Hello,

The last time I have built a PC was all the way back in last century, 1997
to be exact, and after a short and very brief surfing on the web, I have
come to realize there had been soooo much change in the PC industry since
then, which actually wasn't that much of surprise. I am just overwhelmed.

Anyway, the fastest PC in my house is PII 266. Believe or not, this guy is
still good enough for the most of the stuff I do (I don't play games that
much, in other words). However, recently I've been running quite a few MPEG
encoding jobs. I collect animations and after downloading AVI files, I need
to convert (encode) them to MPG so that I can put them on CD (Video CD).
So, I thought now maybe I can use a little bit faster computer.

I'm not trying to get a super duper mega power PC. As a matter of fact, I
would like to spend less than $200 for CPU and Mainboard (and possibly case
and memories if I must get new ones for the new CPU and Mainboard). I know
some people will consider it as a total waste of money - spending any money
to build such a sub par system. However, I am quite certain this $200 (or
less) system will outperform my current computer by a huge margin, and
that's all I want.

The probelm is that there are so many different types of CPU's; Xeon,
Opteron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Duron, Pentium 4, Pentium III,
Pentium II Xeon, Celeron...... And I have no idea which one's right for me.
So, which CPU and mainboard should I get? Also, would there be a web site
that explains what all these CPU types and models are and nicely compare
them?


Thank you very much.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:03:26 -0500, "_Jung" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>The last time I have built a PC was all the way back in last century, 1997
>to be exact, and after a short and very brief surfing on the web, I have
>come to realize there had been soooo much change in the PC industry since
>then, which actually wasn't that much of surprise. I am just overwhelmed.
>
>Anyway, the fastest PC in my house is PII 266. Believe or not, this guy is
>still good enough for the most of the stuff I do (I don't play games that
>much, in other words). However, recently I've been running quite a few MPEG
>encoding jobs. I collect animations and after downloading AVI files, I need
>to convert (encode) them to MPG so that I can put them on CD (Video CD).
>So, I thought now maybe I can use a little bit faster computer.
>
>I'm not trying to get a super duper mega power PC.

You will in fact get a "super duper mega power PC" for insignificantly
more money than the very bottom stuff. Some Duron/Celeron (budget)
solutions can make use of PC133 memory, but since you need new RAM
anyway, and PC2100, PC2700 isn't more expensive, get a 'fullsize' CPU.


You can get something like this:

Athlon XP 1700+ T-bred $42
(Without cooler)

Shuttle AK38N KT333 (VIA KT333) $47

Samsung DDR333 PC2700 CAS 2.5 256MB $44

You might need a new case/PSU, ATX format? And I think you need a new
OS, unless you can find all the correct patches for your W95? If you
have W98, try install it and then immediatly go to Windows Update,
before installing mobo drivers, and install all system stuff. Might
work. I don't know.

> As a matter of fact, I
>would like to spend less than $200 for CPU and Mainboard (and possibly case
>and memories if I must get new ones for the new CPU and Mainboard).

> I know
>some people will consider it as a total waste of money - spending any money
>to build such a sub par system.

- NOT AT ALL! - It won't be a sub par system. And on the contrary, I
consider spending money at the cutting edge, $650 for 3.2GHz P4, cpu
alone, a 'not-usefully-more-powerful-cpu' "as a total waste of money".

> However, I am quite certain this $200 (or
>less) system will outperform my current computer by a huge margin, and
>that's all I want.
>
>The probelm is that there are so many different types of CPU's; Xeon,
>Opteron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Duron, Pentium 4, Pentium III,
>Pentium II Xeon, Celeron...... And I have no idea which one's right for me.
>So, which CPU and mainboard should I get? Also, would there be a web site
>that explains what all these CPU types and models are and nicely compare
>them?

Simple: Intel P4 and AMD Athlon XP are the two 'fullsize' desktop
cpus. Everything else is either castrated budget versions, server
cpus, or obsolete.

Xeon: Intels 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore!

Opteron: AMDs 64-bit server cpu. - Ignore!

