My last Intel based PC had a Slot 1 PIII 450mhz cpu on an Asus P2b mobo.
Across the years one reads bits and pieces and I remember, ages ago, reading
on the web that several chunks of Windows code, in Windows platforms are
coded to run more efficiently on Intel cpu/chipset based systems.
So AMD's answer, (because they're copyright barred from duplicating some
Intel cpu architecture etc.), is to say, "Mhz for mhz - our cpu's are
faster that Intel." ...work that one out !
I consider it all a load of crap !
I'm still using my gorgeous, stable, reliable and swift AMD Athlon 1.4ghz on
an Asus A7A266 / [256mb ddram 133mhz/266 fsb \ PC2100] and I still can't
keep up with it !!
.......so why am I tempted to upgrade it ? !!##!! ......why would I want to
sit for those hours and hours and hours of reinstalling and tweaking and
upgrading drivers and problem solving, and patching this and that until I
have a robust system like I've already got ???????
over the past few years I've been warming to Packard Bell, and Dell and
other major machines. I'm beginning to think it must be worth the extra 2
or 3 hundred quid, to get a machine where everything has already been
tweaked and problem solved !
regards, Richard
"John Lord" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:04e401c34ed6$781f7040$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I wouldn't even worry about the benchmark data. Not that
> there's anything wrong with Athlon or AMD, I'd personally
> go with Intel because I suspect they're in cahoots with
> Microsoft. Or to phrase it more politely, I believe that
> with their long history of working so closely together, I
> suspect you could probably label Intel stuff as "Designed
> for XP" and Microsoft stuff as "Coded for Intel". That's
> just my own personal conspiracy theory and opinion.
>
> If you want to research the matter, try looking through
> troubleshooting discussions for various video boards,
> especially in the areas of high-end video capture, multi-
> processor problems, and driver compatibilities. Also
> critical will be motherboard chipsets - some video
> capture cards don't seem to like some chipsets.
>
> Also the new motherboard itself is a key item, not just
> the CPU. Does the new motherboard fully support ACPI and
> allow a Standby mode (not just APM and Hibernate?)
> What's the BIOS brand and date? Does it have enough slots
> for everything you'd going to want to add?
> How much memory will the board handle at maximum? You
> know the next version of Windows will want more.
>
> Benchmarks are not the only thing. Get a fast CPU, but
> don't worry about being the very fastest. Get a single
> CPU system - multiprocessor sharing still seems to have
> some problems with XP in certain applications and on some
> motherboards (you can ignore that last bit if your new
> system is pre-built and tested to do video capture ok
> with both CPUs active - if that works, it all should.)
>
> The PC's memory should probably be at least two or more
> 256MB units of whatever type it needs. Don't go cheap on
> the memory - large memory (128MB and more) should
> be "registered" and "ECC" type, not the less expensive
> unbuffered unregistered type. Go with the less fancy
> memory and you may have problems you will never be able
> to troubleshoot. DO use websites like Pricewatch.com or
> Crucial.com to make sure you're not paying too much for
> the memory. Especially check memory (and other) prices on
> the web before paying at a retail store. You'd hate to
> come home with a $300 disk drive and then see it for $99
> on the web.
>
> Disk drives are CRITICAL for speed - they will be the
> slowest part of your PC. Don't even think about the great
> deal on a 5400RPM drive. Go for at least 7200RPM and an
> 8meg cache buffer. If you can get a faster RPM and/or
> larger cache buffer, do it. Just remember: this is the
> only part of your PC that will be waiting on mechanical
> motion. Make sure your drives are at least 120GB or
> larger even though you will need to partition those as
> NTFS (FAT32 can only do up to 32GB per partition.
> Besides, NTFS can more easily be secured and allows for
> privatizing files or folders. FAT32 doesn't (unless you
> count WinZip passworded zip files.)
>
> If you get a PC with two hard drives and two CDs(one CD
> burner, one DVD player), have it cabled so that one hard
> drive and one CD drive are on each of the two IDE ports.
> This will allow for faster CD-to-CD copying because the
> PC will be able to read on one IDE port and
> simultaneously write on the other IDE port. I found this
> to be one of the first speed enhancing tips I could
> really see the difference with (besides the hard drive
> RPM tip.) Likewise, if you're burning video CD's from
> MPEG files stored on the hard drive, try to store the
> MPEGs on the hard drive that's on the opposite IDE port
> from the CD burner. That should also help burns go faster.
> If you're ripping CD's or DVD's (excuse me - "making
> personal backups for fair use"), try to set the ripper to
> capture to the hard drive on the IDE port opposite from
> the drive you're ripping from (which should be the DVD
> drive.)
>
> You get the idea by now. Benchmarks within 20% of each
> other are probably the last thing to worry about. It
> doesn't much matter if Brand X CPU running at 2.0 seems
> to be faster than Brand Z CPU running at 2.4 because they
> may be testing with faster memory, larger caches, better
> IDE configuring, maybe an AGP8 slot instead of a an AGP4
> slot. And it all doesn't matter anyway, because next year
> there'll be a 4Ghz CPU that leaves them both in the dust -
> except for the person who goofed and installed some
> 5400RPM drives in his new 4Ghz PC and used cheap memories
> so he keeps having mystery crashes.
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Hi,
> >I am looking for a new pc and I don't know which
> processor
> >I should choose.
> >I will need to run XP pro or Windows 2000 server with
> >Visual Studio.NET.
> >I am looking at processor >2GHz.
> >I have been looking at some benchmark data but it isn't
> >easy to understand.
> >Any recommandation/links/ideas would be appreciated.
> >Thanks,
> >Georges
> >.
> >
|
Similar Threads
