Proposed Build - Help!

[Colin Phillips]

Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
got sidelined with buying a car instead).

Windows XP
Antec Sonata case
P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
WD Caviar SATA 120GB
ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
LG DVD-Writer

Questions:
-The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?

-The DVD writer has poor CD reading spead. Will I need to pick up
another CD or DVD ROM drive to get good speeds?

I'll be using this system for gaming (soon to be used for Doom 3, I
hope) and work. For work, I'm a web developer and do a lot of
multi-tasking (10-20 programs running, remote desktop, some graphics
and animation work).

If there's anything I'm missing, horrible mistakes I'm making, or any
suggestions, please let me know.

Thanks.

 

[JK]

Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
got sidelined with buying a car instead).

Windows XP
Antec Sonata case
P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)

Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get
an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
in most applications.

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

Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
WD Caviar SATA 120GB
ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
LG DVD-Writer

Questions:
-The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?

On board sound in decent quality modern motherboards is good
enough for casual use.

-The DVD writer has poor CD reading spead. Will I need to pick up
another CD or DVD ROM drive to get good speeds?

Why don't you get a Lite On DVD burner instead?

I'll be using this system for gaming (soon to be used for Doom 3, I
hope)

For Doom 3, a $160 Athlon 64 3000+ even beats the $825 P4 3.2 ghz EE!

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


It is also great for other games.

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

 

[S.Heenan]

Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
got sidelined with buying a car instead).

Windows XP
Antec Sonata case
P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
WD Caviar SATA 120GB
ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
LG DVD-Writer

Questions:
-The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?

Try the audio for a few weeks. If it doesn't meet your needs, look for an
Audigy 2 or another card.

-The DVD writer has poor CD reading spead. Will I need to pick up
another CD or DVD ROM drive to get good speeds?

In general, DVD writers are slower at reading/writing a CD-R than is a CD
burner. If you burn a great number of CDs, buy a CD-RW burner. If not, 30x
isn't /that/ bad.

I'll be using this system for gaming (soon to be used for Doom 3, I
hope) and work. For work, I'm a web developer and do a lot of
multi-tasking (10-20 programs running, remote desktop, some graphics
and animation work).

Nice video card. It runs hot. Have sufficient case cooling; add another
120mm fan to the Sonata.

 

[Dave C.]

Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get

an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
in most applications.

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


For Doom 3, a $160 Athlon 64 3000+ even beats the $825 P4 3.2 ghz EE!

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


It is also great for other games.

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

God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:

The P42.8 Prescott 800FSB 1MB L2 Cache is BARELY slower (on average) than
the Athlon 64 3000+ in games. Their numbers are close enough to call these
two processors identical.

For most business applications, the performance of the two processors is
identical. (yes, identical)

In the one or two business applications where there is a difference, the P4
2.8 is very slightly FASTER than the Athlon 64 3000+ (yes, I said the P4
2.8 prescott is faster)

There is nothing wrong with an Athlon 64 3000+. I'd recommend it to just
about anyone. But it is NOT "a much better performer in most applications"
than a P4 2.8 prescott. It's most accurate to say that it is a VERY
SLIGHTLY better performer in A FEW applications.

Now go look at the cost of Athlon 64 motherboards compared to P4 Prescott
motherboards, and most reasonable people would conclude that the P4 2.8
processor is actually a better deal, at the moment, than the Athlon 64
3000+.

Stop spreading lies about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave

If anybody cares to know the REAL numbers between these two processors,
check out the DX9 and Applications benchmarks below.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

 

[JK]

God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:

The P42.8 Prescott 800FSB 1MB L2 Cache is BARELY slower (on average) than
the Athlon 64 3000+ in games. Their numbers are close enough to call these
two processors identical.

I don't want to hear stories about achitecture, I want to see benchmarks.
Can you provide benchmarks to prove your case? I have provided
benchmarks to prove my case.

When an Athlon 64 3000+ beats a P4 3.4 and even a P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3,
how can you call the P4 2.8 equal to Athlon 64 3000+????

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

For most business applications, the performance of the two processors is
identical. (yes, identical)

You have not looked at the benchmarks.
An Athlon 64 3000+ beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Even a $105 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $250 P4 3.2 in Business Winstone 2004.

