Curse

Mss Drizzt · Mar 29, 2005, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by czymann

Ha I got you all beat.
700 mhz p3
394 mb ram
64mb geforce2
souldblaster live
Nearly 4 years old and still a kickin.Of course new comp is in the near future.I've been waiting till prices and tech became a lil more stable.Getting the best out there and spending top dollar only to have new tech at better prices 5 months down the road doesn't appeal to me

Yea but going on that model you will never get a new one. EVERY 18 months computers have doubled in horse power and so have graphics.

Virtuoso · Mar 29, 2005, 03:16 PM // 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by czymann

I've been waiting till prices and tech became a lil more stable.Getting the best out there and spending top dollar only to have new tech at better prices 5 months down the road doesn't appeal to me

Good luck with that one. That's just the way technology works. Best thing to do is find the best deals you can right now. For example, I bought my AMD Barton 2500+ for like $80, and it outperforms most Pentium 4's that cost 3x as much.

If you wait for prices to drop there will be new hardware out soon and your stuff will no longer be "top of the line." If you buy brand new technology you are paying a huge premium to be "top of the line" for the next 6-12 months.

-Virt

spiritofcat · Mar 29, 2005, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Desktop:
AMD Athlon XP 3200+
Gigabyte GA-7VT600P-RZ Mobo
GeForce FX5700 256MB
512MB PC3200 DDR (400Mhz) RAM
2x Seagate 7200RPM 80GB SATA HDDs in Raid 0
Ectiva 5.1 Soundcard
2 speakers and a sub (all black)
Black 17" Philips 107E5 CRT
Black MS optical wheelmouse
Black keyboard
Black case
Black desk

Laptop:
Toshiba Satellite 1410
1.8GHz Celeron
GeForce 420 Go
256MB RAM
20GB HDD
14" LCD

I played the E3 preview on my laptop and it worked beautifully.
Pre-ordered today so soon I'll get to try it on my desktop beast!

iczer · Mar 29, 2005, 04:34 PM // 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtuoso

Not rich, just smart. If you would have built our own computer instead of buying a deal you'd probably have a better PC than most of us.

-Virt

True, my built pc cost me a total, for all components, of around $500 and from the benchmarks I ran against it, its performance is equal to a P4-3.4ghz

vas moon · Mar 29, 2005, 04:44 PM // 16:44

i agree building a pc is a great experience -- it will teach the person doing it a great deal about their machine.

the only disadvantage i see in building your own is that most consumer machines have a decent software package that can be expensive if purchased a la carte

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtuoso
I am really surprised by the number of Intel users in this post. I thought AMD had a much better market share than that, atleast amongst gamers. But then again, it does look like most of the people in this thread bought their PCs instead of building them, so that may explain it.

i had an amd system but i often leave the case open and my 3 year old thought it would be fun to pour soda pop on my mobo

and i agree amd rocks!

lol so now it is in the basement on the parts table ... in my free time i need to build a few more.

Striker Shardale · Mar 29, 2005, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Nice rigs. By the way X... very very nice rig.

Current rig:

-AMD Athlon 64 2200+
-GeForce FX 5900
-120GB HDD, 60GB HDD
-one stick of 512 DDR, and a stick of 256 DDR....do not feel like doing math right now
-8x DVD-ROM
-52x24x52x CD-RW
-Saitek Gamer Keyboard
-Logitech Special Edition Optical
-18' Samsung Flat-Screen

Currently working on a new rig.... got to love the SLI

Virtuoso · Mar 29, 2005, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Striker Shardale

-AMD Athlon 64 2200+

Typo?

Oh, and grats on the new SLI motherboard. What graphics cards are you going to get?

-Virt

Striker Shardale · Mar 29, 2005, 04:52 PM // 16:52

Sry if it is a typo, I just got done with my psychology class and I am sort of drained.

I plan on putting in two GeForce 6800 Ultras or GT... almost have enough money for it all. I am planning to put about 2,500 into the computer at first.... then possibly $50 more on crap so I can mod the case. Tis was I like to do on my spare time, that is when I have the money lol

CheopisIV · Mar 29, 2005, 05:07 PM // 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtuoso

I am really surprised by the number of Intel users in this post. I thought AMD had a much better market share than that, atleast amongst gamers. But then again, it does look like most of the people in this thread bought their PCs instead of building them, so that may explain it.

