Need suggestions, advice, comments

[felix_the_cat]

Hi, everyone.

It is time to build new computer. So, I am looking for some suggestions in getting the right components.
System will be used for video authoring and games.
Here is my setup:

Case: Antec P160
PSU: Ultra X-Connect 500W with 2 – 80mm fans
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-8KNXP (rev. 2)
CPU: Pentium 4 - 3,4GHz (1MB or 512KB cache)
RAM: 1 GB PC3200 Dual DDR (Kingston ?)
Video: PNY GeForce FX5700 Ultra 128MB
HDD: 2 x 60GB (system, swap drive), 2 x 120GB (capture, final results)
DVD – ROM
DVD +/- RW DL

Thank you for your response.

[budz]

I'd suggest you get a ANTEC TRUE POWER SUPPLY, LITEON DVD-ROM MODEL 5232, & a PIONEER or PLEXTOR DVDRW. Kingston or Crucial is fine for memory. I hear OCZ, MUSHKIN & GEIL are good too. Newegg.com is the bomb to purchase computer components.

[rallynavvie]

I've got that case holding my new machine, it's a fantastic piece of hardware. Don't get that oddball PSU, get the new Antec NeoPower 480W. Also look for a board with PCI-E rather than AGP and look to get an X600 video card for it. Preferrably one of the 925 chipset boards with the bizarre new LGA775 CPU. With gaming the video card will be far more important than processor speed.

[SquirrelDip]

Totally agree with rallynavvie...

I'm not a real gamer but for the few I've play and the talk between friends you're better off with ATI cards. The X600 (as rallynavvie stated) above is a great card but if you have to go with AGP then take a look at the 9800-Pro.

nVidia seems to have problems with DirectX 9 with their cheaper cards.

[offline]

Just to expose some myths.

There is no speed advantage in using PCI-E at present unless
you want to run two $1,000 video cards at supposed SLI. The 925 chipset
is slower than previous intel chipsets. DDR2 memeory makes no difference
whatsoever at present.

The 915/925 chipset is just a marketing ploy to extend and bridge
the p4 line until the 4+GHz cpu's arrive.

[rallynavvie]

There is no performance gain with PCI-E, true. However the AGP video card production pretty much ends here so all hope of upgrading video cards in the future with an AGP board is gone. Sure there will be some manufacturer's that release AGP variants but the big GPU makers are making the new engines drive on PCI-E. This is pretty important in the least.

The 925 chipset is on par with what the 845 chipset was. It isn't anything fantastic but it isn't that much a loss from the sweet 875 chipset. The advantage to 925 is the ICH which is just as good as the 6R I've got on my board. You pretty much have unlimited bandwidth on the PCI bus now, but none of us can use it.

One more handy thing about boards with multiple PCI-E: multiple full-power GPUs.

[felix_the_cat]

Thanks for responses.

I have no intention to use 925 chipset; it is new and more expensive.
Also, not many programs / games had incorporated / updated instructions for new chipset, and, PCI-E Video at least a year away for full support.

My goal is to replace my 9-years old system (P166MHz with 96MB ram) for about $1K

Here are few questions -
PSU: Will 480W (NewPower) be sufficient enough? Is one 120mm fan better than 2 x 80mm?
Video: (no more than $200 worth)
SquirrelDip, what are the differences between ATI and PNY GeForce FX5700 Ultra, in terms of producing realistic colors?
CPU: I've heard that sometimes P4 with 512KB cache is faster than 1MB, is that true?
How much 3,2GHz differ from 3,4GHz? Will I notice any differences?

Thanks,
Felix

[thayne]

I'd ditch the P4 and go with an AMD cpu. You get way more bang for the buck!

[SquirrelDip]

SquirrelDip, what are the differences between ATI and PNY GeForce FX5700 Ultra, in terms of producing realistic colors?

In terms of colour I've read that they're very similar - I've never done a head to head myself so I can't really comment (try searching some of the hardware sites like http://www.tomshardware.com and http://www.anandtech.com). If you're really concerned about colour then I've read that the Matrox is the way to go - but you'll spend much more money and be very unhappy when it comes to gaming.

[rallynavvie]

There is as much support for PCI-E as there is for AGP 8x on the software side of things. Programs don't utilize the full power of 8x AGP and won't be able to use the 16x speed of PCI-E either.

The differences between ATi and nVidia are few. ATi does better at D3D apps and nVidia has the edge on OGL. The 9800XT and 6x AA is really neat, the 6x is just so bizarre but it works surprisingly well. I don't use AA much in games because the action is fast enough that I wouldn't notice anyway, but then I don't have powerhouse video cards. nVidia cards do seem to like design apps better than ATi chips do. I've got a 9800 Pro in one machine at work that doesn't at all do very well with color profiles and on the identical monitor with a Quadro (whatever, it's just a GeForce) on the other I can get near exact color matches to my output. Actually the old GF4 Ti cards tend to be pretty powerful still, just without native DX9 support. The ATi XT cards are probably the best deal right now.