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

In the one or two business applications where there is a difference, the P4
2.8 is very slightly FASTER than the Athlon 64 3000+ (yes, I said the P4
2.8 prescott is faster)

LOL! Where are the benchmarks to prove your claim?

There is nothing wrong with an Athlon 64 3000+. I'd recommend it to just
about anyone. But it is NOT "a much better performer in most applications"
than a P4 2.8 prescott.

Read this review and try to prove your case.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

It's most accurate to say that it is a VERY
SLIGHTLY better performer in A FEW applications.

LOL! Very slight? Not quite. In Business Winstone 2004, even Intel's
$1,000 P4 3.4 EE chip can't beat a $210 Athlon 64 3200+, and the
$825 P4 3.2 EE can't beat the $160 Athlon 64 3000+.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

Now go look at the cost of Athlon 64 motherboards compared to P4 Prescott
motherboards, and most reasonable people would conclude that the P4 2.8
processor is actually a better deal, at the moment, than the Athlon 64
3000+.

That is a very funny comment. For many applications, it takes at least P4 3.2
ghz
to come close to Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 motherboard might be around
$25 more than a P4 one, however the P4 3.2 would be around $90 more.
Does it pay to spend $90 more for the cpu to save $25 on the motherboard?
Perhaps we should compare the $210 Athlon 64 3200+ to the $420
P4 3.4 Prescott?

Stop spreading lies

Lies? I am giving benchmarks.

about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave

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

If anybody cares to know the REAL numbers between these two processors,
check out the DX9 and Applications benchmarks below.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

Those DX9 benchmarks show the Athlon 64 3000+ on par with the
P4 3 ghz, not the 2.8 ghz.

 

[Colin Phillips]

Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get
an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
in most applications.

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

I suppose it's a bit of brand-loyalty. I don't have any experience
with AMD, whereas I've used Intel's for years. I've considered the
change to AMD, but didn't know which one to look at.

Also, games aren't a huge priority, I'll be using this system all day
for work, with lots of multi-tasking, graphic editing, and some
video/animation work. It's my understanding that the Intel still
outperforms in those areas.

I've checked out the link you provided (thanks), and several other
benchmark tests. But there doesn't seem to be a clear winner.

I keep going back and forth (and since I'm used to Intel, they win in
a tie I guess), but if you could convice me otherwise...

On board sound in decent quality modern motherboards is good
enough for casual use.

Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in
a game like Doom 3, or when watching DVD's?


Another question, would you suggest an after market heatsink instead
of the stock one(I don't currently plan to overclock)?

Also, is the one stock fan enough in the Antec case for good airflow?

Thanks

 

[Matt]

Stop spreading lies about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave

Can we say that the Prescott uses more power and can present a cooling
problem?

 

[JK]

I suppose it's a bit of brand-loyalty. I don't have any experience
with AMD, whereas I've used Intel's for years. I've considered the
change to AMD, but didn't know which one to look at.

Also, games aren't a huge priority, I'll be using this system all day
for work, with lots of multi-tasking, graphic editing, and some
video/animation work. It's my understanding that the Intel still
outperforms in those areas.

About the only areas that the P4 really excells compared to the Athlon 64
is video and 3D rendering. That is especially true when comparably priced
chips are considered.

I've checked out the link you provided (thanks), and several other
benchmark tests. But there doesn't seem to be a clear winner.

I keep going back and forth (and since I'm used to Intel, they win in
a tie I guess), but if you could convice me otherwise...


Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in
a game like Doom 3, or when watching DVD's?

You could try the on board sound, and if you don't like it, you could
always add a sound card later. Another reason to add a sound card would
be that the cpu demands of your applications are great, and that a sound
card would take some workload off your cpu.

Another question, would you suggest an after market heatsink instead
of the stock one(I don't currently plan to overclock)?

An good aftermarket one might be a bit quiter. The heatsinks in the
retail boxes for both AMD and Intel chips are adequate if the chips
aren't going to be overclocked.

Also, is the one stock fan enough in the Antec case for good airflow?

