motherboard recommendation?

R

Rob

Time to upgrade, but a little at a time. I just bought an nVidia 6800 GPU
and my system is now the bottleneck. I need a socket 478
motherboard (keeping current CPU for now), w/AGP and good for games and
overclocking. I was looking at an Asus P4P800E Deluxe,
but I know they've been around a long time. Any other thoughts? I'm I
killing myself performance-wise by sticking with a socket 478? I
have a limited budget so I'm looking to stick around $150 tops for a board
(and I will need to purchase memory as well since my old
board is 133MHz SDRAM). Thanks!
 
D

Doug

If you want to step up from the P4P800, goto the P4C800 E Deluxe, this is
about the best board out there in my opinion. Read the reviews, its not
just me but ya know, its all opinions just the same. Its been my experience
though, that you can't go wrong with an ASUS board no matter. Stick with
the Intel chipset though for stability, the SiS and VIA chipsets just don't
seem to be quite as stable for whatever reason.

Good luck,

Doug
 
J

JK

Rob said:
Time to upgrade, but a little at a time. I just bought an nVidia 6800 GPU
and my system is now the bottleneck. I need a socket 478
motherboard (keeping current CPU for now), w/AGP and good for games and
overclocking. I was looking at an Asus P4P800E Deluxe,
but I know they've been around a long time. Any other thoughts? I'm I
killing myself performance-wise by sticking with a socket 478?

Of course. A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE
running Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

The Athlon 64 is also great for other games.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8

If you want to overclock, the new Athlon 64 3500+ 90 nm looks very
interesting.

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417
I
have a limited budget so I'm looking to stick around $150 tops

Why so little after you spent so much on a video card? It seems silly
to have such a huge bottleneck for your video card, especially if
you plan to play Doom 3. An Athlon 64 will also allow you to upgrade
to 64 bit software. I expect many great 64 bit games to be released
in '05. It is silly for a gamer to spend money now on a 32 bit processor.
You don't want to suddenly see great 64 bit games next year, and feel
a great need to get rid of a 32 bit processor that you bought just
several months earlier.
 
R

Rob

JK said:
Of course. A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE
running Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

The Athlon 64 is also great for other games.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8

If you want to overclock, the new Athlon 64 3500+ 90 nm looks very
interesting.

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417


Why so little after you spent so much on a video card? It seems silly
to have such a huge bottleneck for your video card, especially if
you plan to play Doom 3. An Athlon 64 will also allow you to upgrade
to 64 bit software. I expect many great 64 bit games to be released
in '05. It is silly for a gamer to spend money now on a 32 bit processor.
You don't want to suddenly see great 64 bit games next year, and feel
a great need to get rid of a 32 bit processor that you bought just
several months earlier.


because i didnt realize i'd need a new MB when i bought the video card.
after getting terrible aquamark3 benchmarks and investigating the cause,
it appears to be my memory, which means i need a new motherboard.
 
D

Dave C.

Of course. A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE
running Doom 3.

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
 
S

sbb78247

<snip>

An Athlon 64 will also allow you to upgrade
to 64 bit software. I expect many great 64 bit games to be released
in '05. It is silly for a gamer to spend money now on a 32 bit
processor.

<snip>

Why would you concern yourself with 64 bit games when MOST os's are still
32bit? To take advantage of the 64bit cpu, then you need a 64bit os! then
the 64bit games become relevant. I know most will start yelling about how
AMD runs 32 bit code better than the Intels, but who cares until the real
64bit os's come? And truth be told, when the 64s come, all of todays
hardware will be obsolete.

S
 
J

JK

sbb78247 said:
<snip>

An Athlon 64 will also allow you to upgrade

<snip>

Why would you concern yourself with 64 bit games when MOST os's are still
32bit?

One doesn't have to keep using a 32 bit OS though.
To take advantage of the 64bit cpu, then you need a 64bit os!

The links I provided are to benchmarks for the Athlon 64 running 32 bit
software using a 32 bit OS. The Athlon 64 is a great performer running 32 bit
software, and it will run 32 bit software even faster when a 64 bit OS is used.
then
the 64bit games become relevant.

64 bit Windows XP will be released in the first half of '05. Expect many
64 bit applications to be released soon after Windows XP 64 bit is released.
Most people don't buy a cpu to use for less than 6 months, they buy a cpu
intending to use if for a few years.
know most will start yelling about how
AMD runs 32 bit code better than the Intels, but who cares until the real
64bit os's come?

64 bit Linux has been around for a while. The beta version of 64 bit
Windows XP has been out for many months.
And truth be told, when the 64s come, all of todays
hardware will be obsolete.

LOL! You expect everything to be obsolete within 6 months?
 
