Basic Motherboard Upgrade Advice?

[Dave C.]

I couldn't find the psu data so I'll have to stand on my head--but I'm not
going to do that just yet because...

I just started playing Half-Life 2 and some of the automatically set
options came out medium and the water reflections were set to simple.
After playing for hours and shutting down for the night it took a long
time
and the Desktop graphics was screwed up for a minute until everything
eventually settled down to normal. When I turned up the options that were
set down the in-game graphics totally choked and I couldn't turn the game
off normally but Ctrl-Alt-Del worked, as did Alt-Tab.

I'm thinking (wondering) if this is also a result of trying to use an AGP
8X card on a 4X mb?

Is there really a voltage slot difference between 4X and 8X? That really
could be serious if I am really supplying more voltage then I should to
the
6800.

If I wanted to upgrade now and spend over $300 instead of under $100 and
go
for 3+ GHz would I be better off in the long run bailing from AMD or not?

That $10 CPU cooler on NewEgg looked great. I bet they make one for a P4
too? And I bet they'd sell the Intel mb, P4, and memory too?

I've been using a nice square style mid-sized aluminum tower by Lian Li.
Do cases really make a noise difference? What is specifically good to
look
for in a quiet case?

I haven't bought anything yet but I am getting kind of antsy. I'm tired
of
a local friend telling how neat a game is with all the features turned up
and I discover I have to leave some features turned down.

Thanks for the help. I feel like spending some money now...but not the
bleeding-edge please.

Susan

Some 4X cards use the same voltage as 8X cards, but not all. So your 4X max
AGP slot could be supplying too much voltage to a 8X AGP card. Your choice
of Intel or AMD should be based entirely on how much you want to spend. If
you want to build an average system, your money is better spent on Intel.
If you want to go bleeding edge, then Intel is way over-priced. Yes, there
are good (and inexpensive) coolers for any processor you choose. If you
want to upgrade specifically for half-life 2 but not build bleeding edge,
then your choice is pretty simple:

P4 3.2 or 3.4GHz 800FSB 1Mcache processor on socket 478 865PE or 875 chipset
mainboard with 512MB of DDR400 RAM. OR:

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=13-123-217&depa=0
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-176&depa=0
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-144-309&depa=0
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=35-103-139&depa=0
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=17-153-006&depa=0

The HSF above is really effective and quiet. Same with the power supply.
(don't recycle the power supply, but keep your current case) -Dave

 

[David Maynard]

Would Intel give me better performance for the dollar then AMD? If I
wanted to make the jump to 3+ GHz is there something good out there that
will remain good enough for a year or two before the developers start
developing BTX only games?

"BTX" has nothing to do with software.

The question for software is when will they start making 64 bit 'only'
stuff so that 32 bit processors can't run them?

 

[David Maynard]

There are already server 1U form factors that run windtunnels.
And this can already be accomplished with a $3 fan and a piece of dryer
ductwork if anyone really gets anal about it.

I've done it but it doesn't work in an ATX case as well as one might think
because of the round about path the duct has to take and the space
constraints of the PCI cards and hard drive mounts being in the way (try
routing an 80mm diameter duct in a typical case around that mess). And
then, the rather long run of the duct greatly reduces the airflow so you
get cool air, yes, but a lot less of it.

A rear exhaust duct works better but, even then, airflow is significantly
impacted because, for the 'typical' heatsink, the air has to make a 90
degree bend (which is why I've been eyeing things like the thermatake pipe
tower).

BTX doesn't have any of those problems because, for one, the front fan is
not forced to a 'higher level' by an 'I/O plate' underneath it, like ATX in
the rear, and the processor module is located right there for a straight on
shot.

Intel would mandate that since they're still in a Mhz race. Higher frequency
will eventually force shorter traces but it makes little sense to dump so Many
format changes at one time; DDR2, PCI express, BTX...



Heh, sounds like the RAM wars all over again. Intel didn't do so hot there...




Heard somewhere that the BTX format required the PS being mounted in the
front of the case. Any truth to that? If so, Susan might not even be able to keep
her old case to upgrade.

BTX PSU is in the rear like ATX. It's the 'system/processor fan(s)' that's
in the front with the 'processor thermal module' right behind it.

The idea is a big (quiet) front fan cooling first the CPU and then on in to
cool the chipset and GPU. A 'rear' fan could not be as large because of the
space taken up by the rear I/O area.

