teh Forum

My grand re-entry to the world of Pentium 4 might have to be done with one of these...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19997

Very cool. I would definitely be interested in one of those, though I'd have to replace everything I have to do it. It will probably be a little while. My system is going to last me another year or so I think.

Oh good... With this big SLI push now we have to buy two $500 video cards to have a top of the line system.

Maximum PCs Dream Machine 2005 (estimate)
$1000 2 video cards
$1000 Extra special get 5 more frames per second Extreme Edition FX processor
$300 Crazy muther-freakin-mutherboard
$800 4 sticks of light up the night actively cooled RAM
$1500 2 x $750 15,000RPM SATA drives that only hold 36GB each (mirrored)

I hate the way the industry is moving. Now that the real technologies are slowing down, they have to come up with crazy expensive advancements that triple the price for a tiny performance increase.

Yeah, they're charging more now for TOL parts than they did in the late 90s when everyone in the industry was rich. Unbelieveable. That's why I'm usually going with the mid-level card like the 6800 GT for the last couple cycles. I used to get the high-level every 6-8 months. Frack all that nonsense. I'll get a board that supports SLI just in case, but I'll probably still use a single card.

So Until I get my P4, I have a new goodie on the way...

I bought a Athlon XP 3200+ 400FSB

Nice. That should run pretty nicely. What do you have now a 2500+?

I have a 2400+

The 2400+ runs at 2.0 Ghz, where the 3200+ is only 200Mhz faster @ 2.2Ghz. Not much of an upgrade here, but the real gain is the FSB!

Switching from 266 to 400 Mhz FSB should make things alot quicker!

I read a HL2 benchmark the other day that showed huge framerate increases when they upgraded the CPU. Strangely, when they changed the vid card from a radeon 9600 to an x800, with a slower CPU, it made little difference.

I guess it depends what the CPUs were. If the CPUs were teh bottleneck then a faster video card would do no good. But I think anything in the 2.5 GHz and above range would be relying more on the video card. Would teh J3RK agree?

I am not quite silky (a slow down every now and again) but my 3.2 Prescott and 9800Pro is definitely adequate. But I'm sure an X800 would make a much bigger difference than bumping me up a few 100MHz.

Yeah. You'll be processor limited to a point. I'm running a 3.2 and it's not even feeding my 6800 GT as much as it could. 3.4 is about what I'd need. Hit 3.6 and the 6800 would be the bottleneck. Now, the other thing that can effect that is resolution. If you're running at 1600 then you'll be limited by the video card most likely. If you're running at 800 The video card will be pushing along fine, waiting for the CPU. Mine is absolutely silky, but every once in a while there is a hiccup. I think it may be a minute version of the stuttering problem, so hopefully it will eventually go away. It doesn't seem to drop below sync ever. I run in 1024. If I bump it up to 1280, I notice little drops here and there. Mostly in vehicles where the movement is faster.

It's getting to be time to upgrade my box...

currently running an aging P4 2.4 with a 9700 Pro. It holds up well on medium settings for most games, but I'd like to get some full resolution hi-quality glory happening...

Whats a good move? Intel? AMD?

for cards, I'm thinking of "switching" to an nvidia 6800.

I'll post my HL benchmarks as soon as I get the new CPU. You'll probably want to go intel, but at least you can see what the top of the line 32 bit athlon can do.

6800 sounds good, would that be an ultra?

The Ultra is not really worth the cost. The GT is the way to go, because it's the same exact core. 90% of the time you can just bump it up slightly to the Ultra clock speeds with no problems. I recommend the BFG Tech GTOC. It comes clocked higher stock, and costs the same as all the others. I like Intel CPUs purely because of the Intel platforms they all run on. (Though the NForce 5 is intriguing.) AMD64s are looking better and better, but they still haven't pushed me back over the edge into AMD land yet. I'm still enjoying Intel. Every few years I go to AMD for a while, then switch back. They alwasy shoot into the lead for a little while, while Intel perfects their next products, then Intel blows them out of the water again for a while. Right now I'd recommend a nice P4, but soon I think I'll be doing the opposite again.