-Virt

Sorry Virt, but when I see the AMD moniker I just blanche. I stayed away from them because of their poor choice for marketing. When I see a proc at 2.2GHz being called a 3200+ in relation to its comparative performance to a P4, I read it as saying "almost P4 3200". They admit that the old naming scheme was based on this, comparing their processor to the Pentium....what I mean by this is, would you buy "Almost Pepsi" if you were looking for a drink? Or drive an "almost Ferrari?" I wouldn't. Of course this is just my opinion, not right not wrong, just right for me. I've never bought a PC, always built, and I agree that it costs about 1/3 the price to build rather than buy, and you get what you want.

Genosha · Mar 29, 2005, 05:29 PM // 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheopisIV

When I see a proc at 2.2GHz being called a 3200+ in relation to its comparative performance to a P4, I read it as saying "almost P4 3200". They admit that the old naming scheme was based on this, comparing their processor to the Pentium....what I mean by this is, would you buy "Almost Pepsi" if you were looking for a drink? Or drive an "almost Ferrari?" I wouldn't. Of course this is just my opinion, not right not wrong, just right for me. I've never bought a PC, always built, and I agree that it costs about 1/3 the price to build rather than buy, and you get what you want.

1 thing to think of is, if you want stabiliby go Pentium

, if you wanna over clock go AMD

, If you want a computer at all go there step-downs

.

Virtuoso · Mar 29, 2005, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheopisIV

Sorry Virt, but when I see the AMD moniker I just blanche. I stayed away from them because of their poor choice for marketing. When I see a proc at 2.2GHz being called a 3200+ in relation to its comparative performance to a P4, I read it as saying "almost P4 3200". They admit that the old naming scheme was based on this, comparing their processor to the Pentium....what I mean by this is, would you buy "Almost Pepsi" if you were looking for a drink? Or drive an "almost Ferrari?" I wouldn't. Of course this is just my opinion, not right not wrong, just right for me. I've never bought a PC, always built, and I agree that it costs about 1/3 the price to build rather than buy, and you get what you want.

It is really more of a technical reason than a marketing reason, and if they didn't use "3200+" and the like then they'd lose even more business to the uninformed masses. The reason why an AMD at 2.2GHz is labeled a 3200+ is because it is equivelent to a P4 3.4GHz. How is that possible, you ask? GHz is not a realible measure of how much work a processor can do. GHz is frequency, how often a chip goes through a "cycle".

Now, I am going to use some loose numbers and terms here, just to make things a little clearer. Let's say your P4 (Intel) is 5MHz, or goes through 5 cycles in a second, and thay my Athlon XP (AMD) is 2MHz, or goes through 2 cycles in a second. Now, any common person would tell you that the Intel is "faster" than the AMD. Here's why they're wrong. If your Intel can add 2+2 one (1) time per MHz (cycle), than it can do 5 2+2's (calculations) per second. But if my AMD can add 2+2 three (3) times per MHz (cycle), then it can do 6 2+2's (calculations) per second. Therefore, my AMD is "faster" than your Intel by 1 2+2 (calculation) per second with less than half the MHz. So, using AMDs naming scheme my made up AMD processor would be called a "0006+"

Please understand that I am not trying to belittle anyone with this post, I am just trying to explain it so everyone can understand it. If you have any questions about my post, please feel free to ask as I enjoy helping users make more informed decisions about their computers.

Did this clear anything up for anyone or am I a really crappy explainer?

-Virt

Striker Shardale · Mar 29, 2005, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Actually from my experience, Intel has been far less reliable than AMD. Every computer my parents got with a Pentium in it ended up lasting no more than 4 years...which seems like a long time but if you take away the time for having problems with them it was about half that time.

Our AMD based PCs on the other hand have been lasting us far longer...I am 19 and I made my PC when I was 17 and have yet had a problem with it. The only things I have had to change was the graphics card, because it was out of date and the processor because I wanted an AMD 64.

AMD is also perfect for overclocking, hopefully sometime I can get a freon cooling system and have some more fun with it.

