512k caches.

The difference in clock-rates is due to differences in architecture. AMD cpu's perform more instructions and do more operations per cycle than an Intel CPU can. It's just the way they were designed.

Intel tried to use the big numbers as a marketing advantage, and AMD came back with model numbers, so they could make their CPU's sound as fast to the average consumer.
Click to expand...



I agree that a larger cache is extremely helpful with the instructions but your own statement about performing instructions and operations is due to the fact of the larger number of transistors. It is also why AMD's tend to be a bit warmer than their Pentium counterparts.


Another key fact of the 64 bit processors is the fact that they put the front side bus on the cpu which is why you can get the insane speeds.

I hope this dialogue is helping folks looking at the choice of cpu's and helping them decide. :)
 
ok, I got the impression you were saying the cache size made the performance difference between the AMD and intel CPU's. I don't know the transister count on them, but yeah AMD very well may have more and that could be their advantage at similar clock speeds.

the front side bus isn't on the CPU, the memory contoller is. The front side bus is the data transport for all communication between the cpu and other components on the motherboard. this has always been true.
 
This is from a product spec sheet from AMD:
Specifications Back to Top

Operating Frequency: 2.6GHz
Type: Athlon 64 FX-55
Core: SledgeHammer
Cache: Level 1 64KB+64KB; Level 2 1MB
Process: 0.13 Micron
FSB: Integrated into Chip <------------------
Voltage: 1.5V
Socket: Socket 939
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!, 3DNow!+
w/Heatsink and Fan


Its on of the biggest advantages of the newer chips.
 
RogueFox said:
FSB: Integrated into Chip <------------------
Click to expand...
Oh. huh. wierd. Never heard of such a thing. I wonder if that's some marketing baloney or if it's really an innovation there.

Sorry for doubting you mate. :thumbs:
 
Traditional systems (EX. Pentium 4 Athlon XP) have been designed with a Northbridge chip which had the Memory controller and all the other components connected to it. And there was one bus (FSB) going to the CPU from the Northbridge.

Now Athlon 64's don't have a bus at all connecting the Northbridge as it's a serial link (Hypertransport). A bus being one line with a number of items along that string and a serial link being a direct path between 2 chips so they are technically different.

But here's the key, they also put the memory controller into the CPU instead of the Northbridge. The memory controller runs at the speed of the CPU and also the FSB between the memory controller and the CPU core is...on the CPU.

That also frees up the link between the Northbridge chip and the CPU from the heavy Memory traffic. That's why the Athlon 64's are so efficent. ;)
 
Thank you ASUS for the clarification and Phis dont worry about it. I wish I could have explained it better. Discussions like these educate us all.



I do hope he looked into getting that combo I showed him tho. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris D
New PC Advice
Replies
7
Views
2K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
phantomdesign
Computer Build - $1100
Replies
8
Views
1K
Viperidae
Viperidae
VirusType2
Intel/AMD x2 x3 x4
Replies
19
Views
1K
Viperidae
Viperidae
Uriel
Building a new PC
Replies
17
Views
1K
Uriel
Uriel
VirusType2
New PC
Replies
36
Views
2K
CptStern
CptStern
Back
Top