I'm going to build a new computer for myself and I'm looking for some
advice. I currently have an Enlight 7237 atx medium tower case, Asus A7N8X
mb with AMD xp 2500 cpu, 2x256 DDR3 pc 2700 memory, and a Ti4200 video card.
My computing needs are pretty modest. I do a little gaming, mostly turn
based, spreadsheet, database, etc. The current computer works fine at this,
but I just feel the need to ramp up a bit, plus I want to be ready to run
Vista at a good pace.
I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or maybe
even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this, but
specific questions I have now are:
1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
> I'm going to build a new computer for myself and I'm looking for some
> advice. I currently have an Enlight 7237 atx medium tower case, Asus
> A7N8X mb with AMD xp 2500 cpu, 2x256 DDR3 pc 2700 memory, and a Ti4200
> video card. My computing needs are pretty modest. I do a little gaming,
> mostly turn based, spreadsheet, database, etc. The current computer works
> fine at this, but I just feel the need to ramp up a bit, plus I want to be
> ready to run Vista at a good pace.
> > I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or
> > maybe
> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this, but
> specific questions I have now are:
>
> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
Yes, but you may need a new power supply. What is the wattage? Does it
have a 4-pin square motherboard power connector in addition to the
20-pin one?
> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
Today's computers use DDR2 memory and PCI Express slots so your
DDR1 memory and AGP video card cannot be re-used.
> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
S939 is old technology and is being phased out. AM2 is the current
AMD standard.
In article <UQhdh.7536$xC4.4370@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Jack Bruss
says...
> I'm going to build a new computer for myself and I'm looking for some
> advice. I currently have an Enlight 7237 atx medium tower case, Asus A7N8X
> mb with AMD xp 2500 cpu, 2x256 DDR3 pc 2700 memory, and a Ti4200 video card.
> My computing needs are pretty modest. I do a little gaming, mostly turn
> based, spreadsheet, database, etc. The current computer works fine at this,
> but I just feel the need to ramp up a bit, plus I want to be ready to run
> Vista at a good pace.
>
> I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or maybe
> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this, but
> specific questions I have now are:
>
> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
>
1) Yes although you'll probably need a better PSU.
2) You're going to need new memory. Vista wants 1GB. Whether you need a
new graphics card depends on the CPU socket choice although a Ti42000
is a bit long in the tooth and most integrateds will give it a run for
it's money
3) If it were my cash, AM2 as 939 is end of life.
--
Conor
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how
seldom they defeat us.
"KC Computers" <nospam@nospam.cor> wrote in message
news:v5idh.216$nq5.199@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> I'm going to build a new computer for myself and I'm looking for some
>> advice. I currently have an Enlight 7237 atx medium tower case, Asus
>> A7N8X mb with AMD xp 2500 cpu, 2x256 DDR3 pc 2700 memory, and a Ti4200
>> video card. My computing needs are pretty modest. I do a little gaming,
>> mostly turn based, spreadsheet, database, etc. The current computer
>> works fine at this, but I just feel the need to ramp up a bit, plus I
>> want to be ready to run Vista at a good pace.
>> > I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or
>> > maybe
>> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this,
>> but specific questions I have now are:
>>
>> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
>
> Yes, but you may need a new power supply. What is the wattage? Does it
> have a 4-pin square motherboard power connector in addition to the
> 20-pin one?
>
>> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
>> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
>
> Today's computers use DDR2 memory and PCI Express slots so your
> DDR1 memory and AGP video card cannot be re-used.
>
>> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
>
> S939 is old technology and is being phased out. AM2 is the current
> AMD standard.
>
>
> ---
> KC COMPUTERS www.kc-computers.com
> Computer Sales & Service since 1991!!! See customer ratings at:
> www.resellerratings.com/seller1595.html
>
>Wattage is 250. I'm not sure about the 4 pin mb connector. I'll have to
>look if that's important. I bought this case in 1999, so as I look at it,
>I think it's time for a new one. I see in my old specs it's got room for 4
>5.25 drives and 2 3.5 drives. :)
"Jack Bruss" <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UQhdh.7536$xC4.4370@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I'm going to build a new computer for myself and I'm looking for some
> advice. I currently have an Enlight 7237 atx medium tower case, Asus
> A7N8X mb with AMD xp 2500 cpu, 2x256 DDR3 pc 2700 memory, and a Ti4200
> video card. My computing needs are pretty modest. I do a little gaming,
> mostly turn based, spreadsheet, database, etc. The current computer works
> fine at this, but I just feel the need to ramp up a bit, plus I want to be
> ready to run Vista at a good pace.
>
> I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or maybe
> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this, but
> specific questions I have now are:
>
> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
>
> Any advice is appreciated.
>
> Jack
1)You can use the case. But as someone else posted, you will need a new
power supply. The enlight 7237 is excellent, a bit older, but I built
several systems in that case. If you are happy with it, just equip it with
this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817709002
That's a good brand and good specs. at a decent price, it will handle
anything you build today, and should give you plenty of upgrade room for a
while.
