dhwilkin, that just seems somewhat overpriced to me.

I went to www.alienware.com and configured an awsome pc for less than that (200GB RAID setup, custom cooling setup, ect. $2364 w/o monitor). Most of that price saved is because of the monitor but you can normaly get a better price localy because of what it costs to ship even a TFT monitor.

Just remmeber some of these "gaming" pc makers actualy make great pcs for good prices, that is as long as you stay away from their $5,000+ top of the line models (that's $5,000+ WITHOUT MONITOR, wow)

cheack out alienware and www.falcon-nw.com and check out their prices on sane pcs, and have some fun looking at what you could never afford.

Well in that case, wait for QDR memory.

AMD, Intel, don't matter, both are good.

QDR memory? Another option?

I might even stick with my current 17" CRT monitor to save even more money towards the PC. Don't need a mouse as I can use the current one and the keyboard too. But If I am getting it from Dell, it'll bound to come with all that. Even a monitor.

Quote:



After configuring one of the Alienware machines to have the same parts & options as the Micron one (w/o the monitor, but w/ the cooling solution and RAID), it came out to about $2670. So add in the cost of a 17" LCD to the Alienware, and the cost of RAID and the cooling solution to the Micron, and I bet the prices would be about the same. Add in the price of a really good 17" LCD, and I bet the Micron would be a few hundred cheaper. So I don't think either one is necessarily a better deal right off the bat than the other. My main point was that you don't have to settle for a P4 machine if you buy from a vendor.

Oh, and QDR memory is still a ways off from the market, don't worry about it for now. If it happens to be out by the time you get a PC, then it would be the memory of choice, since it's basically a DDR module that can both transmit and receive data simultaneously, while DDR (and other memory) can only do one at a time.

What's RAID? My current computer has 3 fans in it already, P3, PSU & TNT2 Ultra. And it sounded like a vacuum machine a few months ago to the point I had to install a new one (not by me).

I don't need any software as I can use everything I have now, the only software is Win200 as I've been told it's the most stable one, XP needs too much RAM to run and not as stable as 2000 apparently.

RAID FAQ

Cooling setups can be noisy or quiet, it depends on the setup. No idea about Alienware's setup. And as for getting extra software you don't need, well that's one of the prices you pay for buying from a vendor.

Quote:



I dont wanna start an argument but its true, given alot of random accesses which the data isnt in the ram and needs to be loaded. This takes longer than sdram if I recall correctly. Reads are faster than sdram but writes arent from what I remember. I guess this would explain the small improvement over sdram in real world apps a little and how an optimised app (for ddr) is way way faster on ddr than on sdr mem.

Quote:



Anyway back to the question at hand

1) The difference between sdram and ddram is growing bigger and bigger but not really that much. If sdram is much cheaper than ddr I would go with sdram but if its not much of a difference, get ddr since its "better" and is proven to be better in most apps.
The main cause for this is "they" put ddr which is great tech into mobo's that dont really support its bandwidth to its full potential. When this happens, ddr would be ALOT faster than sdr mem. At the moment price would be the driving factor on whether to go with sdr or ddr mem.

2) P4 seriously I wouldnt go with P4 unless you are doing alot of streaming media editing stuff...so AMD is a much better way to go.
Dual cpu's arent that much useful unless you have got apps that make use of it. Photoshop is one but do you want to pay a premium for the extra cpu and mobo If you are...look at a dual duron combo for the price.

3) When "they" mention 256kb Cache they really do mean L2 cache since L2 is usually bigger than the L1 cache so it looks better when they advertise a particular cpu.
Speaking of which the AMD XP chip has 128K L1 cache & 256k L2 cache.

4) 15" TFT monitor should have sightly less viewable area as a 17" crt since most 17" crts are about 16" viewable. A 19" sony tube mon would do nicely here

Oh some things to think about. Make sure you have atleast 512 megs of ram for what you are doing. Get a stable OS such as nt/2k.