Athlon: Obsolete, spare part at prices as high as much better cpu's. -
Ignore! Consider very good deals on secondhand T-bird (Thunderbird),
socket mounted 800MHz upwards.

************
Athlon XP: - This is the one you want!
Supports SSE. Comes in three generations. Palomino. T-bred
(Thoroughbred), same but smaller chip uses less power. Barton, same as
T-bred but bigger level 2 cache.

The Athlon XP is very efficient per clock, so AMD are not using
clockspeed to rate them, as that would make a poor impression against
Intels high, but impotent, clockspeeds.

An Athlon XP is performance rated with a number that isn't its
clockspeed. The number corresponds well to theoretic MHz of a PIIIe,
of similar performance, except for floating point math, where the
Athlon is 40% faster. It's more difficult to correlate against the P4,
since the P4's performance is so erratic. P4s are generally less
efficient (per clock) than PIIIs, but have SSE2 instructions that they
use with very good effect on some apps. Athlon XP rating and P4 MHz
correlates well on games, where the P4's low efficiency and SSE2
advantage cancels each other. On oldfashioned apps, the Athlon has a
solid advantage, while the P4 is better on newer media apps and some
other SSE2 apps.
************

Athlon MP: AMDs 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore!

Athlon64 : Future 64-bit '86 cpu. Supports SSE2. Launched soon now...
Outside your budget. -Ignore!

Duron: Semiobsolete budget cpu. Kicks Celerons ass, but you get a real
Athlon XP for the same kind of money.

Duron pro: Don't know anything about it. I guess it's a new Duron
based on the Athlon XP core rather than the old Athlon core. Could be
just a 're-marketing' trick to avoid MHz comparisions with the
Celeron-P4, though.

Pentium 4: Poor value if you're on a budget. Supports SSE2. Cheap P4s
are more expensive and slower than cheap Athlon XPs. Easier to build
though. And the 2.4GHz P4C 800FSB-HT at less than $200 isn't too
shabby. P4s are nice if you intend to spend $180-$700 on the cpu
alone. Otherwise, forget it. And it's the 800FSB variants you want.
(I'm kinda keen to try the 2.8GHz800FSB, which I believe is fast and
affordable, but I already have an old slow 2.4GHz and a XP3000+, so I
think I'm gonna wait for the Athlon64.)

Pentium III: Nice, but obsolete spare part. Spare part prices.
Consider very good deals on second hand 600-1000MHz, though.
Supports SSE.

Pentium II Xeon: Original Xeon. Longlifed, brilliant, in its time, but
now obsolete 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore!

Celeron: Obsolete budget version of the PII. - Ignore!

Celeron Tualatin: Nice, but discontinued budget cpu, contemporary of
late PIIIs and early P4s. Doesn't support SSE2, but otherwise as fast
as later P4-Celeron, despite much lower clockspeed.

Celeron P4: Poor value "budget" cpu from Intel. Cheaper Athlon XPs
shits all over it! Main reason for its existance is that Intel have
figured out that the world is full of fools that buy MHz instead of
performance.


ancra

Wow... what a comprehensive response. I really really appreciated it.

So, I guess I will spend about $150 on CPU, mainboard, and memory. On top
of that it looks like I will have to spend a little more on the case/PSU.
My current PC is in an ATX case, but I didn't like it that much because it's
kinda too big anyway. It probably will put me above the original $200
budget a little bit, but I think that's still very reasonable. Thank you
very much!!

One more question;

Now that you mentioned a new OS, do you mean Win 9X won't be able to take
advantage of the full power of new hardware? Or, did you mean worse - Win
9x won't even run on a new machine??? I am running Win 98 on my old PC. I
haven't upgraded to new versions because I never felt a need. Maybe, I
actually got "a reason" to upgrade now!

I know Win 2K is NT and Win XP is 9X family. There have been a few
compatibility issues between NT and 9X, especially playing games and stuff.
Is it still true with Win 2K and Win XP?