2)RAM? Depends. If you don't build state-of-the-art, you can make
something to run vista, and use your current memory. HOWEVER, Vista will
require more memory. You'd want to add at least 1GB, for a total of 1.5GB.
2b)Video card is woefully inadequate. You COULD go PCI-Express, but then
you'd probably have to ditch all of your current RAM and start over with at
*least* 1Gig of new RAM. You don't have to go PCI-Express though.
Everybody's in a great hurry to adopt the latest and greatest, but few
people really need it. Right now there are plenty of good video cards
available in AGP format. A AGP format Geforce 6200 or 6600 with 256MB of
RAM should be more than adequate for Vista, unless you are a hardcore gamer.
3)You should build socket 939. That's my opinion. An athlon 64 ~3500 -
~4000 should work wonderfully for Vista. You can spend more for an AM2, but
why? Plus, if you stick with socket 939, you might be able to find a board
with 4 RAM slots that will accept your current RAM. AGP or PCI-Express,
either one. -Dave
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:17:40 GMT, Jack Bruss wrote:
> I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or maybe
> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this, but
> specific questions I have now are:
>
> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
>
> Any advice is appreciated.
Are you wedded to AMD or is Intel a possibility? The Intel Core 2 Duo's
are very competitively priced against AMD chips but appear to give more
bang for the buck. From a review here:
<http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12>
The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's
extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better
performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully
for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+
in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock
speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts.
In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's
performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price.
Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up
faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not
an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive
alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
.....
The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800
levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being
said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one
outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the
overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer
with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and
if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than
that.
-----------
I had been looking at going with an AMD after my current Intel 2.8Ghz HT
craps out, but now I've got to give some serious thought to a Core 2 Duo,
probably the E6400. Granted I've never built an AMD box before so I can't
really comment, but the two lower-end Core Duo's are looking mighty
tasty...
--
-Jeff B. (who wishes his finances were good enough to buy right now)
zoomie at fastmail fm
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:02:23 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
<jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but you may need a new power supply. What is the wattage? Does it
>> have a 4-pin square motherboard power connector in addition to the
>> 20-pin one?
>>Wattage is 250. I'm not sure about the 4 pin mb connector. I'll have to
>>look if that's important. I bought this case in 1999, so as I look at it,
>>I think it's time for a new one. I see in my old specs it's got room for 4
>>5.25 drives and 2 3.5 drives. :)
>
Frankly I think you're lucky to have gotten the 250W PSU to
run those parts, it might have had a lot to do with the
A7N8X running the CPU power subcircuit off the 5V PSU rail.
I bought a few of those cases with the 250, 300, 340W, (then
"maybe" 360, don't recall if exact same case on this 360)
and anything under 340 wasn't a very good PSU. IIRC I even
had a system in recently that had one of the 340 with a
blown transistor so my recollection of it is a little better
than most PSU that old.
It (and especially your lower 250W unit) doesn't have the
12V current capacity required for a modern system. The case
you can keep using (though it's ventilation is borderline by
today's standards, personally I'd take out the front bottom
plastic fan mount/card-guide, then cut out the stamped-in
metal fan grills on that bottom front and mid-rear fan
hole(s). It also doesn't (IIRC) force any of the front fan
air past the hard drive rack which is unfortunate, I seem to
recall taking a drive cage cannibalized from another case
and mounting it to the floor of one of those cases so the
drives were sitting directly behind that lower front fan,
better cooled by it.
Otherwise, the case is standard ATX and plenty deep enough
for even a full width motherboard so anything but the
oddball Intel BTX boards will work fine in it... You'll
just need to replace the PSU, preferribly something rated
for a minimum of 400W in a good name-brand rated for minimum
of 18A on 12V rail, or more with a decent video card
installed and/or more than a couple drives. In other words,
ideally the PSU would match the expansion capabilities of
the case including # of drive bays that could have drives,
and supply >= 24A of 12V power.
"Yeff" <zoomie@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:bhe9mgb3tyyj.dlg@lemming.militia.com...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:17:40 GMT, Jack Bruss wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or maybe
>> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this,
>> but
>> specific questions I have now are:
>>
>> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
>> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
>> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
>> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
>>
>> Any advice is appreciated.
>
> Are you wedded to AMD or is Intel a possibility? The Intel Core 2 Duo's
> are very competitively priced against AMD chips but appear to give more
> bang for the buck. From a review here:
> <http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12>
>
> The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's
> extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better
> performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully
> for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+
> in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock
> speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts.
> In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's
> performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price.
> Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up
> faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not
> an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive
> alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
>
> .....
>
> The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800
> levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being
> said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one
> outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the
> overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer
> with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and
> if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than
> that.
>
> -----------
>
> I had been looking at going with an AMD after my current Intel 2.8Ghz HT
> craps out, but now I've got to give some serious thought to a Core 2 Duo,
> probably the E6400. Granted I've never built an AMD box before so I can't
> really comment, but the two lower-end Core Duo's are looking mighty
> tasty...