Ive heard the same about the Ultra and GT. The performance bump the ultra gives you just doesn't justify the hefty price tag over the gt...

What't the best kind of RAM these days?


also... I'm looking at p4s on pricewatch... "Pentium 4 560 3.6GHz LGA775" whats LGA775, and is that currently the hottest intel chip (besides the xeon and 2mb extremes)?

$425 - Pentium 4 560 3.6GHz LGA775
$269 - Pentium 4 550 3.4GHz LGA775

hmmm... is that 200Mhz really worth the extra $160 bucks???


...and damn those Athlons are pricey!

I'd go 3.4. All the developement vehicles Intel gives us at MS are 3.4s. I think even they favor them. With a P4 the 200MHz is negligable. With AMDs that bump is a little more drastic because of the synchronous memory controller and such.

I like Corsair RAM. Even their cheapy-cheap modules are nice. I like the TwinX XMS Pro stuff though. I wouldn't worry about the heat on the proc unless you'll be overclocking by a huge margin. If you're doing that, you want a 30 capacitor 2.8 Northwood. There is a lot of discussion of these at www.hardforum.com

Thanks J3RK.

I think I'll make an akihabara run this weekend and pick up some new parts...

When you say Corsair RAM... what kind of ram is that? DDR? like what is the latest ram technology and speed? I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to ram...

Ahh... Depends on what chipset you get. DDR400 is standard for most P4 systems, but there are some that support DDR2 in the 500+ MHz range. Since I haven't jumped into that yet, I don't know a lot about it. I usually have a big research burst when I tire of my current hardware. I'm running an i875 board, so DDR400 (PC3200) is plenty.

Ok, just looked around a bit. Looks like they might be interchangeable somewhat. The Intel 900 series boards seems to support both. At least according to the ones on www.zipzoomfly.com

I get the idea that DDR2 is pin compatible, and just a lot faster or something. You may want to hit www.hardocp.com or www.anandtech.com or even www.sharkyextreme.com and find out what the actual difference is. I'm too tipsy now to read much.

It is an interesting time to be upgrading because so many technologies are right at the end of their cycles.

Intel has come out with these LGA775 chips which is the type of socket they use (AKA Socket T). They ditched the Socket478 which has been the long running P4 standard for forward compatibility... but the 500 series chips are still Prescott cores (same as the last 3 Socket 478 chips). So there is zero advantage to getting a P4 550 over a P4 3.2. The price point is definitely at the 3.2s (540s) or 3.4s (550s). You definitely don't want to buy a 3.6 because it is the fastest and thus way overpriced. So looking ahead, Intel has announced they are ditching their entire roadmap for the next year to focus on dual core chips. This is a huge advancement in proc technology and points to the shortcomings of the P4. We probably won't see the P4 hit 4GHz in the next 6 months... which means two things. 1) AMD has a big opportunity to catch up - and they need it because the advantage of AMD has always been the price but right now to build an AMD box that can compete with an Intel box you will be spending about the same, and 2) Intel prices are gonna be dropping. The 3.0GHz has come down $40 in the last 2 month and Intel hasn't even released a new CPU.

As for RAM - I hate the RAM world these days. Prices are just too high. I say buy the cheapest RAM you can get. For maximum performance buy a MB that has dual channels amd buy matching sticks of whatever FSB you get (likely 800MHz, so DDR 400 - AKA PC3200). You don't want less than 1GB of RAM these days.

DDR2? Whassat? It may be the next logical step but it certainly isn't ready now (it is 240 pin btw). You don't want to mess around with jumping on a RAM bandwagon before it is fully adopted. Anyone that bought RAMBUS 700 can attest to that. And FUCK all that heatsinked Xtreme Edition 9,000,000 RAM that charges you twice as much for a miniscule better CAS rating. It is a sham. It only applies to people that are trying to impress others with their benchmark scores being 2 fps higher. Save your money, PLEASE!