"Ancra" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:03:26 -0500, "_Jung" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >The last time I have built a PC was all the way back in last century,
1997
> >to be exact, and after a short and very brief surfing on the web, I have
> >come to realize there had been soooo much change in the PC industry since
> >then, which actually wasn't that much of surprise. I am just
overwhelmed.
> >
> >Anyway, the fastest PC in my house is PII 266. Believe or not, this guy
is
> >still good enough for the most of the stuff I do (I don't play games that
> >much, in other words). However, recently I've been running quite a few
MPEG
> >encoding jobs. I collect animations and after downloading AVI files, I
need
> >to convert (encode) them to MPG so that I can put them on CD (Video CD).
> >So, I thought now maybe I can use a little bit faster computer.
> >
> >I'm not trying to get a super duper mega power PC.
>
> You will in fact get a "super duper mega power PC" for insignificantly
> more money than the very bottom stuff. Some Duron/Celeron (budget)
> solutions can make use of PC133 memory, but since you need new RAM
> anyway, and PC2100, PC2700 isn't more expensive, get a 'fullsize' CPU.
>
>
> You can get something like this:
>
> Athlon XP 1700+ T-bred $42
> (Without cooler)
>
> Shuttle AK38N KT333 (VIA KT333) $47
>
> Samsung DDR333 PC2700 CAS 2.5 256MB $44
>
> You might need a new case/PSU, ATX format? And I think you need a new
> OS, unless you can find all the correct patches for your W95? If you
> have W98, try install it and then immediatly go to Windows Update,
> before installing mobo drivers, and install all system stuff. Might
> work. I don't know.
>
> > As a matter of fact, I
> >would like to spend less than $200 for CPU and Mainboard (and possibly
case
> >and memories if I must get new ones for the new CPU and Mainboard).
>
> > I know
> >some people will consider it as a total waste of money - spending any
money
> >to build such a sub par system.
>
> - NOT AT ALL! - It won't be a sub par system. And on the contrary, I
> consider spending money at the cutting edge, $650 for 3.2GHz P4, cpu
> alone, a 'not-usefully-more-powerful-cpu' "as a total waste of money".
>
> > However, I am quite certain this $200 (or
> >less) system will outperform my current computer by a huge margin, and
> >that's all I want.
> >
> >The probelm is that there are so many different types of CPU's; Xeon,
> >Opteron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Duron, Pentium 4, Pentium III,
> >Pentium II Xeon, Celeron...... And I have no idea which one's right for
me.
> >So, which CPU and mainboard should I get? Also, would there be a web
site
> >that explains what all these CPU types and models are and nicely compare
> >them?
>
> Simple: Intel P4 and AMD Athlon XP are the two 'fullsize' desktop
> cpus. Everything else is either castrated budget versions, server
> cpus, or obsolete.
>
> Xeon: Intels 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore!
>
> Opteron: AMDs 64-bit server cpu. - Ignore!
>
> Athlon: Obsolete, spare part at prices as high as much better cpu's. -
> Ignore! Consider very good deals on secondhand T-bird (Thunderbird),
> socket mounted 800MHz upwards.
>
> ************
> Athlon XP: - This is the one you want!
> Supports SSE. Comes in three generations. Palomino. T-bred
> (Thoroughbred), same but smaller chip uses less power. Barton, same as
> T-bred but bigger level 2 cache.
>
> The Athlon XP is very efficient per clock, so AMD are not using
> clockspeed to rate them, as that would make a poor impression against
> Intels high, but impotent, clockspeeds.
>
> An Athlon XP is performance rated with a number that isn't its
> clockspeed. The number corresponds well to theoretic MHz of a PIIIe,
> of similar performance, except for floating point math, where the
> Athlon is 40% faster. It's more difficult to correlate against the P4,
> since the P4's performance is so erratic. P4s are generally less
> efficient (per clock) than PIIIs, but have SSE2 instructions that they
> use with very good effect on some apps. Athlon XP rating and P4 MHz
> correlates well on games, where the P4's low efficiency and SSE2
> advantage cancels each other. On oldfashioned apps, the Athlon has a
> solid advantage, while the P4 is better on newer media apps and some
> other SSE2 apps.
> ************
>
> Athlon MP: AMDs 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore!
>
> Athlon64 : Future 64-bit '86 cpu. Supports SSE2. Launched soon now...
> Outside your budget. -Ignore!
>
> Duron: Semiobsolete budget cpu. Kicks Celerons ass, but you get a real
> Athlon XP for the same kind of money.
>
> Duron pro: Don't know anything about it. I guess it's a new Duron
> based on the Athlon XP core rather than the old Athlon core. Could be
> just a 're-marketing' trick to avoid MHz comparisions with the
> Celeron-P4, though.
>
> Pentium 4: Poor value if you're on a budget. Supports SSE2. Cheap P4s
> are more expensive and slower than cheap Athlon XPs. Easier to build
> though. And the 2.4GHz P4C 800FSB-HT at less than $200 isn't too
> shabby. P4s are nice if you intend to spend $180-$700 on the cpu
> alone. Otherwise, forget it. And it's the 800FSB variants you want.
> (I'm kinda keen to try the 2.8GHz800FSB, which I believe is fast and
> affordable, but I already have an old slow 2.4GHz and a XP3000+, so I
> think I'm gonna wait for the Athlon64.)
>
> Pentium III: Nice, but obsolete spare part. Spare part prices.
> Consider very good deals on second hand 600-1000MHz, though.
> Supports SSE.
>
> Pentium II Xeon: Original Xeon. Longlifed, brilliant, in its time, but
> now obsolete 32-bit server cpu. - Ignore!
>
> Celeron: Obsolete budget version of the PII. - Ignore!
>
> Celeron Tualatin: Nice, but discontinued budget cpu, contemporary of
> late PIIIs and early P4s. Doesn't support SSE2, but otherwise as fast
> as later P4-Celeron, despite much lower clockspeed.
>
> Celeron P4: Poor value "budget" cpu from Intel. Cheaper Athlon XPs
> shits all over it! Main reason for its existance is that Intel have
> figured out that the world is full of fools that buy MHz instead of
> performance.
>
>
> ancra

