suggestions for my new desktop PC components and configuration


G

Gyan

OK, for my new economy desktop PC, I have already purchased a 17"
flat monitor and a double layer DVD writer. Tomorrow, I am ordering
these items:

1. Intel 3 GHz, 2MB cache, 800 FSB P4 [I have not selected AMD 3000+
because in benchmarks, the Intel processor has shown better performance
in applications of my use, such as in multitasking, rigorous
calculations, and media related works, due to its hyper threading
technology. Besides, it also incorporates 64 bit and EIS technologies.
The tests show that the AMD processor is much better for games, but I
rarely play games; and even my current slow processor is fast enough to
defeat me in chess.]

2. Intel D945GNTL Motherboard ("If the cost of a good-quality
compatible board from any other company, such as from Asus, is almost
as much as that of Intel's, if I am not interested in overclocking, and
if Intel makes the processor, 945G chipset, the 950 GMA graphics chip,
why should I not buy the complete board from Intel," I thought.)

3. A matched pair of Kingston 533 FSB 256 MB DDR2 (Some people suggest
that 400 FSB RAM will perform best with an 800 FSB processor; but I
researched the Web, questioned Intel officers, technical staff, and
dealers and concluded that 533 FSB will work faster.)

4. Seagate 160 GB SATA HDD (I have two Seagate hard-drives, one 4 GB
and the other 40 GB, bought in two different years. They have worked in
all sorts of difficult and easy situations but have never given any
problem.)

I welcome any suggestion, instruction, or caution from the experts and
experienced people in this reference.

Thanks,
Gyan
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Kevin

Since you are building an "economy" PC, I see you are opting for onboard
video and audio. Not an issue if you don't plan on doing any graphically
intensive work such as photo or video processing and editing. The same goes
for RAM. 512 MB will be suitable for general usage. I would add a DVD
drive so you can do disk-to-disk copying. You can purchase decent DVD-ROM
drives for about $30 to $40 these days.
 
K

kony

OK, for my new economy desktop PC, I have already purchased a 17"
flat monitor and a double layer DVD writer. Tomorrow, I am ordering
these items:

1. Intel 3 GHz, 2MB cache, 800 FSB P4 [I have not selected AMD 3000+
because in benchmarks, the Intel processor has shown better performance
in applications of my use,

Same exact applications, including version # of those apps?
That is important, older apps may easily run faster on even
Athlon XP than P4. Not trying to discourage the P4, just to
make clear if/when it really is faster, or not.
such as in multitasking, rigorous
calculations,

P4 is not very strong at calculations.
and media related works, due to its hyper threading
technology.

Sometimes it's faster to disable HT. It seems almost like
you are repeating an advertisment, which is OK, it's your
$$$. It just seems rather bizarre to write "economy PC" and
"P4" one paragraph after the other. You might be a good
candidate for a Celeron around 3GHz.

Besides, it also incorporates 64 bit and EIS technologies.
The tests show that the AMD processor is much better for games, but I
rarely play games; and even my current slow processor is fast enough to
defeat me in chess.]

2. Intel D945GNTL Motherboard ("If the cost of a good-quality
compatible board from any other company, such as from Asus, is almost
as much as that of Intel's, if I am not interested in overclocking, and
if Intel makes the processor, 945G chipset, the 950 GMA graphics chip,
why should I not buy the complete board from Intel," I thought.)

For starters, because their budget boards are often
lower-featured, but mainly, integrated graphics are bad for
performance. In the long run I think you'd be better off
taking the savings from a Celeron and getting a low-end
video card. That's not necessarily an argument to avoid an
Intel board, but IMO, no good reason to get an integrated
video board if the cost is already stretching to fit in an
P4 under the guise of "budget".

3. A matched pair of Kingston 533 FSB 256 MB DDR2 (Some people suggest
that 400 FSB RAM will perform best with an 800 FSB processor; but I
researched the Web, questioned Intel officers, technical staff, and
dealers and concluded that 533 FSB will work faster.)

Well it's not quite that simple, it's 133MHz FSB, 533 FSB in
intel-speak as a quad data rate, vs 200MHz FSB, 800 FSB in
intel-speak. Becaue the 200MHz is the FSB rate, a DDR(1)
memory module would be DDR400, PC3200.

All that aside, it depends on the specific memory you buy.
If you're going to buy cheap low-end DDR2 memory, it'll be
slower than PC3200, DDR1 because of the higher latency. In
short, same-situation-different-parts, there's higher cost
in faster parts. At a premium price you'd be better off
with DDR2, but this is only a secondary concern to the
following:

It might be wise to buy 2 x 512MB modules rather than 2 x
256MB. It'll give the system more longevity and later if
you tried to add more memory you might find the result is
either the need to abandon the original memory or slower
memory due slowed-down timings to retain stability. This is
another area where I would sacrifice the P4 for a Celeron
before setting for 512MB for a new system. However, your
needs might be different... some people only need fastest
performance on a single application that doesn't use a lot
of memory, but above you wrote "multitasking", and presuming
you were talking about newer applications in the benchmarks,
it's possible the benchmark cofigurations had more than
512MB memory in them. If less memory causes less file
caching by OS, by apps for temp files, or more access to the
pagefile for virtual memory, the performance degrades
quickly.