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B. (who wishes his finances were good enough to buy right now)
> zoomie at fastmail fm
Well, I am not an overclocker. I lean toward AMD just because the prices
seem better. For example, some recent Newegg prices: Athlon 64 4000 - $99
OE, 64x2 3800 $142 OE, Core Duo E6400 $218 retail, E6600 $310 retail. A guy
can go nuts just trying to compare performance vs price for all these, but
I'll read the reviews you suggest above. But I'll probably end up sticking
with AMD.
Any comments on the following setup? All prices are Newegg, some after mail
in rebates.
Case - Raidmax Sagittia mid tower w/ 450 Watt power supply - $79
Mb - Asus M2N SLI Deluxe socket AM2 $142
CPU - Athlon 64x2 3800+ - $142
Memory - Corsair 1G DDR2 - $103 (What's the diff between PC 4200 and PC
5300?)
Monitor - Samsung 19" 941BW - $190
Video - use onboard, buy card later if needed? Does this work?
Hard drive - use existing
CD/DVD - $30 Liteon
Adds up to about $686 (just under $500 w/o monitor)
Thanks,
Jack
"Jack Bruss" <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TXzdh.14120$L32.7824@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Yeff" <zoomie@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:bhe9mgb3tyyj.dlg@lemming.militia.com...
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:17:40 GMT, Jack Bruss wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or
>>> maybe
>>> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this,
>>> but
>>> specific questions I have now are:
>>>
>>> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
>>> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto
>>> for
>>> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
>>> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
>>>
>>> Any advice is appreciated.
>>
>> Are you wedded to AMD or is Intel a possibility? The Intel Core 2 Duo's
>> are very competitively priced against AMD chips but appear to give more
>> bang for the buck. From a review here:
>> <http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12>
>>
>> The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's
>> extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better
>> performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully
>> for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+
>> in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock
>> speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts.
>> In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's
>> performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price.
>> Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up
>> faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not
>> an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive
>> alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
>>
>> .....
>>
>> The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme
>> X6800
>> levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being
>> said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one
>> outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the
>> overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer
>> with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and
>> if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than
>> that.
>>
>> -----------
>>
>> I had been looking at going with an AMD after my current Intel 2.8Ghz HT
>> craps out, but now I've got to give some serious thought to a Core 2 Duo,
>> probably the E6400. Granted I've never built an AMD box before so I
>> can't
>> really comment, but the two lower-end Core Duo's are looking mighty
>> tasty...
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Jeff B. (who wishes his finances were good enough to buy right now)
>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>
> Well, I am not an overclocker. I lean toward AMD just because the prices
> seem better. For example, some recent Newegg prices: Athlon 64 4000 -
> $99 OE, 64x2 3800 $142 OE, Core Duo E6400 $218 retail, E6600 $310 retail.
> A guy can go nuts just trying to compare performance vs price for all
> these, but I'll read the reviews you suggest above. But I'll probably end
> up sticking with AMD.
>
"Yeff" <zoomie@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:bhe9mgb3tyyj.dlg@lemming.militia.com...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:17:40 GMT, Jack Bruss wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of something like an Athlon 64 3500+ or maybe 4000+ or maybe
>> even a 64x2 system. I'm just starting to do a little digging on this,
>> but
>> specific questions I have now are:
>>
>> 1) Can I use the case I have for the new computer?
>> 2) How about the memory - is it going to work on a new system? Ditto for
>> video card, or will I have to go to a PCI Express setup?
>> 3) Should I be looking for an AM2 board or 939 or something else?
>>
>> Any advice is appreciated.
>
> Are you wedded to AMD or is Intel a possibility? The Intel Core 2 Duo's
> are very competitively priced against AMD chips but appear to give more
> bang for the buck. From a review here:
> <http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12>
>
> The processor landscape has been changed once more thanks to AMD's
> extremely aggressive price cuts. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better
> performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully
> for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+
> in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock
> speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts.
> In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's
> performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price.
> Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up
> faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark. If you're not
> an overclocker, then the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ looks to be a competitive
> alternative to the Core 2 E6300.
>
> .....
>
> The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800
> levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being
> said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one
> outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the
> overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer
> with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and
> if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than
> that.
>
> -----------
>
> I had been looking at going with an AMD after my current Intel 2.8Ghz HT
> craps out, but now I've got to give some serious thought to a Core 2 Duo,
> probably the E6400. Granted I've never built an AMD box before so I can't
> really comment, but the two lower-end Core Duo's are looking mighty
> tasty...
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B. (who wishes his finances were good enough to buy right now)
> zoomie at fastmail fm
No - I'm not stalking you.
It just so happens that I built a computer a month ago.
Core 2Duo - 2.4
ASUS MB
3 gigs of ram
Nvidia 7850 graphics board with 1 gig of ram
SATA - 300 gig drive
SATA - DVD
Hold on to your socks - zoooooooooooooooooooooooooom!!!!!!!!!!