Get a good vid card, min ddr geforce256

If what you are doing is important, I would highly recommend not going with the RAID implemented in mass production mobo's...its a half done job of real RAID but if what you are doing is normal and you do backups and want the extra speed, then RAID is good.

If you are going with AMD you comp will most probably make alot of noise...coz of the fan on the big ass cooler unless you go watercooling or some other exotic means of cooling.

If you decide to go AMD, I here to help out
My AMD comp hasnt given me much trouble since the patches and stuff...

I've got an a7v133 mobo. (I know its dated but stable)

An A7v133 dated? Uh, no. I use an Aopen AX59BC Pro Gold. It uses the BX chipset. You want stable? This is as stable as they get .

If you get a P4, don't get it with SDRAM, because it will perform a lot worse. If you get a P4, get a Northwood, it will actually be upgradable.

I would reccomend an Athlon over a P4 however, specifically on an nForce motherboard, the onboard sound is quite good, and the onboard video is also quite good for light gaming (It is a Geforce2MX), also integrated LAN, modem, etc, and the boards still tend to have 1AGP/4-5PCI slots so they are moderately expandable.

It will be much cheaper if you learn how to build your own. Much cheaper.

The thing is, if there is a problem, it is probably your fault. So if you don't feel comfortable investing some time in how to learn how to build a PC, then don't build one.


A properly setup 17" CRT will have a slightly larger viewable then a 15" LCD. The LCD will be better suited towards text work, whereas the CRT will have more vibrant colors, a better viewing angle, and also take up more space, use more power, and as a result warm your room more. 17"+ LCDs can get expensive fast. I think a 19" CRT is the best price/size/performance point.

Samsung makes excellent monitors for the price. Best Buy is selling the 753DF for $130 after a $50 rebate. It is a very good 17" monitor that will do 1024x768@85Hz, 1280x960@60Hz so it isn't for the high res user (Where the 700NF would be a lot better, it does 1600x1200@75Hz). For a cheap 19" monitor, the Samsung 955DF runs around $250 and it will do 1280x960@85Hz and 1600x1200@65Hz, it has about equivalent image quality to the 753DF but with slightly better resolution/refresh capabilites and of course is larger. For a nice 19" I got my 900NF for $400 or so shipped, it does 1600x1200@85hz and is very usable there, and I can even stand 2048x1536 quality wise, but the 65Hz refresh rate there isn't very good for me, I get headaches. Sony makes nice but overpriced monitors. So, as a general rule of thumb, some of the nicest monitors in their class are the Samsungs, particularly the four I listed (And the 21" ones also)

How much are you looking at spending? If you want me to I can see how much computer I could build at that price .

Quote:



Hehe if you are talking BX..I still got my Abit BP6 runing dual celeries cooled with dual GW FEP32's. So kewl when it came out.

Suprisingly stable running dual condering it was a "prototype" hehe

Then it the celery (p2 core dual 400@600) got dated and replaced it with a p3 core celery(566@900) which beat the socks of it(1 cpu vs 2)

Quote:



Well, the BX chipset may be great for your purposes, but try getting the newest AGP graphics cards to work properly with any motherboard based on that nearly four-year-old chipset; most of the newest graphics boards require an AGP 2.0 compliant slot - and the AGP slot on BX-chipset-based motherboards is only AGP 1.0 compliant. And even worse, those newest graphics cards support only 1.5V AGP slot power-supply operation, and the AGP slot on BX-chipset-based motherboards (or on any other motherboard chipset that supports only AGP 2X operation, for that matter) supplies an overly high 3.3V to the newest graphics cards. That excess voltage supplied to most of the currently-produced AGP graphics cards (on AGP 2X-only motherboards) will at best significantly shorten the useful life of the graphics card, and at worst will fry your graphics card in a matter of minutes. So, if you're looking for a replacement AGP graphics card for your BX-chipset-based system, fuggittabout today's graphics cards - they won't last long on your system. And fast-forward to today, where today's latest games may recommend a 450MHz processor, but require a graphics card with one of the newest graphics chips... and the only graphics cards that will work properly with your BX-chipset-based system use graphics chips that are dated enough for those games to not run correctly - or at all.