S

sbb78247

JK said:
One doesn't have to keep using a 32 bit OS though.


The links I provided are to benchmarks for the Athlon 64 running 32
bit software using a 32 bit OS. The Athlon 64 is a great performer
running 32 bit software, and it will run 32 bit software even faster
when a 64 bit OS is used.


64 bit Windows XP will be released in the first half of '05. Expect
many 64 bit applications to be released soon after Windows XP 64 bit
is released. Most people don't buy a cpu to use for less than 6
months, they buy a cpu intending to use if for a few years.


Oh really, I know lots of folks that change to the latest and greatest all
the time.

64 bit Linux has been around for a while. The beta version of 64 bit
Windows XP has been out for many months.


When has microsoft ever released anything on time? Betas have been out for
a while, that is all fine and dandy, but would you run a business on Beta
software?

And i fugured the linux loonies would come out to defend their os.

LOL! You expect everything to be obsolete within 6 months?


as a matter of fact, yes, when dual core cpus are out then todays cpu will
be irrelevant. you will most likely have to get a new mobo, processor, etc
when that becomes the next big thing in the coming year. not to mention
sata native command queing, pci express, and others that are not totally
mainstream now but probably will be in 6 months. Then, oh wait for it,
microsoft will be releasing longhorn bloatware and then you will be moaning
about how slow it is so you will want/get an upgrade to run it.



why worry about much of anything right now unless you just have to get a new
system?


S
 
J

JK

"as a matter of fact, yes, when dual core cpus are out then todays cpu will
be irrelevant. "

When dual core processors are released, you will probably say they are too
expensive. They might have to be out 12-18 months or more before you
think they are priced reasonably.
 
R

Ruel Smith

Rob said:
Time to upgrade, but a little at a time. I just bought an nVidia 6800 GPU
and my system is now the bottleneck. I need a socket 478
motherboard (keeping current CPU for now), w/AGP and good for games and
overclocking. I was looking at an Asus P4P800E Deluxe,
but I know they've been around a long time. Any other thoughts? I'm I
killing myself performance-wise by sticking with a socket 478? I
have a limited budget so I'm looking to stick around $150 tops for a board
(and I will need to purchase memory as well since my old
board is 133MHz SDRAM). Thanks!

So what if it's been around for sometime? It's a great board. My brother has
one and it runs great. The only other board I would maybe recommend is the
MSI 865PE Neo2 FISR, which a buddy of mine has. It overclocks dynamically,
and he likes that feature, keeping the temps down when CPU is not under
load, but bumping up the FSB when needed. I've seen the MSI available at
local shops, but MSI's site says that it's been replaced by a slightly
different design that loses the Promise SATA RAID controller, the 865PE
Neo2 PFISR. No need for it, really, but it offered an ATA133 port if you're
using a Maxtor drive and want to get the most out of it. The ICH5R does
damn good SATA RAID, anyway, if that's a possiblility in your future.

Besides, your only other alternative is to go the the new socket, which is
not really an option for you.

If you really were worried about future expansion, anyway, you'd jump ship
to an AMD Athlon 64 because you'll be able to run Windows XP-64 when it's
released.

So, in the end, I highly recommend the Asus P4P800-E Deluxe.
 
R

Ruel Smith

sbb78247 said:
<snip>

An Athlon 64 will also allow you to upgrade

<snip>

Why would you concern yourself with 64 bit games when MOST os's are still
32bit? To take advantage of the 64bit cpu, then you need a 64bit os!
then
the 64bit games become relevant. I know most will start yelling about how
AMD runs 32 bit code better than the Intels, but who cares until the real
64bit os's come? And truth be told, when the 64s come, all of todays
hardware will be obsolete.

Unless you're running Linux, which is widely available in 64 bit, and many
new games such as Doom3 run in Linux with just a download from the
publisher to get it working.
 
S

Sayso Takewashi

in '05. It is silly for a gamer to spend money now on a 32 bit processor.
You don't want to suddenly see great 64 bit games next year, and feel
a great need to get rid of a 32 bit processor that you bought just
several months earlier.

With exchanging Systems early you get the most money return.
A Celeron 2400MHZ bought now for 70$ could be sold in June 2005 for
maybe 40-45$.At June 2007 for only 5-10$
At the first example you loose "only" 30 Bucks,with the other around
60-65$ !

Also you could take the 40$ from the first example,add another 40$ and
buy a Pentium 4 3GHZ at June05...

Some Friends do this.They got all the latest and greatest but only
spend half the money as people which keep their System 2 Years.
Some Figures for this:a 1000$ System could be sold in June for maybe
700$-Lost 300$
A 1000$ keeped until June 2007 sold at 100$-Lost 900$!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top