 

[Susan]

I think I will make it clear here, because I really haven't per se anywhere
else, that I am not interested in over-clocking anything or going with a
particular upgrade path that over-clocks anything in the future. Nor am I
interested in designing cooling ducting. But I must stick within the
software developer's envelope and right now at 1.1 GHz, possibly an AGP
4X-8X conflict, and possibly a week psu I strongly suspect the machine is
drifting out of that envelope and warranting some "adjustments".

If overclocking is no issue for me does that make it easier to realize that
Intel is the path to take over AMD?

Thanks.

Susan

 

[Susan]

That doesn't mean I'm thrilled with it but 'BTX' is only a small piece of
the 'problem' because, after the next year or two, there will be literally
nothing reusable. All 'legacy' devices gone: no ISA cards (already), serial
ports, parallel ports, PS2, etc. SATA will replace IDE and PCI-Express will
replace AGP/PCI. You're complaining about, as you put it, a ~$20 case when
there's not a single AGP/PCI card you'll be able to reuse. And then, just
to make sure it's as painful as possible, all existing software will be
rendered 'obsolete' by 64 bit.

So, this might be a pretty good time to make a standard (non-overclocking)
upgrade to last another couple years? I presume 32 bit software will still
come out with its 64 bit newer counterpart.

Is just like HD TV today? There is some neat HD programming for it but
I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $3K for the TV set. I figure $1K tops.
Meanwhile everything will go HD but will still play on older analog TVs
too--won't it?

Susan

 

[Dave C.]

I think I will make it clear here, because I really haven't per se anywhere
else, that I am not interested in over-clocking anything or going with a
particular upgrade path that over-clocks anything in the future. Nor am I
interested in designing cooling ducting. But I must stick within the
software developer's envelope and right now at 1.1 GHz, possibly an AGP
4X-8X conflict, and possibly a week psu I strongly suspect the machine is
drifting out of that envelope and warranting some "adjustments".

If overclocking is no issue for me does that make it easier to realize
that
Intel is the path to take over AMD?

Thanks.

Susan

Well, Intel is the path to take unless you want to spend a -lot- of money.
For the average system, Intel is a better deal, at the moment. -Dave

According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:

P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as
hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
of their system combined.

So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
has the best bang for buck, at the moment.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=1

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3329681__1

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/19/04

 

[Dave C.]

So, this might be a pretty good time to make a standard (non-overclocking)
upgrade to last another couple years? I presume 32 bit software will
still
come out with its 64 bit newer counterpart.

Is just like HD TV today? There is some neat HD programming for it but
I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $3K for the TV set. I figure $1K tops.
Meanwhile everything will go HD but will still play on older analog TVs
too--won't it?

Susan

ANY time is a good time to make an upgrade to last another couple of years.
If you always look forward to new technology, you will never build. By the
time you actually need (note: NEED) 64 bit hardware, anything you build in
2004 will be at least 10 years old. Or in other words, it will be worn out
and/or 8 years obsolete before you need to replace it with something 64 bit.
You'll probably build your next three or four systems before you REQUIRE
hardware that is 64 bits. That doesn't mean you can't build a 64-bit system
today. Just that the killer app software that you will want to run and that
REQUIRES 64-bit hardware hasn't even been imagined yet. It will take
several years to develop that software, whatever it is. Yes, there are
64-bit operating systems, gold and beta, right now. But it will be several
years before you want to buy a software package that will ONLY run on a
64-bit version of Windows. -Dave

 

[Susan]

If you want to upgrade specifically for half-life 2 but not build
bleeding edge, then your choice is pretty simple:

P4 3.2 or 3.4GHz 800FSB 1Mcache processor on socket 478 865PE or
875 chipset mainboard with 512MB of DDR400 RAM.

I do want to upgrade for gaming's sake--like H-L 2. What ever I do today I
would like it to work well for a couple of years--no more. By then this
BTX should be sorted out and/or we may all be playing with PS3s and XBox2s.


Dave, you are giving me a lot of good advice I hope, where there is very
little if any homework on my part--and I like that. But I was wondering
and curious if you would share a little on what your background is? We can
give NewEgg pretty good press that they may well deserve but I don't think
you work for them. Hopefully you work for and live and breath what we have
been talking about here. And so are so many others too.

Thanks.

Susan

 

[David Maynard]

So, this might be a pretty good time to make a standard (non-overclocking)
upgrade to last another couple years?