"Jack Bruss" <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:yDBdh.14128$L32.13291@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Any comments on the following setup? All prices are Newegg, some after
> mail in rebates.
> Case - Raidmax Sagittia mid tower w/ 450 Watt power supply - $79
Power supply is crap. You are asking for trouble. Try the following with
the same case (throw the original PSU away), or find a cheaper case with or
without power supply. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817709002
> Mb - Asus M2N SLI Deluxe socket AM2 $142
I'm not big on asus (I'll be kind) but at least it's an nvidia chipset, so
it shouldn't be too evil.
> CPU - Athlon 64x2 3800+ - $142
Great choice, great price
> Memory - Corsair 1G DDR2 - $103 (What's the diff between PC 4200 and PC
> 5300?)
> Monitor - Samsung 19" 941BW - $190
You realize that's a widescreen monitor, right? It's going to have a
smaller viewing area than a 4:3 monitor of 19". Unless you plan to watch a
lot of DVD movies on this system, you'd be better off with something like
the following: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009083
Similar quality, same price, larger monitor (more viewable area)
> Video - use onboard, buy card later if needed? Does this work?
It would if your mainboard had onboard video, but it would be a funky beast
that was SLI capable AND had onboard video. :)
> Hard drive - use existing
> CD/DVD - $30 Liteon
I assume that's a DVD burner, right?
> Adds up to about $686 (just under $500 w/o monitor)
I'm afraid it's gonna be more than that if you want to use it (need a video
card). The following looks like a good starter card...good performance,
great brand, good price, SLI ready (so you can add another later, if you
want to): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130073
"Mike T." <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:4576f029$0$97245$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
>
> "Jack Bruss" <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:yDBdh.14128$L32.13291@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> Any comments on the following setup? All prices are Newegg, some after
>> mail in rebates.
>> Case - Raidmax Sagittia mid tower w/ 450 Watt power supply - $79
>
> Power supply is crap. You are asking for trouble. Try the following with
> the same case (throw the original PSU away), or find a cheaper case with
> or without power supply.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817709002
>
>> Mb - Asus M2N SLI Deluxe socket AM2 $142
>
> I'm not big on asus (I'll be kind) but at least it's an nvidia chipset, so
> it shouldn't be too evil.
>
>> CPU - Athlon 64x2 3800+ - $142
>
> Great choice, great price
>
>> Memory - Corsair 1G DDR2 - $103 (What's the diff between PC 4200 and PC
>> 5300?)
>
> 5300 is higher clock speed. But 6400 would be a better match for the
> mainboard you chose. I'd suggest the following, even though it's a little
> more money.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227165
>
>> Monitor - Samsung 19" 941BW - $190
> You realize that's a widescreen monitor, right? It's going to have a
> smaller viewing area than a 4:3 monitor of 19". Unless you plan to watch
> a lot of DVD movies on this system, you'd be better off with something
> like the following:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009083
> Similar quality, same price, larger monitor (more viewable area)
>
>> Video - use onboard, buy card later if needed? Does this work?
>
> It would if your mainboard had onboard video, but it would be a funky
> beast that was SLI capable AND had onboard video. :)
>
>> Hard drive - use existing
>> CD/DVD - $30 Liteon
>
> I assume that's a DVD burner, right?
>
>> Adds up to about $686 (just under $500 w/o monitor)
>
> I'm afraid it's gonna be more than that if you want to use it (need a
> video card). The following looks like a good starter card...good
> performance, great brand, good price, SLI ready (so you can add another
> later, if you want to):
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130073
>
Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because it
must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right? That's been good enough
for me up to now. If I don't like, then I can add a card later. Now I come
out at $700 including monitor, which I want but don't need.
>>
> Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because
> it must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right? That's been good
> enough for me up to now. If I don't like, then I can add a card later.
> Now I come out at $700 including monitor, which I want but don't need.
>
> Power supply - Sunbeam NUUO SUNNU450-US-BK ATX12V/ EPS12V 450W Power
> Supply 100-120V CE, UL (CUL), TUV, CB, FCC, FIMKO, SEMKO, DEMKO, NEMKO -
> Retail $50 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817709002
>
> Case - COOLER MASTER Centurion 5 CAC-T05-UB Black /Blue Aluminum Bezel ,
> SECC Chassis ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail $50
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811119047
>
> Mb - ASUS M2N-MX Socket AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 6100 Micro ATX AMD
> Motherboard - Retail $76
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131040
>
> CPU - AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz Socket AM2 Processor - Retail $148
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103735
>
> Memory - OCZ 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Desktop Memory -
> Retail $130
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227165
>
> Monitor - AG Neovo F-419 BLACK Black 19" 4ms DVI LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2
> 700:1 - Retail $216
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824163129
>
> CD/DVD - LITE-ON 18X DVD±R Burner Black IDE Model LH-18A1P-185 - OEM $30
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827106042
>
> Video - Use the onboard? Add card later if neccessary.