If you don't plan to add extra hard drives and a very high performance
video card, a single case fan be fine. Many cases come with only one
fan, but have space for additional fans if needed. See how your temperatures
are, then decide if you need extra fans. Get a case that has spaces for
additional fans if needed.

 

[Dave C.]

God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:

I don't want to hear stories about achitecture, I want to see benchmarks.
Can you provide benchmarks to prove your case? I have provided
benchmarks to prove my case.

(snip)

I wrote and you responded to:

 

[Colin Phillips]

Try the audio for a few weeks. If it doesn't meet your needs, look for an
Audigy 2 or another card.

In general, DVD writers are slower at reading/writing a CD-R than is a CD
burner. If you burn a great number of CDs, buy a CD-RW burner. If not, 30x
isn't /that/ bad.


Nice video card. It runs hot. Have sufficient case cooling; add another
120mm fan to the Sonata.

Thanks for the suggestions, I think I'll drop the SB Audigy and won't
bother with an extra CD or DVD ROM drive for now. No harm in trying
things without them first.

Any suggestions on which fan to go with?

From what I've been reading, the Prescott runs a bit hot, and could
use the cooling. Do you think the stock heatsink for the P4 is
sufficient or will I be better off trying something else in there?

 

[Colin Phillips]

God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:

The P42.8 Prescott 800FSB 1MB L2 Cache is BARELY slower (on average) than
the Athlon 64 3000+ in games. Their numbers are close enough to call these
two processors identical.

For most business applications, the performance of the two processors is
identical. (yes, identical)

In the one or two business applications where there is a difference, the P4
2.8 is very slightly FASTER than the Athlon 64 3000+ (yes, I said the P4
2.8 prescott is faster)

There is nothing wrong with an Athlon 64 3000+. I'd recommend it to just
about anyone. But it is NOT "a much better performer in most applications"
than a P4 2.8 prescott. It's most accurate to say that it is a VERY
SLIGHTLY better performer in A FEW applications.

Now go look at the cost of Athlon 64 motherboards compared to P4 Prescott
motherboards, and most reasonable people would conclude that the P4 2.8
processor is actually a better deal, at the moment, than the Athlon 64
3000+.

Stop spreading lies about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave

If anybody cares to know the REAL numbers between these two processors,
check out the DX9 and Applications benchmarks below.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

Thanks Dave, that's what I was thinking.

From what I was reading, the two looked to be comparable. Intel would
win in some tests, AMD in others.

And in a tie (which is pretty much how it looks), I'll most likely go
with the Intel since I'm used to it.

 

[S.Heenan]

Thanks for the suggestions, I think I'll drop the SB Audigy and won't
bother with an extra CD or DVD ROM drive for now. No harm in trying
things without them first.

Any suggestions on which fan to go with?

From what I've been reading, the Prescott runs a bit hot, and could
use the cooling. Do you think the stock heatsink for the P4 is
sufficient or will I be better off trying something else in there?

The two biggest heat producers will be the video card and the CPU. The stock
heatsink for the P4 should do just fine unless you try serious overclocking.

The Sonata will very likely need another 120mm case fan.

http://sidewindercomputers.com/va12stfan.html

The Vantec is roughly as quiet as the stock fan in the Sonata.

 

[Colin Phillips]

You could try the on board sound, and if you don't like it, you could
always add a sound card later. Another reason to add a sound card would
be that the cpu demands of your applications are great, and that a sound
card would take some workload off your cpu.

Thanks JK, that's what some others have been suggesting too. I think
I'll drop it for now.

An good aftermarket one might be a bit quiter. The heatsinks in the
retail boxes for both AMD and Intel chips are adequate if the chips
aren't going to be overclocked.


If you don't plan to add extra hard drives and a very high performance
video card, a single case fan be fine. Many cases come with only one
fan, but have space for additional fans if needed. See how your temperatures
are, then decide if you need extra fans. Get a case that has spaces for
additional fans if needed.

The Sonata has a mount for another 120mm fan.

But is the Antec 380W TruePower PSU in the Sonata sufficient power to
run what I have, and the added heatsink and case fan, and the SB
Audigy if I need to add them?

From what I've been reading, everyone says the TruePower is great, but
380W seems a bit low.