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then took
quill in hand and carefully composed...

| I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too big"!

A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is!

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

Hey Larc!

I looked again to see where Jung said he had a 28" High case and could not
find it.

Just what is the height of his present ATX case?


"Larc" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then
took
> quill in hand and carefully composed...
>
> | I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too big"!
>
> A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is!
>
> Larc
>
>
>
> §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:47:27 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then took
quill in hand and carefully composed...

| I looked again to see where Jung said he had a 28" High case and could not
| find it.
|
| Just what is the height of his present ATX case?
|
|
| "Larc" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
| news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then
| took
| > quill in hand and carefully composed...
| >
| > | I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too big"!
| >
| > A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is!

Hi Alvin,

I was just having a little fun commenting in general. The compartment in my
computer desk happens to be 22" high, so the only way I could get a 28" tower in
would be to knock the bottom of the compartment out. Anyway, my case is just a
bit over 17", so I have room to spare. :-)

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

thanks Larc for explanation.


"Larc" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:47:27 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly, then
took
> quill in hand and carefully composed...
>
> | I looked again to see where Jung said he had a 28" High case and could
not
> | find it.
> |
> | Just what is the height of his present ATX case?
> |
> |
> | "Larc" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> | news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> | > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:37:03 -0400, alvin york pondered exceedingly,
then
> | took
> | > quill in hand and carefully composed...
> | >
> | > | I didn't think there was any such thing as a case that was "too
big"!
> | >
> | > A 28" tower for a 22" high compartment definitely is!
>
> Hi Alvin,
>
> I was just having a little fun commenting in general. The compartment in
my
> computer desk happens to be 22" high, so the only way I could get a 28"
tower in
> would be to knock the bottom of the compartment out. Anyway, my case is
just a
> bit over 17", so I have room to spare. :-)
>
> Larc
>
>
>
> §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:34:58 -0500, "_Jung" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Wow... what a comprehensive response. I really really appreciated it.
>
>So, I guess I will spend about $150 on CPU, mainboard, and memory. On top
>of that it looks like I will have to spend a little more on the case/PSU.
>My current PC is in an ATX case, but I didn't like it that much because it's
>kinda too big anyway. It probably will put me above the original $200
>budget a little bit, but I think that's still very reasonable. Thank you
>very much!!