Quote:



DUH!

Quote:



The nForce motherboards that are currently on the market still have a lot of bugs to work out; their overall performance so far has been very disappointing compared to that of most motherboards that use the VIA KT266A chipset - and that's when all that onboard crap on all of the Athlon motherboards that use the two chipsets have been turned off and with a separate AGP graphics card being used.

Quote:



I think Xevion meant this as humor to what I said about the a7v133 being stable which is only stable after you patched it the right way.

I recently replaced a 40GB 7200RPM Maxtor HD with another 40GB 7200RPM Maxtor HD. But the newer Maxtor HD is - surprisingly - what would have been the next-generation Quantum Fireball Plus (tentatively code-lettered AX?) HD had Maxtor not bought up Quantum. (I noticed that when the newer Maxtor drive says "Made in Japan" instead of "Made in Singapore".)

For the record, the model number of the older Maxtor drive is 54098H8 (which is an Ultra ATA/100 version of the Ultra ATA/66-based 54098U8); the newer Maxtor drive, 6L040J2 (Ultra ATA/133, backwards compatible with earlier ATA standards) - but with its sustained sequential transfer rate of about 42MB/s on the outer tracks and about 25MB/s on the inner tracks, it makes no sense putting the newer Maxtor drive on an old Ultra ATA/33 controller (I'd recommend at least an Ultra ATA/66 controller for that drive). The older drive can't sustain more than 30MB/s even on the outer tracks.

The access performance of the newer drive is waaaaaay better than the older drive, as well. Due to bugs in its firmware, with no free updates available whatsoever, the older Maxtor drive bench-tested at a whopping 18.6ms in access time (don't confuse access time with seek time). That's reaaaally sluggish even for a 5400RPM drive, let alone a 7200RPM drive like either of my 40GB Maxtors. And the Ultra ATA/66 version of that older Maxtor drive had an access time of 14.8ms, which is also mediocre performance for a 7200RPM drive. The newer Maxtor drive, by comparison, tested out at 12.7ms. (All drives were tested under Windows 98SE.)

What about Western Digital? Well, the ONLY 40GB/platter design from that company is the 120GB 7200RPM drive (WD1200BB); Maxtor's 40GB/platter 7200RPM offerings are available in four capacity points (20GB to 80GB, of which my 6L040J2 is one of them - and the Maxtor 7200RPM drives are available with "regular" bearings or "fluid" bearings, the "fluid"-bearing version of my newer drive is the 6L040L2). Sure, WD's design may sustain more MB/s on the outer tracks - but at the expense of access speed (about 15ms, vs. 12.7ms for the newer Maxtor). (I'm glad I bought that Maxtor instead of the 40GB 7200RPM WD; the latter is still a 20GB/platter design that's been marketed for over a year.)

I like the Quantum Fireball Plus lineup of IDE hard drives. My KA is much quicker access times than the latter. The merger is confusing. I prefer the quantum drives over the Maxtor counterparts.

However, I do want that Maxtor Personal Storage 3000XT. =P Archiving time...

Quote:




A lot of bugs? I've only heard about the Super Stability bug, which MSI promised to fix via a bios release... are there others?

Why would you say "their overall performance so far has been very disappointing compared to that of most motherboards that use the VIA KT266A chipset ", did you expect it to beat the KT266A?
If you did I understand your dissappointment, but don't forget that the nForce in fact is the second fastest AMD DDR chipset on the marked at this time... and it's not that much behind the KT266A.
The only thing that really has me worried about the nForce is the very small amount of available boards at this relatively late time...