>
> Hard drive - Use my existing
>>
>
That looks awesome, I wouldn't change a thing. Yes, that onboard video
should work great, for quite a while. I'm typing this on a Ag Neovo F-419,
very sharp monitor. Everything else looks great. I think you'll be very
happy with it. It should run Vista fine also, if you want to. -Dave
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:14:08 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
<jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because it
>must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right?
No, your TI4200 is several times faster than the best
integrated video, and better overall performance even at
non-video-intensive apps due to relieving the system of that
video memory bandwidth.
However, the other important factor is "IF" you want to
eventually run the Aeroglass interface on Vista. TI4200
won't support that, even though a much slower new(er) card
would due to having DX9 support.
>That's been good enough
>for me up to now. If I don't like, then I can add a card later.
That's a fine option then, get the card later if needed.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:dpnen2h0656vik2ecrln8dm4mihcel8f8p@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:14:08 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
> <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because
>>it
>>must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right?
>
> No, your TI4200 is several times faster than the best
> integrated video, and better overall performance even at
> non-video-intensive apps due to relieving the system of that
> video memory bandwidth.
>
You haven't kept up with the times, kony. I generally would agree that
built-in video sucks. But this build is spec'd for a Geforce 6100 mainboard
now. If anyone were to benchmark it, I predict the onboard video of -this-
system would be at least 3 times faster than the TI4200. The TI4200 was
great in it's day, but that's quite an old card now in terms of hardware
obsolescence.
Again I can't benchmark the two together, and I'd be surprised if anyone has
done a direct comparison between the two (benchmark wise), but I'd guess the
Geforce 6100 integrated video will kick the crap out of a TI4200 video card,
and the Geforce 6100 would probably run Vista Aero just fine, also. -Dave
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:dpnen2h0656vik2ecrln8dm4mihcel8f8p@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:14:08 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
> <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because
>>it
>>must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right?
>
> No, your TI4200 is several times faster than the best
> integrated video, and better overall performance even at
> non-video-intensive apps due to relieving the system of that
> video memory bandwidth.
>
> However, the other important factor is "IF" you want to
> eventually run the Aeroglass interface on Vista. TI4200
> won't support that, even though a much slower new(er) card
> would due to having DX9 support.
>
>
>>That's been good enough
>>for me up to now. If I don't like, then I can add a card later.
>
> That's a fine option then, get the card later if needed.
Any comments on the Motherboard (ASUS M2N-MX Socket AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 6100
Micro ATX AMD )? It's only half the price of the previous one I had
selected, Asus M2N SLI Deluxe socket AM2, and yet it has onboard video where
the M2N does not.
Dave wrote:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:dpnen2h0656vik2ecrln8dm4mihcel8f8p@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:14:08 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
>> <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because
>>> it
>>> must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right?
>> No, your TI4200 is several times faster than the best
>> integrated video, and better overall performance even at
>> non-video-intensive apps due to relieving the system of that
>> video memory bandwidth.
>>
>
> You haven't kept up with the times, kony. I generally would agree that
> built-in video sucks. But this build is spec'd for a Geforce 6100 mainboard
> now. If anyone were to benchmark it, I predict the onboard video of -this-
> system would be at least 3 times faster than the TI4200. The TI4200 was
> great in it's day, but that's quite an old card now in terms of hardware
> obsolescence.
>
> Again I can't benchmark the two together, and I'd be surprised if anyone has
> done a direct comparison between the two (benchmark wise), but I'd guess the
> Geforce 6100 integrated video will kick the crap out of a TI4200 video card,
> and the Geforce 6100 would probably run Vista Aero just fine, also. -Dave
>
>
I've been following this thread with interest as I'm starting the
research to build/upgrade a system this spring. I'm certainly looking to
take advantage of my existing stuff where it makes sense. But jbruss's
reply caught me off guard, I have to ask how is it possible that an AGP
4x card with 255 Mhz GPU and 128MB of 444Mhz DDR memory will outperform
an integrated PCI Express 425 Mhz GPU with 128MB of 800Mhz DDR2 memory.
I see a wider and faster data path, faster read and write access to
memory, and faster processing.
I can appreciate optimizations helping to level to comparison some, but
what could they possibly screw up to make the integrated card so much
slower then expected? Does anyone have any comparison data to help me
see the error of my ways?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:51:57 -0500, "Dave"
<never@not.invalid> wrote:
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:dpnen2h0656vik2ecrln8dm4mihcel8f8p@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:14:08 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
>> <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because
>>>it
>>>must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right?
>>
>> No, your TI4200 is several times faster than the best
>> integrated video, and better overall performance even at
>> non-video-intensive apps due to relieving the system of that
>> video memory bandwidth.
>>
>
>You haven't kept up with the times, kony. I generally would agree that
>built-in video sucks. But this build is spec'd for a Geforce 6100 mainboard
>now. If anyone were to benchmark it, I predict the onboard video of -this-
>system would be at least 3 times faster than the TI4200. The TI4200 was
>great in it's day, but that's quite an old card now in terms of hardware
>obsolescence.