Striker Shardale · Mar 29, 2005, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Virt, overall you are just crappy.

J00 JU57 G07 53RV3D!!!

Virtuoso · Mar 29, 2005, 05:48 PM // 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Striker Shardale

Virt, overall you are just crappy.

J00 JU57 G07 53RV3D!!!

tee hee hee

-Virt

Striker Shardale · Mar 29, 2005, 05:51 PM // 17:51

But hey, don't take my word for it.

::Music from Reading Rainbow plays in the background::

~< Striker >~

Loviatar · Mar 29, 2005, 06:04 PM // 18:04

if you were reading the articles when the (+) started AMD was very explicit that they were refering to a performance comparison to an earlier AMD chip not intel pentium

NEXT

MAXIMUM PC magazine in a recent issue beat the blazes out of intels latest extreme edition matched against AMD best chip and the benchmarks showed AMD the clear winner in spite of lagging in speed by more than a gigahertz so if the (+) means almost a pentium you might compare pentium to NEW COKE

NEXT

back on topic

BEAT THIS

packard bell

dx2-66 mhz

8 megabytes ram

1 megabyte video ram onboard

570 megabyte hard drive

pb integrated sound

3.20 spealers (3 dollar and 20 cents)

2x read only cd

Perishiko ReLLiK · Mar 29, 2005, 06:29 PM // 18:29

(I'm not very "computer literate", don't remember how to find specifics)

Well, my computer was meant to be a simple desktop computer used for documents and work... boring crap.

So, i stepped it up a little notch.

Gave it the most i could, adding the GeForce FX 5200 (best memory card it could handle accoarding to the store guy)

Also, i gave it an upgrade in ram... up to 511 (even tho i thought 512 was the standard.)
All its slots are filled... im running with a cable connection, and a low end pentium 3 proccessor.

It normaly has room for just one game on it at a time... unless it's a really old game, so i have to unistall / install (which i don't think is good for the poor thing)

I still run things fine on this game, every once in a while I'll get a "lag spike" as i call it, in which everything goes insane and it nearly freezes up. Good thing that doesnt happen often... It happened more last event, but this one, it happened just once.

NiteX · Mar 29, 2005, 08:33 PM // 20:33

AMD-64 3400+
X800 Pro
1 GB DDR

CheopisIV · Mar 29, 2005, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

NEXT

back on topic

BEAT THIS

packard bell

dx2-66 mhz

8 megabytes ram

1 megabyte video ram onboard

570 megabyte hard drive

pb integrated sound

3.20 spealers (3 dollar and 20 cents)

2x read only cd

Actual PC to run my parent's print shop in the mid 90's;

486/DX2 50
8MB Ram (originally 4MB, upgraded for $2400 to run business apps)
some form of integrated graphics...still unsure
SB 16 compatible sound (Nice!!)
260MB HDD, no matter, we had a parallel Iomega Zip 100 drive (now sitting in my closet)
State of the art 3.5" floppy
5.25" standard
CD?!? Whats a CD?

When you think about though, absolutely nothing compares to the old Radio Shack TRS-80 and its optional tape drive!!

Lansing Kai Don · Mar 29, 2005, 09:24 PM // 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mss Drizzt

Yea but going on that model you will never get a new one. EVERY 18 months computers have doubled in horse power and so have graphics.

Not anymore, they've run into a block. They just can't get it any smaller (which is what increases the speed) w/o running into serious heat issues. Their still improving but why do you think they jumped to 64 bit processors, their hoping having everything run in parallel will boost performance (which it does to a point... e.g. parallel cables were fast till a serial bus cable came along called USB that now operates at 480Mbps).

Oh, and I am running the following right now as my main gaming machine (I have 2 others and a laptop that friends play on) and a rack server with a drive tray for storage... old though don't use it except when fiddling.

XP 3200+
ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe
2x512MB Dual Channel DDR PC3200
128MB Radeon 9800 Pro
2x200GB SATA Seagate Barracuda Drives in RAID 0
Old CD-RW and old CD-ROM

I just have to put in a word for the Zalman heatsink/fans... they run quiet and do an excellent job cooling.

Lansing Kai Don