Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1379 times:
Let me rephrase the question:
How can I standardize the differences such that for a particular spend limit, I can get the most out of my system?
The only thing I can figure at the moment is that the FSB and CPU speeds are in cycles per second and therefore it is analogious to different speeds around a section of road.
Example, the average of an Intel 3.2GHz with FSB of 533MHz comes out to 457Mhz. Just add up the inverses and take the inverse, right? So if I wanted a similar reaction time for an Athlon with a FSB of 1000MHz, the CPU would need to be at 840Mhz?
Also, what is wrong with Compaq computers, why would a customized version cost half that of one by HP set up similarly?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1371 times:
There are a number of things to consider, only one of which is FSB speed or core speed.
Athlon64s have onboard memory controllers, which dramatically reduces time offchip, enhancing performance. Athlon64s also have 8 extra registers, which also increases performance even when dealing with 32bit applications.
Pentium4 chips have an insanely long pipeline (32 stages verses an average of 8 for other chips), which while increases performance for specific types of operation, decreases it for everything else. This is why Intel introduced hyperthreading, because the branch prediction could determine when a certain branch would be available for use twice in one clockcycle. Usually tho, branch prediction is wrong and the entire pipeline must wait for an instruction to clear before the next one is executed.
Do not take too much notice of megahertz and frontside bus speeds, in the newest Intel chips (PentiumM) both have been lowered dramatically while still producing chips capable of beating top end Pentium4s and Athlon64s.
If you want a recommendation, get a dualcore Athlon64 or a dualcore PentiumM based system. Both will give you massive amounts of performance for your dollar.
FlyKev From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 1364 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1363 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
I always know it as AMD processors having more bang for your buck.
I only build AMD computers for people, unelss they can really give me a good reason not to.
Gaming - AMD wins hands down
Text documents - AMD (sempron)
Video Editing - Intel
Note how also AMD X2 is better than Pentium D
The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only
Good point and let me second that. Of course, what components of your system will be unde heaviest use will depend on what applications you run. Nonethless (especially when gaming), RAM can dramatically boost performance. Just the other day I was playing a game with a friend--my 2 year old laptop versus his 4 month old desktop. (1.6ghz Pentium M versus a 2.8 or 3ghz Dual Core Pentium). In general, all of his other hardware is equal to or better than my laptop... but I could load much faster. 1gb of RAM in the laptop vs. 512mb on his setup really made that big Dual Core seem like a waste of money. Of course, when he pops in another 512mb, well...
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21346 posts, RR: 54 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
Indeed... at current prices the investment in at least 1GB of RAM is well worth it. In case of operating systems with complex visual compositing mechanisms behind the user interface such as OS X and probably Windows Vista, memory requirements will be even larger.
With many applications, a lot of open windows and multiple server mechanisms in use at the same time, I've arrived at 3.5GB to avoid swapping almost entirely. It makes a significant difference to before (and saves the system harddisk quite a lot of wear & tear, thereby increasing its useful lifespan).
Large dedicated graphics RAM is also recommendable - the "just" 64MB in my graphics card are getting a bit tight at times, with two high-res monitors connected in true colour and many open windows. Games may have their own additional requirements beyond that.
Eilennaei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Don't forget the CPU power is just one of the factors. The modern video subsystem is beginning to become almost as complicated (and expensive) as the CPU for the gaming environment. The hard disk subsystem is critical for some applications, we now have the SATA II disks coming on the market.
It really is a good idea to check the actual application benchmarks for you application range, they are usually easily found in the Net.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1289 times:
I have been researching on a desktop for almost 2 years but I think I learned more in the last 2 months. If you folks know of an Athlon equivalent of what I can use with it, tell me!
This is what I want to do with whatever I plan to get:
Play Age of Empires 3
Websurf, several open browsers
Play music on Windows Media Player
stuff like that, certainly not all at the same time, maybe music and internet. I play 3D games maybe twice a year, one title will keep me going for a long time, I get bored & come back, stuff like that. Not into war games except for Halo. While I do not watch much TV (therefore no much to record), I do not plan on getting another screen even after I graduate and can afford anything. I'm a simple guy.
This is what I have decided on and so far it is limited by price:
Windows Media Ed or Home (prefered unless the tuner needs MC)
Intel 945G chipset with either 3GHz HT or 2.8 Dual-core
1 GB of memory (either DDR2 533 or DDR2 667), or a 512 if I cen get
another stick cheaper elsewhere.
single TV/FM tuner
80 gig hard drive (I do not project filling it up, besides, a desktop can expand in the future)
Integrated HD audio
To be bought separately: SAPPHIRE Radeon X1600PRO 512MB GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card, I already have a 19" analog which is huge for me.
As either HPm7100 or Gateway DX300S. I am considering a custom built case to be small form factor (I dono if all this will fit) as those standard mid-tower cases are big for me. I cannot put that in a suitcase, I wanted the Alienware Bot as it was small, but it costs to much for what I want in it. And it has the Intel 915 chipset, i.e. no dual core nor DDR2. But a specific version of both I915G and I945G are the same size, 9.6" x 9.6" so they can fit into the same case. I just do not knwo which one I am going to get.
But, I hear Sapphire vid cards don't works well with ASUS motherboards as in the BOT; that sucks. While I do not want to chance that, do any of you folks know if HP/Gateway uses ASUS motherboards?
All of the above said, it is Intel only because I have yet to fully standardize AMD systems. Chances are an AMD system may be the third iteration, but that will not be until circa 2010. Does anyone know why most AMD Athlon systems that can be configured online have only DDR400 as the memory option? If DDR is slower than DDR2, then why hinder the high speed of Athlon chips?
Like on top, if you folks are familiar with an AMD Althon system with similar specs, please let me know. I'm one of those folks that do not contribute to the economy as I do not spend that often.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8): Does anyone know why most AMD Athlon systems that can be configured online have only DDR400 as the memory option? If DDR is slower than DDR2, then why hinder the high speed of Athlon chips?
One of the reasons that AMD processors give so much bang for the buck is that they do not require memory as fast as Intel for comparable performance. Since memory is controlled directly by the processor the latency is greatly reduced making this possible. This only causes problems in cases where multiple processors are used with high asymmetric memory utilization. In these cases, processor to processor communication will be needed when accessing memory in some cases causing a significant performance hit.
btw, if you want the ultimate in performance with AMD for a desktop, go for an HP XW9300(if you can afford it)