New computer

[na_th_an]

Man, so you think that to play games you need an Intel?

TBBQ: You can trust whoever you can. I trust my knowledge. And HT is not such a big deal. Like Adosorken said:

If you want to be a corporate puppet and you buy into the HT hype and rubbish (and also plan to be in bed with Microsoft's new anti-everything-non-MS schemes), go with a P4HT.

[Z!re]

Up until I bought my current computer I used an old AMD K5 100MHz with 64MB ram.

It could run, among other things, Red Alert 2.


Read Alert 2 require a good deal more then a 100mhz with 64mb ram, but it ran, and it even ran fine.


red_Marvin:
If I where you I would go for the cheaper computer (AMD), unless you are really sure you NEED dual channel DDR400MHz ram's...

AMD is a good cheap brand, intel is more directed towards professionals, who wants to squeeze thoose few extra cycles out of their system.


I mean, come on, DDR333 or DDR400, does it really matter that much?.. Other then you being able to brag about: having the coolest and fastest stuff.

[TheBigBasicQ]

red_Marvin:
If I where you I would go for the cheaper computer (AMD), unless you are really sure you NEED dual channel DDR400MHz ram's...

AMD is a good cheap brand, intel is more directed towards professionals, who wants to squeeze thoose few extra cycles out of their system.

I mean, come on, DDR333 or DDR400, does it really matter that much?.. Other then you being able to brag about: having the coolest and fastest stuff.

Dude, I have tried DDR266 DDR333 DDR400. I have been playing around with nfs hp2, UT2004. When I used DDR266 the performance sucked, naturally. DDR333 too gives very bad performance on intel 800MHz FSB processors. DDR400 is the best because the synchro with the processors is very good =P.

Its not about having the latest goods. Its about having the best performance. Truly speaking I was using a 386, then a PI then a PIII and finally after a long time I upgraded to a P4. I had to rely on the supplier each time to configure my computer. But while buying this rig I have done plenty of research and the result of which pointed me to a P4 and not an AMD CPU.

So if you buy a 3.4GHz Intel P4 Prescott. But stick a DDR266 module in it. You would have a powerful engine but you would be able to use it only in the first gear.

[Z!re]

Budget.

[TheBigBasicQ]

Budget.

That is sheer spam. Oracle, delete it immediately! =P :rotfl:

3.06C GHz P4s arent *that* expensive =P. Besides, AMD64 and AMD FX 5x arent cheap either :wink:

[na_th_an]

My comps have been Cyrix 486DX2, Pentium MMX, AMD K6/2 and AMD Athlon XP. Three out of 4 have been of non-intel brands and I had 0 problems.

Intel = reliability is a myth. Other brands are as reliable.

I simply would never buy a P4 'cause I won't pay more money for something that's worse.

[TheBigBasicQ]

P4s arent worse than AMD CPUs. Infact my experience suggests Intel CPUs are better. I dont know what you think about HT but when I enabled HT in Linux my performance improved drastically. The applications would respond faster, their individual performances sored. I dont know what you call that but I got excellent performance =P.

[Hard Rock]

TBBQ makes a good point. Y'wanna play Doom3, or RTCW?
(btw, my 64MB Intel Integrated card, 512 MB DDR, and P4 2.4 GHZ runs RTCW fine).

You mean your 0 MB intel intregrated card, (if your using 64 mb then take 512 and - 64MB from it) runs it fine. I run it on more or less the same specs (p4, 1.8,384 MB, intel intregrated) and it runs it fine. What the intel has major trouble with is blending/explosions. I wouldne be suprised if i could get better framerates if the proessor let me do the blending and not the video card. Take for example quake 2 max, it runs okay, until you fire a gun, and then lag. Try running farcry on the intel and youll see it screaming in pain....... and dont think about trying doom 3 even my cheap PCI geforce 2 mx is better then my intel, to bad ive got a cheap motherboard that wont take the card.

ATI vs GeForce, I don't think either one is better, just look at their CPU speed and amount of VRAM, also the AGP bus speed is a major factor. But again, take the cheaper one, if you buy a new gfx card it really doesent matter if it's the fastest one out there, or just a cheap good one.

For the current generation of cards, a Radeon is better then its FX equivelent. The only exception is the new 6800. The thing is a MONSTER. of course id never buy anything that requires two power plugs and a 480W power supply.

Go for an ati unless you find a really great nvdia deal. and stay aware from anything SE and remember a pro is ALWAYS better then a non pro


And on the AMD/INTEL who cares. if you can find a good motherboard/processor deal thats slightly older but a good deal get it. You can overclock a p4 easier then the amd to make the p4 go faster then the amd for the same price with the same cooling (the amd will get a lot hotter) so it doesnt really matter.