As for Mutherboards. I still like MSI a lot. If there was some super sale on an expensive ASUS board and it was way cheaper than a similarly equipped MSI board I would think about it. But for the most part ASUS is just living off their reputation that they used to make good MBs. Now they are just way overpriced. I'm not afraid of Gigabyte boards but watch out for budget brands like ECS, ASROCK, and Epox. In the competetive MB world it is good to have a favorite and mine is definitely MSI.

With the introduction of the LGA775 came the two new chipsets 915 and 925X (don't worry about the 925 - but it is codenamed "Alderwood" in case you didn't know) which are paired with the ICH6 Southbridge. These are the update of the 865/875 + ICH5. They add chipset based support (meaning the MB maker still has to build it in to the board) for DDR2, PCI Express, 2nd gen SATA, High Def audio, Matrix RAID, and a few other advancements that (also) haven't yet caught on. There are a couple cool things like Gigabit LAN and Wireless... but those are on most MBs these days anyway. I've also read that the ICH6 drops one of the IDE channels in support for 4 SATA devices. that seems kinda stupid to me.

Basically what I am saying is that the 915 is a bit unnecessary at this point in time. Intel came out with a chipset that does all kinds of cool things that no one is doing yet, and 9 months later still no one is doing. Plus they haven't been able to push the clock speeds of their flagship CPUs more than a couple hundred MHz in all that time. Hmmm...

So what should you do? Well that is a good question. If I was building a PC I would build my exact PC (3.2GHz Socket 478 on MSI 865 Platinum board with a GigaRAM) but I would put in an X800 video card cuz I still dig on ATI and I don't understand why Nvidia cards are so much bigger. You can, btw, get socket T boards with 865 chips. MSI makes one called the 865PE-NEO3F which is pretty cheap (whoops only 1 IDE channel).

I am skeptical about how upgradeable this 915 Socket T platform is really going to be. It sounds lie Intel may just leave it as a lame duck. If you think that is the case than stick with Socket478. You'll save money and be assured of getting something that rocks. Even if it doesn't have all the bells and whistles.

That's what I got for ya right now.

I realize I don't know enough about what is going on in the world of AMD. Someone was asking me about building an AMD system the other day - so maybe I'll look into that some more. McNevin is the only one around rockin one these days I believe. It just seems the whole point of AMD is to be cheaper, and if they are not then why bother. But it may be time to take a look.

It all depends on how long they take to get the dual core chips out. The 900 series could last another year, (in full popularity,) or it could last a few months. If it is the main Intel platform for the next year, then it will be quite worth it to pick one up. I'm holding onto my current i875, 3.2, 1GB, 6800, system until dual core chips are released. The 900 chipsets aren't much faster at all than the i875, but they aren't bad, so if you want PCIX then they are the way to go. PCIX numbers video performance-wise aren't that impressive currently though. I'd agree and just spend less money on i875, 1GB, 3.4, and a 6800 of some variety, but only if you plan on upgrading in a year or so. If you really don't want to upgrade for a while, go 900 series, so you at least have support for PCIX for future vid-cards etc. The RAM is where I differ completely. DDR2 may be unnecessary, but I like fancy RAM. I'm running cheapy Kingston right now, and while it works pretty well, I'd much rather have Corsair Pro. (I like the LEDs on top.) May be a silly reason, but then, I'm a silly person. A more practical reason to get such RAM though, is that RAM is critical to overclocking. If I had a decent set of matched Corsair, I could run my CPU completely stable at 3.6. I can only run it at 3.2 with my current RAM. I bought one of the 30-cap Northwoods, that are rumored to be half-cache extreme editions that wouldn't run with the whole cache enabled. They OC extremely well, but my RAM is totally holding it back. I guess I could make better recommendations if I knew a bit more about what you want to do. If you want to overclock, I have one set of suggestions. If you want to go AMD, I have another. If you want rock-solid, stock-speed uber-stability, then I have yet another set of items I'd suggest. It also depends on how often you upgrade, or want to upgrade in the future.

