Any CPU guys???

[XxDutchxX]

Im looking at upgrading my processor....im looking at a pentium 4 2.6 GhZ w/ 800 fsb or the pentuim 4 2.8 GhZ w/ 533 fsb? What are the pros and cons? Do i need that much FSB or is that mostley for burning purposes? Thanks

[Entropy]

IME the board and chipset will make as much difference as the cpu itself. I would check out sites like http://www.mikeshardware.com and see what gets the best reviews. Out of the two you mentioned I would opt for the faster FSB and get the 2.6ghz.... Just make sure you get the memory to match or it is just a waste of time.

[BryanJ]

Working with PC's everyday I would never waste my money upgrading the processor unless I built the PC myself. Otherwise buy a PC that will do everything you want it to and run it till it dies. Personally I buy HP's with the 3 year extended waranty and add the max memory capacity a year later for a fraction of the cost today. I am still running my PII 350mhz. I'm just now out growing it and will be passing it along to the kids and buying the best I can afford for myself again.

[grahxen]

XxDutchXx if you need help picking out parts and upgrading your PC let me know, as I can help you.

My warehouse has over $300,000 of merchandise sitting on the pretty shelves.

Actually I am a member of the east coast market pro computer shows and have my own retail store.

let me know if you need some help.

Thanks
Mike

[justgettinstarted]

i have the 2.54 with 800mhz FSB and a promise RAID card going to 2X 80gb hard drives (Stripe 0) and the motherboard is an ASUS PC-800E, Raedon 9800 graphics card...and DDR Ram (PC4000 (500MHz) if i remember correctly)... my computer is nice and fast :)

[NTidd]

I think that we are getting a bit of track here, Dutch, do you know how all that stuff and what it means?

[Rendos]

I don't want to add to the confusion, but I agree that the mainboard will make a huge difference in computer performance. Most people blow a lot of cash on a good processor and then get the cheapest mainboard around to save on money. Do yourself a favor and get the best possible mainboard you can along with the new CPU.
Check http://www.tomshardware.com
Lots of good reviews there too.

[NTidd]

Yeh, the processor speed does no good if it all just bottlenecks to the mainboard.

[justgettinstarted]

And only buy what you need.... if you do not play viedoe games... or or do a lot of multimedia rendering... there is really no need to get a $300 of $400 graphics card... you are better off with a simple $150 model...

The areas to splurge are the motherboard, processor, and ram... from my experience it is best not to get the fastest processor because it is usually a lot more expensive... but the 2nd or 3rd fastest is substantially cheaper...

As an example.. i just looked up these prices...
Intel P4 3.2 GHz 800MHz FSB is $469
Intel P4 3.0 GHz 800MHz FSB is $339
and a 2.8 800MHz FSB is $260... and below that they are almost all the same price... so there is where you want to do your shopping... why would you pay OVER $130 for only 200MHz? makes no logical sense to me... I would get the 3.0 or the 2.8... anything less than that is really not all that much cheaper (2.6 $220 and there are no slower ones with 800 MHZ FSB)

ya know what i am saying?

[Entropy]

I agree on getting the next best model of most things. You can usually save a ton of money but get the cutting edge technology from three days ago (instead of the new gizmo that came out today). Another nice thing is you get a product that has been field tested and is reliable instead of the brand new gizmo that is buggy and failure prone (until they fix it). Usually I look at the top of the line products and then see what they replaced and then buy that instead. Unless you are running huge applications like CAD or something, you will never know the difference.

[mgchan]

It all boils down to what you intend to do with your computer. If it's for playing games, go for the P4 2.8ghz w/800 FSB.

The cpu (boxed version w/heatsink & fan) is only $215 at http://www.newegg.com. Shipping is free.

Assuming you're on a budget, for the motherboard get the MSI 865PE Neo2-LS for $92.99 (NewEgg.com). It's got great overclocking features, which could push your P4 2.8ghz to > 3ghz.

Without spending a whole lot of money, get the Nvidia GeForce4 MX440-8X AGP videocard for $29.99 (after rebate at CompUSA.com). It'll play practically any of the latest games out there.

One more recommendation, with the MSI motherboard, go with Kingston HyperX DDR400 (PC3200) 1gb dual channel low latency memory ($213 at NewEgg.com). WinXP kicks in at 1gb.

I agree, http://www.tomshardware.com is the place to go for recommendations.

[grahxen]

He, gotta love those intel fanboys.