4. Seagate 160 GB SATA HDD (I have two Seagate hard-drives, one 4 GB
and the other 40 GB, bought in two different years. They have worked in
all sorts of difficult and easy situations but have never given any
problem.)


It is a reasonable value drive with a nice long warranty.
It's not a high-performance drive but like anything else,
those are disproportionately higher priced.
 
G

Gyan

Yes, I plan to do video capturing, processing, and editing on this PC.
I shall add a good 16 bit PCI express card in future if I need one. And
as I said, I have already bought a good double-layer DVD writer.
 
G

Gyan

I have studied several tests available on the internet. The recent
AMD's are much better than their Intel counterparts. But when it comes
to comparing 3 GHz 2MB cache P4 and Athelon 64 3000+, all tests are
unanimous that the intel processor shows better results in
multitasking, calculations, and multimedia.

I see 800 FSB as 133 X 6, though I am not sure about it. An Intel Web
page says that the memory on the board will function at the speed of
the slowest memory stick you have installed; thus, I selected the
fastest I could manage: Kingston 533 FSB 2X256MB DDR2. Further, I think
Kingston is a reputable RAM manufacturer.

I am currently working with 400MB (128MB + 256MB) RAM, and I rarely
feel the need of more memory. So I think 512MB will be sufficient for
me. In distant future I may upgrade the memory with 1, 2 or 4 GB 667
FSB RAM, discarding the current ones.

Though a Pentium is costly in comparision to Celeron, I have opted for
the former because it is the speed of the processor that poses the
ultimate limit to the capability of a PC. At present, my investment
attention is on bare basics, which can hardly be upgraded in the
future.
 
K

kony

I have studied several tests available on the internet. The recent
AMD's are much better than their Intel counterparts. But when it comes
to comparing 3 GHz 2MB cache P4 and Athelon 64 3000+, all tests are
unanimous that the intel processor shows better results in
multitasking, calculations, and multimedia.

Again, I stress the importance of exactly what software you
run. It is not a matter of "task", it is a matter of
application optimization. I can tell you plainly that a P4
is slower at all 3 of the above tasks with some software,
but faster with others. Whether you are running the same
title and version means everything- because older software
was not optimized for a P4. This is not an attempt to steer
you towards AMD, rather if you need best performance you
need to have this newer software.


I see 800 FSB as 133 X 6, though I am not sure about it. An Intel Web
page says that the memory on the board will function at the speed of
the slowest memory stick you have installed; thus, I selected the
fastest I could manage: Kingston 533 FSB 2X256MB DDR2. Further, I think
Kingston is a reputable RAM manufacturer.

Sure they're a reputible manufacturer, and just like any
other they sell multiple different grades of memory at
different price-points, with different performance levels.
I am currently working with 400MB (128MB + 256MB) RAM, and I rarely
feel the need of more memory. So I think 512MB will be sufficient for
me. In distant future I may upgrade the memory with 1, 2 or 4 GB 667
FSB RAM, discarding the current ones.

It seems a bit wasteful, no? Why throw out memory if you
have the option of simply buying more right at first? Of
course it's a larger initial expense but cheaper in the long
run.

Though a Pentium is costly in comparision to Celeron, I have opted for
the former because it is the speed of the processor that poses the
ultimate limit to the capability of a PC. At present, my investment
attention is on bare basics, which can hardly be upgraded in the
future.

Ok, it seems you have your mind made up then. Can't say
that I agree with all of it but it is your money and you
know what you'll be using the system for better than anyone
else.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jonny

Gyan said:
I have studied several tests available on the internet. The recent
AMD's are much better than their Intel counterparts. But when it comes
to comparing 3 GHz 2MB cache P4 and Athelon 64 3000+, all tests are
unanimous that the intel processor shows better results in
multitasking, calculations, and multimedia.

I see 800 FSB as 133 X 6, though I am not sure about it. An Intel Web
page says that the memory on the board will function at the speed of
the slowest memory stick you have installed; thus, I selected the
fastest I could manage: Kingston 533 FSB 2X256MB DDR2. Further, I think
Kingston is a reputable RAM manufacturer.

I am currently working with 400MB (128MB + 256MB) RAM, and I rarely
feel the need of more memory. So I think 512MB will be sufficient for
me. In distant future I may upgrade the memory with 1, 2 or 4 GB 667
FSB RAM, discarding the current ones.

Though a Pentium is costly in comparision to Celeron, I have opted for
the former because it is the speed of the processor that poses the
ultimate limit to the capability of a PC. At present, my investment
attention is on bare basics, which can hardly be upgraded in the
future.

Have a problem determining whether you're building an economy PC, or slowly
building a fast PC a bit at a time. The small amount of RAM is the clinker,
and makes no sense. This motherboard allows use of the 667 RAM.
Generally speaking, add one clock tick for CL as moving from 400, to 533, to
667. Makes more sense to get one RAM module rather than pairs. And makes
more sense to bite the bullet for the total amount RAM you need now, and not
use the slower RAM at all. Kinda knocks down the Pentium vs AMD argument
because you're slowing the PC down for slower RAM you intend to keep for
now. Makes absolutely no PC building sense to me choosing the 533 over the
667.
 