That's a loaded question but, in general, the decision should be based on
your current needs because if you try to 'wait' for whatever 'the future'
is you'll be perpetually waiting as there's always something even newer
'just around the corner'.

So, as for 'now' being a 'pretty good time', I don't know that it's
necessarily any better or worse but it does become a serious issue next
year, depending on what one considers the life of the machine to be, as
that will be nearer the cusp of the transition.

I presume 32 bit software will still
come out with its 64 bit newer counterpart.

Likely, as there will remain a huge installed 32 bit base for a fair amount
of time.

Is just like HD TV today? There is some neat HD programming for it but
I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $3K for the TV set. I figure $1K tops.
Meanwhile everything will go HD but will still play on older analog TVs
too--won't it?

Oh brother did you bring up a debacle: HDTV. We were supposed to have
stampeded all over each other buying the things in droves by now but, to
the industry and government's surprise, the vast majority of folks felt
like you do; that going from a 400 buck TV set to a 4,000 buck TV set was a
bit of a leap no matter *how* 'wonderful' the picture is.

I'd have to recheck because Congress has been holding new hearings on it
(because it just ain't happening like they planned) but the original plan
was that analog broadcast would disappear completely in 2006, after which
the hype was you'd be able to buy an 'inexpensive' set top converter but
I'm not so sure that a converter costing as much as an entire 32 inch
stereo TV set ($300-$400) qualifies as 'inexpensive'.

That 'end of analog' mandate only applies to broadcast so cable companies
can continue analog if they chose to.

However, to answer your question "but will still play on older analog TVs?"
No. An analog TV cannot decode HD signals.

 

[David Maynard]

ANY time is a good time to make an upgrade to last another couple of years.
If you always look forward to new technology, you will never build. By the
time you actually need (note: NEED) 64 bit hardware, anything you build in
2004 will be at least 10 years old. Or in other words, it will be worn out
and/or 8 years obsolete before you need to replace it with something 64 bit.
You'll probably build your next three or four systems before you REQUIRE
hardware that is 64 bits. That doesn't mean you can't build a 64-bit system
today. Just that the killer app software that you will want to run and that
REQUIRES 64-bit hardware hasn't even been imagined yet. It will take
several years to develop that software, whatever it is. Yes, there are
64-bit operating systems, gold and beta, right now. But it will be several
years before you want to buy a software package that will ONLY run on a
64-bit version of Windows. -Dave

Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame is
way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly didn't take
10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as Windows 95 came out in
1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.

I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not having
an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.

You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try to
find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to find a 16
bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.

3 to 4 years, perhaps, but after 5 I think you'd really start to feel
'antiquity' setting in.

Now, I suppose some might say that the next Windows, supposedly '64 bit',
will be more like Windows 3.1 with the 32 bit 'extension' added and, so, is
not really going to be the 64 bit demarcation point.

 

[Dave C.]

Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame is
way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly didn't take
10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as Windows 95 came out in
1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.

I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not
having an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.

You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try to
find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to find a 16
bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.

3 to 4 years, perhaps, but after 5 I think you'd really start to feel
'antiquity' setting in.

Now, I suppose some might say that the next Windows, supposedly '64 bit',
will be more like Windows 3.1 with the 32 bit 'extension' added and, so,
is not really going to be the 64 bit demarcation point.

Well we may have to disagree on how soon it's going to happen. But
obviously, if either one of us is right, then the 32-bit / 64-bit issue is
not something that one would need to consider for a current system build, or
even the NEXT one. I happen to think it's going to take longer to go from
32 to 64 than it did to go from 16 to 32 as there are not that many
applications that would REALLY benefit from 64 bits. For example, how much
better would Microsoft WORD be if it was written for a 64-bit OS? (that is,
aside from upgrades/enhancements that would have happened anyway, due to
time) How much faster can you surf the web with a 64-bit OS? How much
greater would the graphics be in a game written for a 64-bit OS?
-Dave

 

[Dave C.]

I do want to upgrade for gaming's sake--like H-L 2. What ever I do today
I
would like it to work well for a couple of years--no more. By then this
BTX should be sorted out and/or we may all be playing with PS3s and
XBox2s.


Dave, you are giving me a lot of good advice I hope, where there is very
little if any homework on my part--and I like that. But I was wondering
and curious if you would share a little on what your background is? We
can
give NewEgg pretty good press that they may well deserve but I don't think
you work for them. Hopefully you work for and live and breath what we
have
been talking about here. And so are so many others too.