Scrap the intel setup altogether and get a nice AMD setup for 1/2 the price. You can also get a nforce 2 based board with on board gforce 4 mx 440 built in if your low on cash for $89, that supports all 400FSB processors as well.

As i said I can help you, just email me.

Nothing wrong with intel but your going to spend more on the setup, and quite frankly the intel setup is not much faster then a good AMD setup to begin with.

Again my 2 cents, with over 10 years in the computer industry in retail/wholesale/sales/marketing.

I think i have close to 1000+ machines built with my hands so far :)

Or, you could always spend 700$ on an AMD FX processor and have the fastest personal computer in the world :) But thats just insane...

[XxDutchxX]

I now a fair amount about cpu's. The one I have I just built a year ago....do to lack of funds i did not buy the best mother board, and I bought a 1.7 celeron. I bought a cd-burner and later a DVD burner. Instead of getting the soyo px400 platinum additon I bought a pc chips. So im thinking about getting a new mother board and processor and somemore ram.

[grahxen]

Pc chips is a bad board yes. Cheap quality.

However the Soyo board is not much better. RMA city, i think half the ones i sold were defective.

Shoot me an email and ill help ya.

grahxen@optonline.net

Or my work email mike@djpcstore.com

[NTidd]

Originally posted by grahxen
He, gotta love those intel fanboys.

Scrap the intel setup altogether and get a nice AMD setup for 1/2 the price. You can also get a nforce 2 based board with on board gforce 4 mx 440 built in if your low on cash for $89, that supports all 400FSB processors as well.

As i said I can help you, just email me.

Nothing wrong with intel but your going to spend more on the setup, and quite frankly the intel setup is not much faster then a good AMD setup to begin with.

Again my 2 cents, with over 10 years in the computer industry in retail/wholesale/sales/marketing.

I think i have close to 1000+ machines built with my hands so far :)

Or, you could always spend 700$ on an AMD FX processor and have the fastest personal computer in the world :) But thats just insane...

Yeh, I'm a fan of AMD, I've got an athlon 750 that way outdoes my piii at 1ghz. AMD runs a lot nicer in my opinion, and a lot cheaper.

[XxDutchxX]

Thanks for the input...keep it coming.

[mgchan]

For years, my previous setups were AMDs, but what really sold me was the FSB800 and Hyper-Threading.

Here's where even the P4 2.8ghz w/HT blows away the top XP 3200+:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.html

Here's a quote worth reading from Tomshardware.com:

"Another aspect to consider is the sales price of the two rivals. In the past, the P4 has been known to be significantly more expensive for the end user than a comparable Athlon XP. This scenario has now changed, because although there's still a price difference between the two top models (the Athlon XP 3200+ goes for approximately $529, the P4 3.2 GHz for about $700), and even though the slower clocked Intel models are more expensive than AMD's, the price difference is only valid if you compare the P4 clock speeds with the XP model numbering. Otherwise, ever since the introduction of FSB800 and Hyper-Threading with the "smaller" P4 CPUs, the XP processors haven't been cutting such good figures, with the consequence that the ratings don't really correspond to the performance of the "equivalent" P4. The OEM manufacturers still get the best deal - they can buy the P4 for about 70% of the end user price.

It shouldn't be forgotten, though, that the AMD Athlon enjoys cult status among the end users, and this is something that an Intel CPU will never attain. The masses of freaks, DIY fans and overclockers make for a strong faction that is loyal to the Athlon XP. Neither Intel's pricing strategy nor the performance offered (i.e., FSB800 and Hyper-Threading) will be able to change that."

If you are on a budget and if Grahxen can get you an AMD setup for a good price, go for it. Me... I'm happy with my decision. :D

[justgettinstarted]

i love my system ;) but then i built it all myself... and its fast as hell... o the joys of running games at super high resolution...

both chips are good thpough... just depends what you are into... not a fan of the celeron though... i would get an AMD in a heartbeat over that!!!!

[NTidd]

lol - celeron, those aren't for gamers at all.

[zenguitar]

I'll chime in a little bit. I have built many AMD and Pentium based computers and from my observations the two cpu's have areas they excel in. This shows up in benchmarks too sometimes.

AMD seems to be better for 'business style apps' by that I mean Office and the like.

Pentium seems to excel in games, photoshop and video.

That's something I seem to have observed from the computers I have built.