I'm actually tetering on whether to recommend an AMD64FX 3500+, NForce4, 1GB PC3200, 6800GT. That would be a NICE system. The NForce4 is just about out if I'm not mistaken.

I want to build a new AMD64 system before I recommend one.

I agree with you about RAM in terms of overclocking. If you plan to OC than it is a good idea to go witht he expensive RAM. But if price is a bigger concern and you aren't into OCin (or flashing lights on your RAM ) - then I wouldn't bother.

Tom's extensive article on 865/875 vs. 915/925

I also want to add that the difference between the 865 and 875 boards is negligible. I did some research into this before my last MB purchase. Because of mb manufacturer's abilty to re-enable Intel's P.A.T. (Perf. Accel. Tech.) the only difference in chipsets is the 875's support for ECC RAM(which I promise you won't use). In other words, for all intents and purposes, consider the two the same chip.

Yes, they are the same, but i865s are i875s that didn't pass the yield tests, so they are binned lower. That's why I got i875. I don't even use PAT, I just like knowing mine passed all the initial tests. It really doesn't matter though at all. They're still fully tested to work either way.

Mr. Sparks: If you're heading down to Akihabara today, I might meet up with you; I need to pick up a fan. I'm heading to Ginza at some point early today, so I could meet you down there. Gimme a holla.

Soooo... I have been doing some research into teh world of teh AMD processor. I'll give you a little run down of what is going on.

The reason I have been doing this is partly out of curiosity and partly because a customer has been inquiring about me building him an AMD gaming box. I have also been talking to him about putting together a website for his little 13 year old amateur snowboarding son. So I decided to put together a little site that shows him some possible specs for a new PC and a quick design example. Let me know what you think:
http://enderzero.net/amdpc

AMD64 is all about Socket 939. Socket 754 was the single memory channel standard that had support from the shitty nForce3 150 and the better but not great nForce 3 250Gb. Then there was the Socket 940 that was the FX supporting standard that required triple the price Registered RAM. That is dead too. Now we have Socket 939 which supports dual memory channels, HyperTransport, and unbuffered RAM for the FX chips. The 939 chipset is the dominant nForce3 Ultra. But wait! nVidia isn't the only video card manufacturer making a 939 chipset. ATI has jumped into the chipset game with both feet by releasing the RX480 chipset (AKA Radeon Xpress 200P) for Socket 939 Athlon64s. However, be aware - ATI is fully pushing the PCI-Express standard. Say bye bye to AGP. It looks like ATI won't even be releasing an AGP version of their latest top dog, the XT850 Platinum, and therefore we have the RX480 as a PCI-E only solution.

BTW - Here is a good and quick Gamespot summary of what ATI is doing in the video card race over the next few months.

But in the meantime, if you haven't made the jump to a PCI-E video card yet, the nForce3 Ultra is the way to go, brought to you courtesy of the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum. It is a sweet rockin board and does everything from SATA RAID to having dual gigabit ethernet.

So what about the proc? AMD is all about the 90nm (that's 0.09 micron - didja notice we talk in terms of nms now?) process. They have been able to successfully make the shift from 130nm to 90nm without the huge heat problems that Intel has - maybe because Intel CPUs are barely competing with chips at almost 1/2 there clock speed! The 90nm A64 is the Winchester, only available in 939, and now available in the 1.8GHz 3000+, 2.0GHz 3200+, and 2.4GHz 3500+.

So AMD has always been the budget alternative to Intel. Every once in a while they pull ahead and produce faster chips. That seems to be the case now. But are you really saving any money?

AMD Athlon64 3000+ (WinC): $149
Intel P4 530 (3.0GHz): $179

AMD Athlon64 3200+ (WinC): $205
Intel P4 540 (3.2GHz): $219

AMD Athlon64 3500+ (WinC): $295
Intel P4 550 (3.4GHz): $282
Intel P4 560 (3.6GHz): $450

(Prices today on newegg. Note the 3500+ is out of stock and scheduled for delivery on 12/10)

Not bad. Not amazing savings, but considering that the 3500+ (w/ nForce3 Ultra) consistently beats the Intel 560 (w/ 925X) in both theoretical and gaming benchmarks (and down the line with lower clock speeds), you would be crazy to buy a 560 at those prices right now.