Wrong.
TI4200 is far faster than 6100 integrated.
There are two reasons.
1) Not enough silicon in the nVidia northbridge dedicated
to video processing.
2) Video memory bandwidth lower than that dedicated to it
on a video card.
Not even a close race, integrated video of DX9 era is
theoretically able to support newer feature sets but when it
comes down to what it can actually do at acceptible speeds,
there's no real gain except in special circumstances (like
DX9 with Vista).
>
>Again I can't benchmark the two together, and I'd be surprised if anyone has
>done a direct comparison between the two (benchmark wise), but I'd guess the
>Geforce 6100 integrated video will kick the crap out of a TI4200 video card,
>and the Geforce 6100 would probably run Vista Aero just fine, also. -Dave
>
You really ought to stop guessing. Newer is not always
better, when speaking of lowest end new parts.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:03:59 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
<jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:dpnen2h0656vik2ecrln8dm4mihcel8f8p@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:14:08 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
>> <jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok - How about this? I'm still thinking of using onboard video, because
>>>it
>>>must be better than that of my old Ti-4200, right?
>>
>> No, your TI4200 is several times faster than the best
>> integrated video, and better overall performance even at
>> non-video-intensive apps due to relieving the system of that
>> video memory bandwidth.
>>
>> However, the other important factor is "IF" you want to
>> eventually run the Aeroglass interface on Vista. TI4200
>> won't support that, even though a much slower new(er) card
>> would due to having DX9 support.
>>
>>
>>>That's been good enough
>>>for me up to now. If I don't like, then I can add a card later.
>>
>> That's a fine option then, get the card later if needed.
>
>Any comments on the Motherboard (ASUS M2N-MX Socket AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 6100
>Micro ATX AMD )? It's only half the price of the previous one I had
>selected, Asus M2N SLI Deluxe socket AM2, and yet it has onboard video where
>the M2N does not.
>
I like Asus boards, think either is a good choice in their
respective niche. If this is your main use system, and used
for more than mundane tasks for a longer period of time then
I'd get a video card and the full sized M2N board, or the
non-SLI equivalent. Then again, part of my criteria is
whether a board will allow more PCI cards while a video card
with a double width heatsink is installed (or allowing an
empty slot for better cooling even if a single width
heatsink as on some passively cooled video cards), partially
because I have several acceptible PCI cards from the past
that I can use and would prefer for certain functions like
audio, or video capture/tuning.
I can't know if you'd have these cards or uses, or would
just run all the intgrated features for the life of the
system. If you can make do with the integrated features,
the mATX board could be a good cost savings. In the past
sometimes I've bought boards with integrated video even if I
used a video card, so later when the board was retired to a
secondary use, the integrated video allowed running without
dedicating another card which for some uses was just extra
power, heat, fan noise, without any gain for the particular
uses. Again I can't know if you would find this useful or
not, everyone has their own goals. In the long run I think
you'd appreciate having the full ATX board and video card
but whether it's worth the extra cost of the card, only you
can decide.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:44:40 GMT, dMn <daMian@nospam.net>
wrote:
>I've been following this thread with interest as I'm starting the
>research to build/upgrade a system this spring. I'm certainly looking to
>take advantage of my existing stuff where it makes sense. But jbruss's
>reply caught me off guard, I have to ask how is it possible that an AGP
>4x card with 255 Mhz GPU and 128MB of 444Mhz DDR memory will outperform
>an integrated PCI Express 425 Mhz GPU with 128MB of 800Mhz DDR2 memory.
> I see a wider and faster data path, faster read and write access to
>memory, and faster processing.
>
>I can appreciate optimizations helping to level to comparison some, but
>what could they possibly screw up to make the integrated card so much
>slower then expected? Does anyone have any comparison data to help me
>see the error of my ways?
They're not "slower than expected", you ignored all factors.
Video card technology is too complex for a usenet post,
pipes and shaders and dedicated busses and latency and
amount of devoted special-purpose silicon, a video card is a
purpose specific device, designed from ground up to do what
it does.
If anything, video card benchmarks aren't hard to find. The
only time you might find a 6100 gaining ground is if newer
DirectX features are enabled and they bring both cards to
their knees. Run a benchmark that does acceptibly on both
and you can make a better comparison, perhaps 3Dmark 2001.
Geforce 6100 might score around 6000 (this is only a
guesstimation, might vary a few dozen %). In one of the
newer (but last) generation Athlon64 systems (as with
Geforce 6100), even a Geforce 3 would easily exceed 6000
3Dmarks.
>
> Any comments on the Motherboard (ASUS M2N-MX Socket AM2 NVIDIA GeForce
> 6100 Micro ATX AMD )? It's only half the price of the previous one I had
> selected, Asus M2N SLI Deluxe socket AM2, and yet it has onboard video
> where the M2N does not.
