Hi,

I'm building an AMD Athlon XP based system and I need some advise.
I want a very stable PC and I don't think about overclocking it.
The motherboard will be a MSI K7NF2 Delta-L (nForce2 Ultra 400 Chipset)
512MB RAM. GeForce FX 5200. 40MB HD.

Questions:

1. XP 2500+ (FSB 166MHz) or XP 2600+ (FSB 133MHz): wich one would give me
the best performance
2. Is the cooler that comes with the CPU enough?
3. Will DDR400 give me some performance gain over DDR333, since the FSB is
limited by the CPU?.
If it is so, do I've to stick with the MSI recommended memory manufaturer
(they're not available) or any DDR400 will do the job ok?
I plan to use 2x256 MB modules to take advantage of the Dual Channel DDR
of the nForce2 chipset.
4. The motherboard features 6 chanel audio but it's not Dolby Digital 5.1
compatible. What that it means?
How I get the six speakers outputs?

Thanks.
Bye.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:57:58 -0300, "Germán Schuager"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm building an AMD Athlon XP based system and I need some advise.
>I want a very stable PC and I don't think about overclocking it.
>The motherboard will be a MSI K7NF2 Delta-L (nForce2 Ultra 400 Chipset)
>512MB RAM. GeForce FX 5200. 40MB HD.
>
>Questions:
>
>1. XP 2500+ (FSB 166MHz) or XP 2600+ (FSB 133MHz): wich one would give me
>the best performance

That depends on the usage. For calculation-intensive work the XP2600
would be faster, but for more common tasks such as video editing or
gaming, the XP2500 would at least be it's equal. I would get the
XP2500.


>2. Is the cooler that comes with the CPU enough?

Enough to keep it cool, yes. Enough to do so quietly, with a fan
that's low RPM, quiet, no. If you want a quiet system buy a separate
cooler which uses a lower-RPM 80 or 92mm fan. There is no substitute
for the larger fan (and a copper bottom on the 'sink) when it comes to
noise reduction. One good alternative might be a Thermalright SK-7,
which is very reasonably priced but possibly sold-out, back in stock
soon, here: http://www.svcompucycle.com/thersk7socco.html
It doesn't come with a fan, but they also offer one of the best
performance/noise ratio fans available:
http://www.svcompucycle.com/80pa32fan1.html


>3. Will DDR400 give me some performance gain over DDR333, since the FSB is
>limited by the CPU?.

Only minimally, and only if you used the same low CAS spec'd part for
DDR333 as for DDR400. If you get the XP2500 with 166MHz FSB, run it
synchronously with DDR333 (PC2700) memory at CAS2, you'll have the
most stability and performance combination. Consider that nForce2 is
much pickier about memory than predecessor chpsets for Athlon, do a
bit of research on your exact board in some hardware forums (like
http://www.amdmb.com )


> If it is so, do I've to stick with the MSI recommended memory manufaturer
>(they're not available) or any DDR400 will do the job ok?

Sticking to the recommendation is "in theory" a good idea, but if you
want to populate all memory slots you'll need to verify that the
tested memory passed with all slots filled, not just two (and
hopefully not ever just one). Again, research the specific board to
see what other owners are having success with, there's a large
variation in memory prices at the PC3200 range.


> I plan to use 2x256 MB modules to take advantage of the Dual Channel DDR
>of the nForce2 chipset.
>4. The motherboard features 6 chanel audio but it's not Dolby Digital 5.1
>compatible. What that it means?
> How I get the six speakers outputs?


If it's not Dolby 5.1 why would you want 6 speakers? The motherboard
manual should be available for download, I would read it before making
the purchase if you plan on using the motherboard/system for a good
length of time.

Also, the FX5200 video card is questionable.. it's not very good for
gaming, actually significantly slower than older cards you "might"
find for similar price like a Geforce3. If you plan on doing any
gaming I recommend a better video card, at a minimum a Geforce 4
TI4200, FX5600, or Radeon 9500 Pro (if available else the 9600). If
you don't do any gaming then the FX5200 isn't needed at all, you might
as well get a Matrox G450 and have top-notch 2D, but if you will be
gaming you would find the FX5200 too slow for the most modern games,
let alone those released in the future.


Dave

> > 1. XP 2500+ (FSB 166MHz) or XP 2600+ (FSB 133MHz): wich one would
> give me
> > the best performance
>
> Obviously the 2600 will be faster. AMD's ratings aren't based on clock
> speed, but actual performance. An AMD 2600+ on a 66Mhz bus(if they
> made one) should be JUST as fast as an AMD 2600+ on a 300Mhz bus.

I was under the impression that the 2500+ performed better than the 2600 due
to double the onboard cache.

Steve

"Stephen Austin" <sa~spamkiller~(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bh6j0q$ive$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > 1. XP 2500+ (FSB 166MHz) or XP 2600+ (FSB 133MHz): wich one
would
> > give me
> > > the best performance
> >
> > Obviously the 2600 will be faster. AMD's ratings aren't based on
clock
> > speed, but actual performance. An AMD 2600+ on a 66Mhz bus(if they
> > made one) should be JUST as fast as an AMD 2600+ on a 300Mhz bus.
>
> I was under the impression that the 2500+ performed better than the
2600 due
> to double the onboard cache.