Keep the case! Big is good.

>One more question;
>
>Now that you mentioned a new OS, do you mean Win 9X won't be able to take
>advantage of the full power of new hardware? Or, did you mean worse - Win
>9x won't even run on a new machine??? I am running Win 98 on my old PC. I
>haven't upgraded to new versions because I never felt a need. Maybe, I
>actually got "a reason" to upgrade now!

I'm fairly sure there's some documents and websites that describe how
to patch and run W95 on a modern machine. I seem to remember things
like that, flashing by occasionally.

W98 is more promising. W98SE, should be few problems. You will need to
'update' it though.

There's tons of new stuff, since your 266, needing support. 3Dnow,
SSE, USB... Then there's a few timing things as well. On W98 it's only
some timing with HDs and disccaches, but on W95 there might be some
cpu thing too.

The cpu also needs to be set up with its cache arrangement and the RAM
to do caching right. There's also differences in registers that
require different shedulers. Libs supporting extended instructionsets,
etc...
OSes have some sort of hierarchical identification of the cpu. Like,
'it's at least this' and 'it's even this' and so on... But obviously
it's better if it succeeds in identifying the cpu exactly. This it can
only do if the CPU's specs existed at the time the install CD went to
print, or if the OS is patched. It can go completely wrong, if it for
some reason misidentifies it as something it isn't. I've never heard
of Windows doing anything like that though. But it seems to happen to
other OSes.

>I know Win 2K is NT and Win XP is 9X family.

No, wrong on both accounts.

Win9X = 95, 95OSR, 98, 98SE, ME, are built on the 'Chicago'
technology. IMO, very nice. Prior to ME, they were extremely
backwardscompatible. Uses FAT16 and FAT32 filesystems.
9X are single cpu and strictly '386-class cpu OS.

NT are built on the 'Cairo' tech and completely different. Only
backwards compatible with original 8086 DOS and 'clean' Win16 apps
that only use the API and no own devices. NT protects itself a little
better against ****ups. Has a 'theoretically' 'better'
memoryprotection and a safer filesystem NTFS, that has the concept of
filesecurity.
NT's design is also built up from a 'microkernel' to allow it to be
ported to other cpus (and indeed it was ported to DEC's Alpha). And to
support multiple cpus.

W2000 is a new rewrite. A new "modern" secure OS, that is supposedly
better built than NT. The bastard that lead the project is obsessed
with corrupting all existing non-MS standards (to make them MS-only)
and 'charging' extra for everything, so W2000 goes some way to provide
for both.

XP again, is another new OS. It has inherited much of W2000's kernel
though, but has a new hardware interface and a new shell. XP is faster
on hardware than W2000 and NT, and thus better for media and games.
It also includes a new sinister hegemonia technology called "dot net".
XP can use both FAT32 and NTFS, but trust me, - use only one, and use
NTFS.

> There have been a few
>compatibility issues between NT and 9X, especially playing games and stuff.
>Is it still true with Win 2K and Win XP?

Today, XP is (considering the start) remarkably compatible. You have
to tinker a bit and everything won't ever work, but I'm amazed.
XP can run a Windows app (that won't immediatly work in XP) in
something called compatibility mode, four different, 95, 98, NT4,
W2000. Works some of the time.
But with some extra 3'rd party utilities, even more is possible. VDMS
and GLIDOS allows you to run some old non-DirectX DOS games as well.
Like 'Tombraider'. VDMS intercepts DOS-SB16 sound and redirects it to
Windows sound device. GLIDOS captures old DOS Voodoo '3dfx'
3D-commands and redirects them to Windows OpenGL device. It actually
works.
Microsofts Sidewinder game hardware (W98) also works flawlessly with
XP. (that info is not readily available though!).

Forget W2000. A good deal newer stuff works, but there's very little
interest or work in making it compatible. ...And keep one old 95/98
PC.


ancra