I don't like Asus, but I'm one of the few people in the universe who
actually has that opinion, and it is based on professional experience
supporting systems with asus mainboards. In other words, I don't just test
them on a bench for a few hours and write raving reviews... I see how they
perform over time, in real-world conditions, and because of that, I HATE
Asus with a passion. My personal and professional opinion is that Asus has
(generally) good designs, but their quality control sucks ass.
HOWEVER, If you have to use an Asus board, the one you chose is a GOOD
choice. I used to say to avoid micro-ATX boards, for good reason. They
have fewer slots (ram and expansion) usually, limiting their upgrade
potential greatly. But now? Just about everything you need in a computer
is BUILT INTO a mainboard, regardless of format. So having fewer expansion
slots is not such a big deal anymore. And the board you chose has FOUR RAM
slots, which is as much as most full-size ATX boards.
You really aren't sacrificing anything by switching to the lower-priced
M2N-MX over the full-size (and expensive) SLI board you chose earlier. The
larger boards have premium prices because they are in greater demand. And
if you were ever going to use SLI, you wouldn't be considering a micro-ATX
board. SLI boards (like the one you first chose) also have premium prices.
So your savings is (gave up SLI) plus (switched to a smaller board that is
less in demand). Overall, you haven't really given up anything.
You've got three open PCI slots (one PCI-Express X1) in addition to the
PCI-Express X16 graphics slot. That's a lot of expansion/upgrade potential.
With gigabit LAN built in, that means that you might use one PCI slot for a
premium sound card (if you want to), and ... another slot for a TV tuner
sometime down the line? Now you've still got an open slot not being used,
and you haven't even touched your (8 or 10, usually?) USB ports yet!!!
In terms of capabilities, that M2N-MX should be all you need for several
years. It is a good choice, just buy it and don't give it another thought.
:) -Dave
>
> They're not "slower than expected", you ignored all factors.
> Video card technology is too complex for a usenet post,
> pipes and shaders and dedicated busses and latency and
> amount of devoted special-purpose silicon, a video card is a
> purpose specific device, designed from ground up to do what
> it does.
>
> If anything, video card benchmarks aren't hard to find. The
> only time you might find a 6100 gaining ground is if newer
> DirectX features are enabled and they bring both cards to
> their knees. Run a benchmark that does acceptibly on both
> and you can make a better comparison, perhaps 3Dmark 2001.
> Geforce 6100 might score around 6000 (this is only a
> guesstimation, might vary a few dozen %). In one of the
> newer (but last) generation Athlon64 systems (as with
> Geforce 6100), even a Geforce 3 would easily exceed 6000
> 3Dmarks.
Actually, I was looking at one of tom's hardware VGA charts to try to get
SOME idea how a ti4200 might compare to the built-in geforce 6100. On the
3DMark chart I read, the TI4200 scored less than 2000, and some later nvidia
chipsets (after TI4200, but prior to the 6100) scored around ~6000 on the
same chart. Even if we assume that the 6100 is slower because it is
"integrated", it's still going to kick the crap out of a TI4200, performance
wise.
I stand by my earlier prediction that, if someone were to run a direct
comparison, the integrated geforce 6100 video would probably be about 3
times as fast as a TI4200 video card. -Dave
"Dave" <never@not.invalid> wrote in message
news:457888cc$0$97227$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
>
>>
>> Any comments on the Motherboard (ASUS M2N-MX Socket AM2 NVIDIA GeForce
>> 6100 Micro ATX AMD )? It's only half the price of the previous one I had
>> selected, Asus M2N SLI Deluxe socket AM2, and yet it has onboard video
>> where the M2N does not.
>
> I don't like Asus, but I'm one of the few people in the universe who
> actually has that opinion, and it is based on professional experience
> supporting systems with asus mainboards. In other words, I don't just
> test them on a bench for a few hours and write raving reviews... I see how
> they perform over time, in real-world conditions, and because of that, I
> HATE Asus with a passion. My personal and professional opinion is that
> Asus has (generally) good designs, but their quality control sucks ass.
>
> HOWEVER, If you have to use an Asus board, the one you chose is a GOOD
> choice. I used to say to avoid micro-ATX boards, for good reason. They
> have fewer slots (ram and expansion) usually, limiting their upgrade
> potential greatly. But now? Just about everything you need in a computer
> is BUILT INTO a mainboard, regardless of format. So having fewer
> expansion slots is not such a big deal anymore. And the board you chose
> has FOUR RAM slots, which is as much as most full-size ATX boards.
>
> You really aren't sacrificing anything by switching to the lower-priced
> M2N-MX over the full-size (and expensive) SLI board you chose earlier.
> The larger boards have premium prices because they are in greater demand.
> And if you were ever going to use SLI, you wouldn't be considering a
> micro-ATX board. SLI boards (like the one you first chose) also have
> premium prices. So your savings is (gave up SLI) plus (switched to a
> smaller board that is less in demand). Overall, you haven't really given
> up anything.