And for games, just buy a radeon 9800XT or the geforce. The processor isnt the main factor for games. its all on the card. A p4/faster amd wont make a difference.

This isnt suggesting anything, this is an argument over whats better.

[Rhiannon]

TBBQ makes a good point. Y'wanna play Doom3, or RTCW?
(btw, my 64MB Intel Integrated card, 512 MB DDR, and P4 2.4 GHZ runs RTCW fine).

This game came out over two years ago. People played it on 800mhz cpus. The fact that your 2 gig intel can run RTCW isnt exactly any mind boggling feat.

TBBQ, you cant compare P4 to an Athlon64. They are in a different playing field all together. That's like comparing a Sparc to a 486. Compare P4 to Athlons, Celerons with Durons, Itanium with Athlon 64. Dont compare oranges and bottles

Also like nathan said, Athlons dont get as hot as they are famed to do. I live in a tropical island, nice summers of over 104F, and the Athlons I have built over the years have never had a problem with heating. I used the standard heatsink and heating compound (you can use arctic silver if you are extremely worried about heating, it's about 5 bucks). I used a good case fan, and a fan for the HD as well since they do tend to get hot. (CPU isnt the only component that gets hot, HDs can burn your hands when touched, and cdrw burners can get horribly hot, especially when you do on the fly burning). A 400w power supply is the most recommended, since 300 really isnt enough anymore. You have to consider all the other crap you have in your computer along with your CPU (burners, HDs, etc).
If your budget doesnt allow you to get the fastest, latest and greatest, then dont get it. Get inexpensive, but quality parts which have upgradable capacities. Also, as I mentioned in the beginning, the fastest cpu will take a nosedive if there is not enough ram available. Programs, more than CPU-intensive, are nowadays RAM intensive because of the 5001 plugins and other crap they want to load into memory. Hence why more RAM is good. Unless youre running 98, more RAM will certainly be to your benefit. Also try to get comparably fast components like sound card, vid card, etc. Your dvd player will suck with most onboard vid chips, even if your cpu is the most uberleet HT thingamagigy on the market. The most important thing you want on your computer is comparable fast speeds and capabilities in all your components, so whether you play music, games, movies, program or whatever it is you do on your computer, there wont be bottlenecks and data choking in some component.

[na_th_an]

I am not saying that Pentium IVs are bad, only that they are NOT WORTH THE PRICE DIFFERENCE. It is like buying a SCSI HDD and choosing to pay 50% more just for the fun. The slight increase of performance comes from the dual FSB memory, nothing else. Plug normal memory and see what happens.

Problem? That 800 Mhz memory system is really, really expensive. So you pay more for a Pentium IV, which without that memory system is not better, so you have to pay even more for 800 Mhz FSB memory, and pay even more for a capable mobo. And do you get a great performance improvement? No. So better buy an AMD Atholn XP with cheaper 400 Mhz memory and a cheaper mobo and you are set. What are you losing? Nothing. Plug a Radeon 9600 and 512 Mb of memory and if you can tell the difference I will pay you a buck.

Infact my experience suggests Intel CPUs are better.

Your experience? You had a Pentium III and now a Pentium IV HT. How did you compare with AMD Athlons?

I base my assertions on my knowledge of computer architecture. Do you know the difference between a task, a process and a thread? HT advertising has relied on the fact that people don't know the difference.

Your HT processor runs better Linux 'cause the latest core is optimized for it. The filesystem module for example is highly threaded, as well as the memory system. That means that the same core runs better with HT 'cause it is optimized for it, nothing else. In fact, the microkernel switching from a module or another does not (can not) take advantage of HT, so HT will fail in the very moment that the OS has to do a page change with your HDD.

The problem is that this guy is gonna install Windows 2000 or XP which performs worse with HT activated. As I said before, XP is optimized for Athlons and Pentium IIIs. Then Penitum IV core has changed dramatically, and remote calls take way longer.

And everything says that Longhorn applications will be optimized for 64 bits computers. That only leaves Windows 2003 server which is too expensive even to try (mainly 'cause it IS NOT an OS for desktops, but for servers).

Anyhow, buy what you buy, think on the rest, as many have said. Example: Tomb Raider 6 needs one of the following:

1.- A 600 Mhz machine with a T/L video card (Geforce 2/3/4/FX or ATI Radeons except 7000).
2.- A 1,7+ Ghz machine without a T/L video card.

Look the difference: the video card is really important if you plan to run games or video.