Skip the faster CPU to spend the savings on a better video card, it's more important for what you want to do with it anyway. It is true that sometimes the smaller cache chips are faster, but results vary. If you go the P4 route DO NOT GET A PRESCOTT. Those things still suck.

The NeoPower 480W has been running for a few weeks now on my old system and it's been great. It must use less juice because I can run both my systems off the same UPS with that power supply on the one. The adaptive cabling is sheer genius. Also that 120mm fan is so quiet at idle you can hear the hum of the voltage regulators, it's that quiet. You will not hear the PSU over your system fans. It also has the ability to control two case fans with a special fan power cable. If it were available with more watts and EPS power I'd have one on my new machine already.

[offline]

However the AGP video card production pretty much ends here

Hmm.. then why has AMD not thrown its R&D team into PCI-E
and why are Nvidia & ATI supporting PCI production for all GPU's
with factories currently booked for PCI to 2006? When you
set up such an AL you are betting millions.

[quote]The 925 chipset is on par with what the 845 chipset was{/quote]

On real world tests, the i845 is the fastest non smp chipset in the intel family.
The i925 and i915 are pure bridging platforms and happen to be
slower. The i925 is also slightly less stable.

advantage to 925 is the ICH

But what advantage in the REAL world? Answer: none. If you don't
have access then theoretical bandwidth is just that - theoretical.

One more handy thing about boards with multiple PCI-E: multiple full-power GPUs.

Multiple GPU's exist now. SLI can be done on PCI. Like I said
before, unless you are planning to spend $1,000+ on a SLI
video card setup (and even then no current board available
even hints it can handle it) you are wasting your money on any
LGA / PCI-E system.

With gaming the video card will be far more important than processor speed

With gaming you are far far better off buying an AMD 64.

[rallynavvie]

Look at what's being released between ATi and nVidia, all their mid-grade cards are going to PCI-E first, then being bridged to AGP. As you say with the 925 chipset bridging is not a solution so the AGP variants of PCI-E cards will be just that. The 6600 and the X600 are to be PCI-E first and AGP second. I'm guessing that the next engine from both companies will again be a PCI-E native interface.

The 875 was the best chipset both for SMP and non-SMP platforms, at least at the workstation level. The 845 was a solid performer, and many folks that skip a generation to upgrade are comparing the 925 to the old 845. Granted just like the older version P4 chipsets the new series is going to have its problems, just look at the blunder Intel made entering the 64-bit consumer market. The 900-series chipsets just aren't up to par with the 7505 for stability and the 875 for speed yet. Though I think the server chipset is the 7520 or something, I wonder if that's much better than the AGP version it replaced. That platform I haven't heard anything about.

As for the 64-bit procs no games save a version of FarCry not even released has support for 64-bit instructions. Once they do having a 64-bit proc will be great but until then the GPU is going to take the most of what the game requires. Hell you can probably run Doom 3 with some pretty outstanding settings on an XP 2400 if you had a 6800 Ultra powering it. By the time games are 64-bit I think Intel will also have a decent processor to compete with the A64 or FX processors. I still think the FX CPUs are the best single processor on the market, I just don't deal in single processor PCs much anymore

[mujahid7ia]

What's wrong with that PSU, got good reviews:
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-231-1.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=ultra+x+connect&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Also, I don't think their is any performance difference between bridge and native AGP-PCI-E solutions, it was just ATi PR at work. nVidia seems pretty happy with their bridge, but probably will go native simply because the cards are primarily PCI-E and then AGP.

oooooh, quick reply

[offline]

rallynavvie,

you were not able to say that any of my original points
were wrong.

One point was that a new socket T board with a compatible
processor (up to 3.6Ghz) and PCI- E is poor value
for money compared to older E, EE or a C 478 pin P4
systems and their supporting chipsets. In real world
performance you gain nothing. In terms of money
you pay more.

Now as to your view with the i875. Even Intel themselves have been quoted as to the superior speed and reliability of the 865 over the 875.
I can't comment at the smp level as there are so many tweaks and additions that have been made.

Even if the 6600 and the X600 are to be PCI-E first and AGP second,
my point was that AGP is far from dead like you suggested.
I could even see PCI-E holding a similar path to EISA. It is not likely
but it is possible. A cheap PCI-E Nvidia card in Australia is a hundred
dollars more expensive than its AGP twin sister, and their is no
speed difference.