>
> You've got three open PCI slots (one PCI-Express X1) in addition to the
> PCI-Express X16 graphics slot. That's a lot of expansion/upgrade
> potential. With gigabit LAN built in, that means that you might use one
> PCI slot for a premium sound card (if you want to), and ... another slot
> for a TV tuner sometime down the line? Now you've still got an open slot
> not being used, and you haven't even touched your (8 or 10, usually?) USB
> ports yet!!!
>
> In terms of capabilities, that M2N-MX should be all you need for several
> years. It is a good choice, just buy it and don't give it another
> thought. :) -Dave
>
>
>
Thanks, you've answered my questions very well. I will be ordering this
stuff tomorrow. For what it's worth, I've always used Asus boards and never
had a problem, although I've only built about 5 or 6 systems total.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:40:09 -0500, "Dave"
<never@not.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> They're not "slower than expected", you ignored all factors.
>> Video card technology is too complex for a usenet post,
>> pipes and shaders and dedicated busses and latency and
>> amount of devoted special-purpose silicon, a video card is a
>> purpose specific device, designed from ground up to do what
>> it does.
>>
>> If anything, video card benchmarks aren't hard to find. The
>> only time you might find a 6100 gaining ground is if newer
>> DirectX features are enabled and they bring both cards to
>> their knees. Run a benchmark that does acceptibly on both
>> and you can make a better comparison, perhaps 3Dmark 2001.
>> Geforce 6100 might score around 6000 (this is only a
>> guesstimation, might vary a few dozen %). In one of the
>> newer (but last) generation Athlon64 systems (as with
>> Geforce 6100), even a Geforce 3 would easily exceed 6000
>> 3Dmarks.
>
>Actually, I was looking at one of tom's hardware VGA charts to try to get
>SOME idea how a ti4200 might compare to the built-in geforce 6100. On the
>3DMark chart I read, the TI4200 scored less than 2000, and some later nvidia
>chipsets (after TI4200, but prior to the 6100) scored around ~6000 on the
>same chart. Even if we assume that the 6100 is slower because it is
>"integrated", it's still going to kick the crap out of a TI4200, performance
>wise.
How about less vague nonsense and more specific comparisons?
I already made one, 3DMark2001. As already stated, the only
way for the 6100 to gain ground is if the benchmark is so
new that both of them are so slow they're unusable.
TI4200 is faster, even GF3 is faster.
>
>I stand by my earlier prediction that, if someone were to run a direct
>comparison, the integrated geforce 6100 video would probably be about 3
>times as fast as a TI4200 video card. -Dave
you can stand by anything you like, and you'd still be
wrong.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:35:13 GMT, "Jack Bruss"
<jbruss@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>Thanks, you've answered my questions very well. I will be ordering this
>stuff tomorrow. For what it's worth, I've always used Asus boards and never
>had a problem, although I've only built about 5 or 6 systems total.
Most of the world has used Asus fine, long term,
professionally supported, etc. Dave seems to be randomly
making up nonsense.
kony wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:40:09 -0500, "Dave"
> <never@not.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> They're not "slower than expected", you ignored all factors.
>>> Video card technology is too complex for a usenet post,
>>> pipes and shaders and dedicated busses and latency and
>>> amount of devoted special-purpose silicon, a video card is a
>>> purpose specific device, designed from ground up to do what
>>> it does.
>>>
I get that there are specific technical issues, I was just hoping you
had a little information available to help clarify. After all we are
talking about comparing two video cards, regardless of how complex they
are both built on the same principles.
>>> If anything, video card benchmarks aren't hard to find. The
>>> only time you might find a 6100 gaining ground is if newer
>>> DirectX features are enabled and they bring both cards to
>>> their knees. Run a benchmark that does acceptibly on both
>>> and you can make a better comparison, perhaps 3Dmark 2001.
>>> Geforce 6100 might score around 6000 (this is only a
>>> guesstimation, might vary a few dozen %). In one of the
>>> newer (but last) generation Athlon64 systems (as with
>>> Geforce 6100), even a Geforce 3 would easily exceed 6000
>>> 3Dmarks.
You made the claim that the card would perform better then the
integrated video, maybe you could have referenced a few of those readily
available benchmark scores.
>> Actually, I was looking at one of tom's hardware VGA charts to try to get
>> SOME idea how a ti4200 might compare to the built-in geforce 6100. On the
>> 3DMark chart I read, the TI4200 scored less than 2000, and some later nvidia
>> chipsets (after TI4200, but prior to the 6100) scored around ~6000 on the
>> same chart. Even if we assume that the 6100 is slower because it is
>> "integrated", it's still going to kick the crap out of a TI4200, performance
>> wise.
>
> How about less vague nonsense and more specific comparisons?
> I already made one, 3DMark2001. As already stated, the only
> way for the 6100 to gain ground is if the benchmark is so
> new that both of them are so slow they're unusable.
>
> TI4200 is faster, even GF3 is faster.
>
>> I stand by my earlier prediction that, if someone were to run a direct
>> comparison, the integrated geforce 6100 video would probably be about 3
>> times as fast as a TI4200
New PC to Build 