new system

[byru]

Hi,
I am planning to build up a new work(game)station.
Actually my compy looks like this:
Abit BD7II-RAID mobo, P4 Willamate 1.7Ghz (no HT), 1024 MB PC2100 DDR RAM
(266MHz, Kingston) and Gainward GeForce 3 Ti 200 64 MB

I think that tkats it, its time has come. Doom III and FarCry and
forthcomming titles show this clearly.

I was thinking about:
Abit IC7 or IC7-G or IC7-MAX3 (i think the original IC7 will do), P4 3.2 or
3.4 GHz (800MHz) Prescott or Northwood?, 1024 MB PC2100 DDR RAM (266MHz,
Kingston, yes this i wanted to save. Is it a good idea? Will they work in
Dual Channel Mode on the new MoBo?), and GeForce 6600 GT (AGP version when
available).

Will it be a good work(GAME)station for next years?

RAM related question: what about my old RAM sticks, will they do? I dont
want to upgrate them, RAM is expensive as hell and this 1GB is quite
sufficient.

What do you think? Thanks for any comments, ideas, corrections.
Best regards
Byru

 

[Dave C.]

Hi,
I am planning to build up a new work(game)station.
Actually my compy looks like this:
Abit BD7II-RAID mobo, P4 Willamate 1.7Ghz (no HT), 1024 MB PC2100 DDR RAM
(266MHz, Kingston) and Gainward GeForce 3 Ti 200 64 MB

I think that tkats it, its time has come. Doom III and FarCry and
forthcomming titles show this clearly.

I was thinking about:
Abit IC7 or IC7-G or IC7-MAX3 (i think the original IC7 will do), P4 3.2
or
3.4 GHz (800MHz) Prescott or Northwood?, 1024 MB PC2100 DDR RAM (266MHz,
Kingston, yes this i wanted to save. Is it a good idea? Will they work in
Dual Channel Mode on the new MoBo?), and GeForce 6600 GT (AGP version when
available).

Will it be a good work(GAME)station for next years?

RAM related question: what about my old RAM sticks, will they do? I dont
want to upgrate them, RAM is expensive as hell and this 1GB is quite
sufficient.

You need to change your plan slightly. If you want to use your current RAM,
you need a 533MHz FSB processor. This would be the solution if you want to
save money, as the 533MHz FSB processor would cost no more (less, maybe)
than the 800FSB version. This is because the Intel chipsets can't run
800FSB CPU with 266MHz RAM. Or if they can, I haven't seen a motherboard
manufacturer who has enabled that function. If you read the general
specifications of SOME motherboards, they will state 800FSB and support for
DDR400/333/266 (PC2100). However, what is mentioned only in the owner's
manual is that 800FSB CPU requires DDR400 or DDR333. And, even DDR333 is
not run at full speed with a 800FSB CPU. 533FSB for the CPU would not be
much of a compromise, especially if you got a processor with 1024MB of
CACHE. It would make for a very respectable gamer, and you could use your
DDR266.

For DDR266 RAM, you can use a 400FSB processor or 533FSB processor, but not
800FSB.

Now there is another solution. Abit makes a VT7, which is a Via PT880
chipset board. For that, you could use a *Northwood* core 800FSB P4
processor and DDR266 RAM. I say Northwood core, as I have read of stability
problems with Prescott processors on PT880 boards.

The correct solution however would be to replace the 1GB of RAM you
currently have with 512MB of high-quality, low latency DDR400. If your
motherboard supports dual channel, make that 2 sticks of 256MB. I think you
will actually notice a speed increase this way, even though you cut your
total RAM in half. 1GB of RAM is not significantly faster than 512MB, but
low latency DDR400 will be significantly faster than DDR266 RAM. You can
always sell your current RAM on ebay to recover part of the cost of new RAM.
512MB of DDR400 RAM with 800FSB processor would be the no-compromise
solution. -Dave

 

[JK]

Hi,
I am planning to build up a new work(game)station.
Actually my compy looks like this:
Abit BD7II-RAID mobo, P4 Willamate 1.7Ghz (no HT), 1024 MB PC2100 DDR RAM
(266MHz, Kingston) and Gainward GeForce 3 Ti 200 64 MB

I think that tkats it, its time has come. Doom III

For great Doom 3 play, you should get an Athlon 64.

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

The Athlon 64 chips are also great for business applications.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

 

[Dave C.]

For great Doom 3 play, you should get an Athlon 64.

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

The Athlon 64 chips are also great for business applications.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

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

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.

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.

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

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

-Dave 9/20/04

 

[JK]

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+

The Athlon 64 3500+ is very close in price to the Prescott 3.4 ghz.

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

Wrong!!!

The Athlon 64 is much faster in Open GL.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10

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.

Wrong. Two wins for AMD and one tie. I'll be generous though, and
call DX8 tie, so that would be one AMD win and two ties.

GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Not quite. AMD won.

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

LOL! Very funny. Even An Athlon XP3000+ beats a
Pentium 4 3.2 ghz running business applications.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away

LOL! The Athlon 64 is way ahead in Content Creation Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

LOL! Not quite. See above.

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

Perhaps with some 32 bit software, however the results may be quite different
with 64 bit software.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Care to provide a link to support your claim?

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




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.

The price differences aren't that great. Keep in mind that an Athlon 64 3000+
socket 754 is only around $150, while the Pentium 4 3 ghz Prescott is
around $175. The Athlon 64 3200+ s754, is around $190, while the 3.2ghz
Prescott is around $215. The 3.4 ghz Prescott and the Athlon 64 3500+
are both around $300.

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.

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment.

Not quite.

The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better.

LOL! You have that backwards. Intel would need to cut its prices
by more much more than 30% to be competitive with AMD for
many applications. A $95 Athlon XP3000+ outperforms a
$215 P4 3.2 ghz Prescott in Business Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6


A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $815 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE
in Doom 3.

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

 

[DaveW]

The slow RAM is going to DRAMATICALLY cut the speed of your otherwise very
fast system. Why would you invest in everything else fast, and skimp on the
very important RAM???

 

[byru]

Will upgrading just a graphic card and leaving the rest as it is do the job?
will doom3 and other new games be playable in 1024x768 high details on
GeForce 6600 GT + the rest of my current config? I dont want to play in
higher resolutions. Thats it. 1024 is a right res for me. I wouldnt mind AA
and stuff like that. Will it be fine?

Byru