Thanks

 

[Stephen Austin]

The two biggest heat producers will be the video card and the CPU. The
stock
heatsink for the P4 should do just fine unless you try serious
overclocking.

The Sonata will very likely need another 120mm case fan.

http://sidewindercomputers.com/va12stfan.html

The Vantec is roughly as quiet as the stock fan in the Sonata.

I run a very similar system to the one the OP suggested with a Sonata, I
only use the single supplied case fan and my temps are easily within
limits. m/b temp rarely hits 40c and cpu never goes above 50c

 

[Stephen Austin]

Thanks JK, that's what some others have been suggesting too. I think
I'll drop it for now.


The Sonata has a mount for another 120mm fan.

But is the Antec 380W TruePower PSU in the Sonata sufficient power to
run what I have, and the added heatsink and case fan, and the SB
Audigy if I need to add them?

From what I've been reading, everyone says the TruePower is great, but
380W seems a bit low.

Thanks

I run a very similar system with the Sonata case and I have never had any
problems with the PSU. 380W might be marginal in some lower quality
generic PSU's, but TruePowers are good quality reliable PSU's and you
shouldn't have any trouble with it.

 

[David Besack]

Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in

You could try the on board sound, and if you don't like it, you could
always add a sound card later. Another reason to add a sound card would
be that the cpu demands of your applications are great, and that a sound
card would take some workload off your cpu.

I'm a little confused on this part. It was my understanding that on-board
sound was controlled by the northbridge or southbridge chipset, and that
these chips were dedicated to processes such as on-board sound (among other
things, like the I/O panel). When playing Doom 3, for example, it's easy to
see why your _CPU_ would be running near 100%, but I'm not sure why it's
assumed the NB/SB would be.

 

[JK]

Thanks JK, that's what some others have been suggesting too. I think
I'll drop it for now.


The Sonata has a mount for another 120mm fan.

But is the Antec 380W TruePower PSU in the Sonata sufficient power to
run what I have, and the added heatsink and case fan, and the SB
Audigy if I need to add them?

From what I've been reading, everyone says the TruePower is great, but
380W seems a bit low.

A good 380 watt power supply like the Antec one you mentioned should be fine,
unless you plan to add a few more hard drives or other power hungry
components. A sound card probably wouldn't consume much power. If
you are getting a large case, and plan to add many other things later,
you might want to consider a 450 watt power supply.

 

[Colin Phillips]

I run a very similar system to the one the OP suggested with a Sonata, I
only use the single supplied case fan and my temps are easily within
limits. m/b temp rarely hits 40c and cpu never goes above 50c

Thanks Stephen,

There's no harm (hopefully) in trying it without the second fan at
first. If I'm seeing huge temps, I'll deal with it then.

I'm curious though, how close is your system to the one I've proposed,
and how does it perform in general?

 

[Dave C.]

Thanks Dave, that's what I was thinking.

From what I was reading, the two looked to be comparable. Intel would
win in some tests, AMD in others.

And in a tie (which is pretty much how it looks), I'll most likely go
with the Intel since I'm used to it.

Smart decision. AMD is great. I usually choose AMD myself. But I know
Intel is good, also. Right now, the P4 ~2.8 Prescott is a pretty good deal.
I think you'll be happy with it. -Dave

 

[Stephen Austin]

Thanks Stephen,

There's no harm (hopefully) in trying it without the second fan at
first. If I'm seeing huge temps, I'll deal with it then.

I'm curious though, how close is your system to the one I've proposed,
and how does it perform in general?

Well, I run AMD rather than Intel, using a barton 2500, and I've only got
a radeon 9600 instead of the 9800. But apart from that there's almost no
difference. OK, so changing the processor and m/b is a fairly large
difference, but performance wise they're similar. The system is incredibly
fast for most things, although I'm not playing the latest games on it (I'm
a counter-strike man myself), it does perform well in gaming. With your
9800, you shouldn't have a problem. I VERY rarely have any crashes, the
only time its crashed recently was when I experimented with dual monitor
support for which the drivers leave much to be desired IMHO.

You're right about the fan, it won't hurt to try it with one, if the temps
are too high, just add another.

Steve