The A64 is the best cpu for playing games now. It does not require
64 bit o/s or special code either. The AMD 64 outperforms
the Intel when it comes to games by a significant margin.
On just about any other task, Intel performs better. This
has been a given for several years now

[rallynavvie]

The 845 is a value chipset and that's where my comparison to the 925 was. There will be better chipsets available as soon as the technology becomes more mainstream with Intel. But for expandability in the future I'd recommend a 900-series chipset board solely for the fact that it seems the tech is going that way (PCI-E, DDR2, LGA sockets). I felt I hobbled myself when getting an 875 chipset workstation board when PCI-E workstation boards were just about to come out, but then I upgrade frequently so I thought it better to wait and see what tweaks are made after the first year. Not everyone will cycle through systems as quick, and if you were to buy a system to last for a few years with upgrades in mind I'd recommend the 925X as it's the latest version. Actually I'd probably recommend the PCI-E server platform chipset in a single-processor variant as they seem to be far more reliable for the cash.

But that's just on the Intel side of things. For those looking at AMD I push for the FX processors or single Opteron systems. I only have one friend with an A64 system that I can play with and I haven't been overly impressed with it. The FX-53 my brother just got however has defied its limitations time and again. What exactly are the differences between the FX and A64 chips? Why such a large difference in performance? At least the A64 system would leave room for upgrades later on. Are there A64 platforms out now with PCI-E and DDR2?

The other nice thing about PCI-E boards is they seem to have bigger bandwidth PCI buses, and with RAID and even SCSI RAID becoming more mainstream (my brother's gaming rig is powered by my old U160 SCSI RAID equipment) those increased bus speeds will come into play. What I'd like to see is all PCI-E slots with BIOS selectable switches so you can put your video card in any of them and set its speed independant of the rest of the bus. I never understood why, with the latest GPUs occupying more than one PCI slot out the back of the PC, they still don't leave an extra space next to the AGP or PCI-E slot to accomodate that. You could put the network, FireWire, USB controllers there instead and move the rest of the PCI slots down so you can use them all. Just seems silly. Maybe move the PCI-E slot to the bottom.

[mujahid7ia]

But that's just on the Intel side of things. For those looking at AMD I push for the FX processors or single Opteron systems. I only have one friend with an A64 system that I can play with and I haven't been overly impressed with it. The FX-53 my brother just got however has defied its limitations time and again. What exactly are the differences between the FX and A64 chips? Why such a large difference in performance? At least the A64 system would leave room for upgrades later on. Are there A64 platforms out now with PCI-E and DDR2?

I think the normal A64s have half the 6.4GB/s memory bandwidth of the FXs (just off the top of my head, could be wrong). Some mobo mfgs are designeing boards with Socket 939 and PCI-E, but DDR-2 is probably not gonna be on AMD boards for a while.

[rallynavvie]

I think DDR2 is on Opteron boards already.

[mujahid7ia]

I thought it used registered ECC DDR400...

I know AMD was planning to add DDR2 support for Opteron, but i can't find a recent story on that.

old: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/12/amd_to_offer_opteron_ddr/

[Garibaldi]

I would highly recommend going with an AMD Athlon Processor. Here are some convincing reasons:
1. Its considerably cheaper than a pentium
2. Look in the news forum, there is an article about how AMD processors are better than Intel
3. From first hand experience and from another source AMD processor are better for video editing, graphics, and gaming than Pentiums. They both are about the same for word processing though.
4. Finally, AMD offers a 64 bit processor. 64 bit is going to be the new standard, to the best of my knowledge the only other computer with 64 bit processing is the Mac G5.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, but I hope it helps you. While your thinking of a computer, you may want to think about the Linux operating system, either as a primary os or as a dual boot with windows. If you want to try it make sure to get a hdd with some more gigs to spare (20 would probably be good) because you have to create a seperate FAT 32 partition for the linux os. If your interested, you should check out www.knoppix.net . Happy to Help

[felix_the_cat]

Hi everyone.

Thanks for your responses.
Look like one of my post got lost in transition.

Garibaldi wrote:

I would highly recommend going with an AMD Athlon Processor. Here are some convincing reasons:

2. Look in the news forum, there is an article about how AMD processors are better than Intel
3. From first hand experience and from another source AMD processor are better for video editing, graphics, and gaming than Pentiums. They both are about the same for word processing though.

I am not going to start a war between Intel and AMD lovers. According to Tom’s guide, Intel does better in video and AMD in games. Since video editing will be the primary goal, I will stay with Intel. Also I have no intention to use new chipset.

I do not need very expensive and new stuff, just a steady system that hopefully will be useful for another 5 – 10 years. I do not want to waste $1000 for EE cpu, and 3,4GHz will be more than enough.

Thanks,
Felix

[Capmaster]

get the P4 with the 1MB L2 cache instead of the 512K. It makes a huge difference