Overclockers will love the Winchester chips. According to AnandTech the new 3000+ can be pretty easily OC'ed to 2.6GHz where it consistently beats the scores of the 130nm FX-53 super CPU. At a price of $149 versus the 939 FX-53's $811 - those kind of results put ideas into my head. Note: the FX-55 (2.6GHz, 130nm) is out now, but priced at $879, does anybody really care?

Here is another article at UK's hexus.net about OC'in the 3000+.

My overall impression is that AMD is in the driver seat right now. They are making better performing, cooler running, less expensive chips than Intel, hands down. And they are doing it at a fraction of the clock speed, which if nothing else is a sign that Intel has made mistakes somewhere along the line. Intel seems to be all over the place. How many times have you read about Intel making major changes to their roadmap in just the last year? Prescott is a fine chip, but it has no future and Intel has admitted that. But they don't seem to be able to say what will happen in the future. AMD on the other hand is running a tight ship. The Winchester is a great chip. They have a full plan for phasing out the Socket A and moving the bargain line to the Socket 754. With the Winchester you can buy a 939 CPU for $150 and there will be plenty of 130nm Newcastle (another Seattle are CPU ref?) CPUs for the 754 bargain hunter.

The Winchester CPU gets my full support. If I was building a PC today (ahem - j.me) I would definitely go with a Neo2 Platinum and Winchester. If you want to save some dough and like to tinker, it is hard to pass on the 3000+. If you don't mind spending a bit extra the 3500+ is the place to be. I'm not super into performance these days so I have no plans to try to sell my PC. But if the opportunity presented itself to make the leap, I think I would take it. Moving into the next 12 months AMD looks rock solid, especially if the Winchester can continue to climb in terms of clock speed. Intel better figure out something quick or they could be in a world of trouble.

I'd be inclined to avoid the ATI chipsets for another generation or so. I'm using their P4 chipsets right now, and while they aren't THAT bad, they aren't anywhere near as good as Intel and Nvidia chipsets. I'd place them on par with Via right now. Good, but not the best. I'd say their tech will mature and stabilize soon though. They're headed in the right direction.

I too would build a nice 939 based system if I was going to build a gaming system tomorrow. However, since I do an equal amount of audio work, I like knowing that my Intel system will NEVER hiccup on me. It's performing VERY nicely right now, and I have no stability issues with my timing critical audio software. I'm not ruling out AMD for audio, but I'm not willing to experiment with it yet. I have a feeling it would be just fine, but I'm happy until the dual-core cpus start showing up.

If PCI express is a concern I'd still recommend the Intel 900 series for now. Yes, the supported procs aren't quite as fast, but you know the chipset works 100%. I won't be doing a full upgrade until around the time that dual core chips come out, so we'll have to see who's performing the best at that time. If it's AMD, they may be my new platform for a while.

I agree. My system is rock solid right now. But I am impressed by Winchester none the less. And looking toward the next 12 months I can't see how Intel will compete.

I have been saying I would wait until BTX to upgrade. I have no reason to spend any money on an upgrade - but if one of those free upgrades came along I would opt for AMD.

I love those free upgrades. I'm affraid of my next upgrade, because I'll basically have to get everything new. There won't be anything left of my current PC. I haven't had to do that since the switch from P1 to P2. I've pretty gradually switched everything from P2 on. Some upgrades were nearly complete, but none of them were the 100% that I'll need next time around. Bleh....

Actually, since I used to upgrade every three months or so, I don't know if I can say "gradual" I rotated all the pieces out quick enough to have called a system completely new once a year or so I guess. (If one were to set the upgrade cycle to one year.)

That's what Mechtrons do I guess.

I bet my new 32 bit Athlon XP 3200+ will beat Ryland’s 3.2g Prescott.

If it ever gets here!