G

Gyan

A matched pair of RAMs can function in dual channel mode, providing six
to thirteen percent more speed than does a single RAM with the same
total capacity.

I agree on 667 but don't have any money left for 1GB RAM right now. I
shall upgrade the total capcity according to my needs later. Thanks.
 
G

Gyan

Yes, the performance of a processor with HT often increases drastically
if a software has been optimized for it, i.e., if it has been designed
to work on multiple threads. And if it has not been optimized for HT,
disabling HT will probably give better performance.
 
K

Kevin

Yes, but you only have one optical drive. You need two optical drives to do
disk-to-disk copying. Out of curiosity, how much are you spending on your
system, as you have it currently configured?
 
K

kony

Yes, the performance of a processor with HT often increases drastically
if a software has been optimized for it, i.e., if it has been designed
to work on multiple threads. And if it has not been optimized for HT,
disabling HT will probably give better performance.


NO, it has nothing to do with HT.

A Pentium 4 is not faster at the tasks you listed with a LOT
of software. There is no HT or other feature you can enable
or disable that will change this, it will simply be slower
than an Athlon64, and even an Athlon XP, or a Pentium-M in
some applications.

The issue is not how you configure the P4. It is what
SPECIFIC software title and version you run.

I suggest that you do not have a good overview of what aids
performance. For your described tasks it would be
beneficial to have over 512MB of memory for example.
I'm not going to argue about this stuff, but to give you a
hint: One of my systems is 18 months old, is faster than
what you're going to build today and cost less then, than
yours will now.
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Gyan

Including keyboard, mouse, UPS, cabinet, and SMPS with other items I
have mentioned already, this system will cost about 850$.

I shall add another drive later if I feel the need--don't forget, this
is a low-budget PC with huge hidden possibilities.
 
G

Gyan

I shall try to find out how I can use this processor in the best way.
Besides, the board has four memory slots. I shall upgrade the memory
later.

Please let me know whether it is worth buying a cabinet with the option
of adding a second exhaust fan, i.e. a fan other than that in the SMPS?
 
K

kony

I shall try to find out how I can use this processor in the best way.
Besides, the board has four memory slots. I shall upgrade the memory
later.

Please let me know whether it is worth buying a cabinet with the option
of adding a second exhaust fan, i.e. a fan other than that in the SMPS?


It's not just "worth buying" it is absolutely essential for
proper cooling of the system unless you had a power supply
with a very loud, high RPM fan, and even then it is still
sub-optimal to remove all the heat through the power supply.

Given all these questions, I'm starting to think you would
be well off to consider a Dell. You mentioned $850- for
less than that you could get an equivalent system in a bare
form and if you then need to buy more memory or the video
card, etc, you'd still have $ left over to do so.
Essentially, buying separates of the Intel board and P4 you
are paying a premium, this build will end up being fairly
costly for the resultant performance level.
 
G

Gyan

Thanks; I shall order an additional fan.

My system, which includes a flat 17" monitor, Sony double layer DVD
Burner (DRU 800A), Intel P4 3 GHZ (630 no.), Intel D945GNTL
motherboard, 2 X Kingston 667 FSB 256 MB RAM, Seagate 160 GB SATA HDD,
Cabinet, SMPS, keyboard, mouse, and UPS, will cost me 850 $; whereas, a
Dell system of the above configuration will cost about 1050$, as the
calculations show on the Dell Web site. In addition, I know the
manufacturer of only one item from the Dell system: the processor.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

kony

Thanks; I shall order an additional fan.

My system, which includes a flat 17" monitor, Sony double layer DVD
Burner (DRU 800A), Intel P4 3 GHZ (630 no.), Intel D945GNTL
motherboard, 2 X Kingston 667 FSB 256 MB RAM, Seagate 160 GB SATA HDD,
Cabinet, SMPS, keyboard, mouse, and UPS, will cost me 850 $; whereas, a
Dell system of the above configuration will cost about 1050$, as the
calculations show on the Dell Web site. In addition, I know the
manufacturer of only one item from the Dell system: the processor.


You don't just go to the Dell 'site and start adding or
subtracting parts to get what you wanted (for the best
deal). Instead you'd keep an eye out for Dell promotions,
coupons, etc, on deal-'sites to find the lowest bare system
config. Then having that price, determine if changing the
Dell base system is cost-effective, or if it would be more
cost effective to add your own parts as I'd mentioned
previously, memory and video for example.

You don't know the manufacturer now, either. Intel doesn't
"make" motherboards, they contract that out. Asus had made
some but they switched to a lower-cost manufacturer, IIRC,
it might've been Fujitsu-Seimens. Point being, if you buy a
so-called "cost effective" Intel board rather than a
higher-end board, you will find there's the same difference
with intel boards as many others- you're getting what you
pay for, except with intel as the middleman there's an
additional markup from Intel as well as the distributer and
seller instead of one fewer middleman.
 
Ad

Advertisements


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