If the money isn't all that import then I definitely recommend the 2.6 or 2.8 800mhz FSB Pentium cpu's and I would run it on an ASUS board. I use the PC4800-Deluxe, it's an expensive board but it is very nice and the motherboard is everything. Then get the Kingston DDR400 memory and get two 512 meg chips. When you get them in a pair it will be run in dual mode and you get more memory bandwith.

If saving a couple dollars is worth it then go AMD but don't go lower then the 2.0 ghz. Personally I wouldn't bother going with a high end AMD cpu as the clocks don't go up much and the bus speed doesn't go up much either. I personally cannot attest to the performace change between them as I have not seen it in person. I would still go with an Asus board or an Abit if one is to your liking. Still go with kingston memory and get a pair of 512 meg chips.

One question I usually ask people is what do they expect to do with it a year down the road. Although either of these systems will do photo editing and games (video card is a factor here) perfectly fine if you even think you may want to do home movies with it, then go pentium with the 800 bus. Also with video, the hard drive is a big deal. You need lots of space and speed. You may consider using RAID like justgettingstarted is. This is something that can be added later but I find that when most people say, "I'll just add it later." They never do.

I hope that helps your decision.

[zenguitar]

I should also quick add that the business apps require almost no horsepower to run good and any computer made in the last year runs them fast enough you can't tell the difference anymore.

[XxDutchxX]

Well im in to gaming, photo editing, multiple browser windows open at once and playing music with good sound quality going to my reciever. I have bout 13 gigs used and my cpu is starting to bog...plus i need to format to get rid of these damn adware issues.(popups) When I run my firwall I get no pop ups, but it slow it down considerably. Anyway im still debating.

[justgettinstarted]

Kingston DDr ram is really good.. thats what i am using on my comp... i had just forgotten.. my comp is ~1 year old now.. still working great

[NTidd]

Yeh, Kingston is usually the best, but you pay for the quality.

[grahxen]

He, you should try reading some up to date articles. Those articles on toms hardware are old for 1 thing. Second thing is those prices are also not correct.


XP 3200+ 299$

Athlon 64 3000 $213

Athlon 64 3200 $333


Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800 $367

The #1 reason why intel beats athlon XP's in some tests is only because of the FSB speed. Once you get into the athlon 64 systems, well lets just say intel is in for some problems. Even their new design EE chip cant keep up.

For that being said the new Athlon 64 3000 is an unbelievable deal for that price. Compared to a 3.2GHZ chip at $367 and the performance that you get from an athlon 64, it would just be silly to buy the top of the line intel. Unless you are an intel fanboy of course.


Read some real reviews other then from toms hardware. Try places like www.hardocp.com and read the forums there. http://www.hardforum.com

[justgettinstarted]

yea, i know that... to correct what i had typed in my first post... i dunno what i was thinking... to much chemistry i guess...

I actually have the Kingston RAMBUS RDRAM that is 1066MHz but i cant remember if i have the ECC or the non ECC... LOL

its still nearly as much as it cost when i got it though... $120 for 256MB

[grahxen]

Originally posted by NTidd
Yeh, Kingston is usually the best, but you pay for the quality.

Theres one thing you need to understand. Kingston doesnt make their own memory. They only make the PCB. They generally use samsung, micron chips as their main source. And their value ram they use some other cheap companies.

90% of the memory market is samsung, no matter what name it says on the package.

[justgettinstarted]

the prices i listed i got from www.tigerdirect.com i dunno how competitive they are.. i bought some stuff from them but i dont remember what components... i dunno if you were talking to me anyway...

[mgchan]

The last time I looked the Athlon 64 3200+ cost more than the P4 2.8 w/HT. The Athlon numbers don't equate to the actual speed, so you can't compare pricing just by the model numbers. You need to look at the performance tests.

Yes, the Athlon is 64 bit, but it's not really needed at this point for the consumer.

[justgettinstarted]

this can be compared to the difference between the xbox and PS2

xbox has a faster processor(733 MHz).. however the PS2 (294.9 MHz) uses more advanced programming language (instead of 64 its 128 or something? i dont remember... but as of yet programmers cant utilize the complexity of the PS2 and thats why xbox seems to go faster..

[grahxen]

Originally posted by mgchan
The last time I looked the Athlon 64 3200+ cost more than the P4 2.8 w/HT. The Athlon numbers don't equate to the actual speed, so you can't compare pricing just by the model numbers. You need to look at the performance tests.

Yes, the Athlon is 64 bit, but it's not really needed at this point for the consumer.