Thanks.

Susan

I'm an electronics technician by training. If I had a job title that could
be translated to the civilian world, it would probably be "PC Technician".
I'm a defense contractor who services networked, high-end (gaming) style
personal computers. The systems I service are like PCs married to small
movie theaters. You can think of them as the world's largest computer game.
Imagine a PC with a monitor that is 40 feet WIDE, and speakers the size of
small refrigerators. They are used to train soldiers in the U.S. Army (and
other armed forces, from this country and others) in basic and advanced
marksmanship skills. In my free time, I'm also a very serious computer
hobbyist who is NOT into computer games. That's ironic, as I'm paid to play
computer games (hey, someone's gotta test the trainers after I repair them),
build gaming style personal computer systems for all my friends and family,
and have NO INTEREST in computer gaming, personally.

And no, I don't work for Newegg. I personally prefer mwave to newegg for
most of my own hardware purchases, but you can't argue with some of the
prices on newegg. -Dave

 

[David Maynard]

Well we may have to disagree on how soon it's going to happen. But
obviously, if either one of us is right, then the 32-bit / 64-bit issue is
not something that one would need to consider for a current system build, or
even the NEXT one. I happen to think it's going to take longer to go from
32 to 64 than it did to go from 16 to 32 as there are not that many
applications that would REALLY benefit from 64 bits. For example, how much
better would Microsoft WORD be if it was written for a 64-bit OS? (that is,
aside from upgrades/enhancements that would have happened anyway, due to
time) How much faster can you surf the web with a 64-bit OS? How much
greater would the graphics be in a game written for a 64-bit OS?
-Dave

You do realize that people have been saying the same thing about Word ever
since it's first incarnation in DOS. Just how fast can you type anyway, eh?
And just a few years ago people were predicting the end of the processor
speed wars because there simply wasn't any need for more than 1 GHz. But,
today, you'll see folks in here tell you a 1 GHz machine is useless 'junk'.

I have yet to see software fail to fill up whatever size bucket hardware
provides, be it RAM, speed, or bits, and the prediction most likely to fail
is saying we have 'enough' of anything. A truism enshrined in the infamous
prediction that 640K was more RAM that anyone could ever use (hell, it was
10 times the 'typical max' of the time).

 

[Dave C.]

You do realize that people have been saying the same thing about Word ever
since it's first incarnation in DOS. Just how fast can you type anyway,
eh? And just a few years ago people were predicting the end of the
processor speed wars because there simply wasn't any need for more than 1
GHz. But, today, you'll see folks in here tell you a 1 GHz machine is
useless 'junk'.

I have yet to see software fail to fill up whatever size bucket hardware
provides, be it RAM, speed, or bits, and the prediction most likely to
fail is saying we have 'enough' of anything. A truism enshrined in the
infamous prediction that 640K was more RAM that anyone could ever use
(hell, it was 10 times the 'typical max' of the time).

Point well made. -Dave

 

[Al Smith]

Well, in general principle I agree but I think your 10 year time frame is way off base as the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit certainly didn't take 10 years, or else it won't happen till next year as Windows 95 came out in 1995, and things tend to speed up, not go slower.

I use Windows 95 as the demarcation point because it's software, not having an 'x bit' processor, that really counts.

You may not 'need' 64 bit hardware/software in 10 years but just try to find any 32 bit software released in 2014; like trying *now* to find a 16 bit Windows 3.1 version of anything new.

I agree. How fast we make the transition to 64-bit entirely
depends on how fast Microsoft releases its Windows XP-64 OS. Once
that comes out, the change over is going to happen fast -- within
about two years, I'd guess.

 

[David Maynard]

I agree. How fast we make the transition to 64-bit entirely depends on
how fast Microsoft releases its Windows XP-64 OS. Once that comes out,
the change over is going to happen fast -- within about two years, I'd
guess.

It'll be interesting to see just how it plays out.

The retarding factor will be the massive investment already existing in 32
bit computers and software, which is much, much, more than existed during
the 16 to 32 bit transition. That means that even if 'everything new' is 64
bit there will still be a huge 32 bit customer base to sell product into
and, therefor, an incentive to do so.

 

[Susan]

Just want to follow up briefly on my thread. I am keeping this advice/info
for future reference and further review at a later time and continuing to
operate the Desktop by restarting a second time. Although weird there
doesn't seem to be any game playing problems once whatever is initially
upset warms up.

Thanks again for the information.