AMD rates the 2600 as 104% faster than the 2500. PERIOD. That's how
they get the number. If it isn't then AMD is just a bunch of ripoff
artists.

"Some One" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:_MAZa.696041$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Stephen Austin" <sa~spamkiller~(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bh6j0q$ive$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > 1. XP 2500+ (FSB 166MHz) or XP 2600+ (FSB 133MHz): wich one
> would
> > > give me
> > > > the best performance
> > >
> > > Obviously the 2600 will be faster. AMD's ratings aren't based on
> clock
> > > speed, but actual performance. An AMD 2600+ on a 66Mhz bus(if
they
> > > made one) should be JUST as fast as an AMD 2600+ on a 300Mhz
bus.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the 2500+ performed better than
the
> 2600 due
> > to double the onboard cache.
>
> AMD rates the 2600 as 104% faster than the 2500. PERIOD. That's how
> they get the number. If it isn't then AMD is just a bunch of ripoff
> artists.

***CORRECTION - 4% faster than a 2500....

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:44:46 GMT, "Some One" <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
wrote:


>> AMD rates the 2600 as 104% faster than the 2500. PERIOD. That's how
>> they get the number. If it isn't then AMD is just a bunch of ripoff
>> artists.
>
>***CORRECTION - 4% faster than a 2500....
>


Better, but it's not so clear-cut, we're talking about two CPU with
different FSB and memory bus speeds, and isn't one of them a Barton?
Big difference depending on task.


Dave

"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:44:46 GMT, "Some One" <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> AMD rates the 2600 as 104% faster than the 2500. PERIOD. That's
how
> >> they get the number. If it isn't then AMD is just a bunch of
ripoff
> >> artists.
> >
> >***CORRECTION - 4% faster than a 2500....
> >
>
>
> Better, but it's not so clear-cut, we're talking about two CPU with
> different FSB and memory bus speeds, and isn't one of them a Barton?
> Big difference depending on task.

So AMD's XP rating system doesn't work then?

Dave,
There are software that can't be run smothly with the FX5200?
A friend's computer, a P4 1.4 with a GeForce2 Pro can run every game I saw
very well; and the TI4200 cost U$S 60 more than the FX5200. I don't know if
it's worth it.
(I'm from Argentina, and here we're a long way behind the rest of world in
technology)

About the CPU, I think I will get the Barton 2500 and 2x256MB DDR333

Germán.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 02:26:54 GMT, "Some One" <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>
>"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:44:46 GMT, "Some One" <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> AMD rates the 2600 as 104% faster than the 2500. PERIOD. That's
>how
>> >> they get the number. If it isn't then AMD is just a bunch of
>ripoff
>> >> artists.
>> >
>> >***CORRECTION - 4% faster than a 2500....
>> >
>>
>>
>> Better, but it's not so clear-cut, we're talking about two CPU with
>> different FSB and memory bus speeds, and isn't one of them a Barton?
>> Big difference depending on task.
>
>So AMD's XP rating system doesn't work then?
>


Sure it does, taken as a whole, an average. Who expects their usage
to be _exactly_ average? Most often a (single) user has a very few
tasks needing full processing power, falling significantly outside the
average. A bit of benchmark hunting is in order if the buyer cares
enough to do so.


Dave

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:01:17 -0300, "Germán Schuager"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Dave,
>There are software that can't be run smothly with the FX5200?
>A friend's computer, a P4 1.4 with a GeForce2 Pro can run every game I saw
>very well; and the TI4200 cost U$S 60 more than the FX5200. I don't know if
>it's worth it.
>(I'm from Argentina, and here we're a long way behind the rest of world in
>technology)
>
>About the CPU, I think I will get the Barton 2500 and 2x256MB DDR333
>
>Germán.
>
>

If the Geforce2 Pro was running "every game" well, then they were all
older games. I don't know what is the best value in Argentina, but I
do know that the newer games here in the US won't run very well on an
FX5200. If the games available there are limited as the technology
is, then you may be seeing more older games. On the other hand,
eventually these newer games will be available there, so it's also a
question of how long you wish to use the card before it needs upgraded
again.

It would be easy for me to tell you to spend more money but since I
don't know what games you'll end up playing nor the finer points of
video card pricing or bargain-hunting in Argentina, I"m not in a
position to advise further. I don't know what card will have the
minimal level of performance to make it both enjoyable AND worth the
money. The FX5200 is targeted at budget systems and is not very fast
at gaming, but should be usable for many of them if you keep the
display resolution moderately low, like at 1024x768, and disable FSAA
and Ansiotropic Filtering and some of the details in games. If the
better cards are prohibitively expensive then perhaps it makes more
sense to buy the FX5200.

You might do an internet search to find benchmarks of FX5200 cards to
better compare to other video cards.


Dave