Athlon 64 3200 does cost more then a p4 2.8GHZ, but it beats a p4 2.8 in any benchmark test, thats the important part. It also runs a much lower clock speed, which has nothing to do with performance. AMD's have always had lower clock speed, but in turn they have a more well designed chip, which is why a 2.2GHZ Athlon 64 can beat a 3.2ghz intel.

And your post by stating a athlon 64 bit is not needed by a consumer, who says so? Its cheaper then a high end P4 3.2GHZ EE chip, so who says its not needed, and even running at 32bit its still faster.

Wait until there are more tests done on windows XP 64 bit edition, and youll see those scores improve even more.

Now I am not an AMD fanboy by any means, but I do talk from experience. I build these machines all day long from my business, and write and donate hardware to many review sites. Now I am not saying intel isnt bad, because it isnt. But there are alternatives which may suit people better then others. There are people who only by intel because it says intel, and vice versa for AMD.

The fact of the matter is, AMD has a solid CPU this time around and its going to be hard for Intel to compete.

[beerguy]

The comment about 64 bit being necessary is almost correct. At 64 bit CPU running a 32 bit OS does offer no benefit.

64 bit architecture does offer improvements once the OS, and most importantly, the applications are coded to take advantage of the increased memory and address space. Interestingly enough, some 32 bit applications actually run slower on a 64 bit operating system then they do in their native environment. It really depends on how they were originally coded.

Likewise, "hyper-threading" does offer some improvements by masking RAM refresh latencies but is hamstrung by the fact that Windows is not a highly thread-aware environment.

[grahxen]

Originally posted by beerguy
The comment about 64 bit being necessary is almost correct. At 64 bit CPU running a 32 bit OS does offer no benefit.

64 bit architecture does offer improvements once the OS, and most importantly, the applications are coded to take advantage of the increased memory and address space. Interestingly enough, some 32 bit applications actually run slower on a 64 bit operating system then they do in their native environment. It really depends on how they were originally coded.

Likewise, "hyper-threading" does offer some improvements by masking RAM refresh latencies but is hamstrung by the fact that Windows is not a highly thread-aware environment.

Who said 64bit is necessary, I dont see anywhere in this thread that I or anyone else said that.

Its not the fact the the athlon 64 is a 64bit chip, the fact is, even in 32biit mode on an OS it is still faster, reguardless if its 64bit or not.

It is not only because its "64bit" the reason why its faster. There is alot of technical reasons which i could go on forever. Being 64bit is only 1 of those reasons.

[beerguy]

Originally posted by grahxen
Who said 64bit is necessary, I dont see anywhere in this thread that I or anyone else said that.

Its not the fact the the athlon 64 is a 64bit chip, the fact is, even in 32biit mode on an OS it is still faster, reguardless if its 64bit or not.

It is not only because its "64bit" the reason why its faster. There is alot of technical reasons which i could go on forever. Being 64bit is only 1 of those reasons.

I was just commenting on the previous comment about it being 64 bit, the same way that you did. No one, myself included, said that it was necessary.

[XxDutchxX]

Wow where is my pen and paper. Ive got to make up my mind soon this celeron is trash as is the motherboard. Can someone send me some links of any good deals they see....barbone kit or even just a MB and CPU combo. I dont want to spend 300+ on a processor, I just need something better then this 1.7 celeron...I dont know what I was thinking...I figured it was a huge upgrade from my laptop, which it was, but now I am begining to see the problems.

[grahxen]

Sent u a PM.

[mgchan]

Look I'm not here to argue the merits of an Athlon over an P4 or vice versa, or 64 bit or not, or who's an expert longer or built more computers.

The initial post was which version of P4 to get. You can't go wrong with any cpu, it does boil down to whether you're playing games and if you're on a budget. Face it, we all want the best bang for the buck and most people are on a budget. Your average gamer does not need 64 bit chip let alone the EE, but if money is not an object and you have to have the latest or fastest, then I say go for it.

In answer to the comparison of the Athlon 64 3200+ vs. P4 3.2 w/HT in pricing, I was pointing out that in performance tests the Athlon 64 3200+ was only marginally faster than a P4 2.8 w/HT, and the P4 2.8 was not even the top Intel cpu. At the time of the tests, the Athlon 64 3200+ was the top model.

On the average, the Athlon 64 3200+ is $200 more than the P4 2.8 w/HT.

[XxDutchxX]

I think im gonna try the AMD.