new computer, need help --any little help welcome--

newbie purchasing new computer and need any little advice.
after weeks of debate and research i finally decided on following:

AOPEN AX 45 8XN [DDR400 533mhz]
P4 2.26 [533]
[DDR 400] 256MB pc3200
Maxtor 80gb ATA-133
ATI-RADEON 7500-LE 64MB SDR
SONY 16X DVD
48X16X48 CD-RW
SB LIVE 5.1
480 wattas pmpo spkrs w. subwoofer


i custom configured this @ ibuypower.com and im spending about $840 for the system.

questions:

1-which sound cards should i look into for good dvd playback, download and watching mpegs,...or do i stick with RADEON 7500?

2-is there a noticable difference in performance between p4 2.0 and p4 2.26 if everything else staying the same?

3-i guess the cd-rw thats shipped with the system is generic. does it really matter? should it matter? or go with a name-brand cd-rw?

4-DDR 400 and DDR 333. is there much difference in performance if everything else is same?

im using the computer for some game play (first person shooters and racings [grand theft]), and for cd-burning. also for heavy day-trading and heavy web-surfing via DSL)

any little comment or advice would help me a great deal. thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) The Radeon isn't a sound card but it would be good for playing DVDs and video. It's a good economical choice cause ATI has always put quality video playback near the top of their priority, unlike the more expensive Nvidias.

2)It depends. A p2.0 might have a 400 front side bus while the 2.26 your getting has a 533. There will be a difference then, but if the cache sizes are the same, and the FSB is the same, then 200mhz less won't cripple your computer.

3)It's better to go with a name brand CDRW because it will have less of a tendency to overburn or screw up your CD. The best name brand (as I've heard) is Plextor. I have a Sony 12x burner and it works fine for me, and didn't cost much. LiteOn is supposedly good quality for less cash.

4)I think theres a big difference in performance when you change ram speeds. If you can get the ddr400, go for it. I know when I changed from regular SD to ddr266, I saw a huge difference.


Your computer is more than ready for playing games and using the Internet and CD burning. If some people tell you to spend $400 on a better graphics card, don't listen to them (unless your a hardcore gamer). I have onboard video and can play FPS with no problem and my computer is much slower than yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really I should let you know, if you are going to go with an Intel system, it is better to go with RDRAM than SDRAM (DDR).

This would require changing your motherboard chipset however for a new system bus (not the 845 models, but likely some version of the 850's)

If you do go with RDRAM, make sure you get PC 1066 (this RAM is at 133MHz, not 100).

For your first question, really you should go with a better video card, especially if you are doing games. I would recommend a GeForce 4 Ti 4200, preferably with 128MB by Leadtek or Gainward. This would also come into play for DVD playback and watching MPEG (particularly if you are watching big movies, in a high resolution with compression).

For your second question, you won't notice any difference between a 2GHz Pentium 4, and a 2.26

Most of the recent fast speed burners (that came after 16x) have some form of buffer underrun protection, even if they are OEM or generic like. In fact most are of pretty good quality. You could look for a brand name one like Plextor, but it will cost you more money.

You're not going to notice any difference between DRR 400 and 333. For one thing, DRR 400 has only barely been released. I'm surprised the place you are buying it from even sells it. They may be lying to you. IRRC, less than a month ago it was almost a prototype beta like standard that hadn't even been released to the public. Not only that, but it won't have a CAS Latency (or CL) of 2.0 for some time. Trust me, you will notice no difference (especially for what you are using this system for).

On your Maxtor drive, you may want to request their models with fluid bearings (they are less noisy).

Don't know what you are talking about on the last line with 480 watts. If you are talking about a power supply, you'll want a brand name like Antec or Enermax of 400 watts or more. If you are talking about speakers, well I really don't know much about those. Digital speakers are of the best quality, but also very expensive. It is better to have them made of plastic or wood, rather than metal. Also, the front dust protection cover for the speaker, the "fish net" effect on it should not be too tight, nor should it be made of that fiber material often used, it should be metal (the dust cover, not the base of the speakers). Otherwise you will risk degraded sound quality. I have heard Altec Lansing makes some good speakers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wow. i made a typo earlier. i was actually referring to video when i mentioned the RADEON 7500. maybe this is a good time to mention that i have a 15in LCD Dell monitor that i plan on using with the system.

Q: why should i go with RDRAM as opposed to SDRAM ??

when i mentioned the 480watts i was referring to the basic speakers with subwoofer that comes with the system. i was thinking about altec lansing 4.1 4400 speaker system but i think i'll wait till christmas and get an even better speaker system.

as for power supply, its at 320 watts (i think its generic, no-name). i get mixed reviews about whether thats enough so i may end up getting a 420 watt PSU.

 

- go for 512 DDR RAM.. especially if you're going to run WinXP.

- for the latest games, a Radeon 8500 is the minimum. it's a lot cheaper than a GF 4 Ti 4200, and the GF is only slightly better. if you're on a budget, go for the Radeon 8500. if not, go for a GF 4 Ti 4400 of 4600.

- CD burner: go for a LiteOn.

- don't go for 400 DDR. too expensive, almost no improvement in performance. you won't notice, trust me. get 333.

- if you're really on a budget, go for an AMD Athlon XP CPU..

 

I would not take Frieda's advice if I were you.

On the note of RAM, I would agree with him to get 512 But there is no point in using XP

It really doesn't matter to me how many ATI loyalist there are in the world. I don't really care if Nvidia is turning into another microsoft (if you'd like to look at it, compared to MS, they are looking to take over the entire computer market and are "evil" ). The point is, their chipsets perform better, even if they cost more. I buy a new video card to prevent low frame rates, not because the company making the card behaves like a used car sales man. Computing is an expensive hobby if you want to be able to use current technology.

An OEM 64MB 4200 will cost you about $150 or less. A brand name 128MB card with possible video capture and output could go as high as $200 Shop around for the best price. I believe a Radeon 8500 will run you around $150

Go here if you'd like to take a look at some benchmarks. http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgacharts-01.html

True, the Radeon 9700 is the best performer on the market right now. But everyone is just waiting for Nvidia to release their next card (likely a GeForce 5 based on Nv30 GPU). When Nvidia makes an official announcement, it will be blown all over industry news.

I would not advise LiteOn. I have heard questionable things about them from more than one person. I would look for a Yamaha drive to be honest.

I would advise you an AMD based system anyhow, but that is not what you asked in your post. And AMD system is not only going to perform better, but it will cost less as well.

The RDRAM issue has been around forever. RDRAM, or Rambus, is a totally different type of RAM compared to SDRAM (DIMM - RDRAM is RIMM). It uses a 4x multiplier, not a 2x (2x would be DDR, or double data rate). The interface is almost totally different (it is almost a bit more similar to serial than parallel). The bad part about it is, it is more expensive. However if you are going with a P4 system, I would recommend RDRAM. While in some applications, it will not perform as well as the latest SDRAM, it is really better for a P4 system.

You'll have to look into it.

 

ok.. what's wrong with it? i mostly agreed with the points you brought up..

lol i meant that WinXP performs better if you have 512.. not that it's good or bad to use WinXP.. i'm only saying that if Nobluo is going to use WinXP, that it's very useful to get 512. it's also useful for games etc.. just get 512.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

about the GPU: i wish i could afford a GF4. but i can't, so i got myself a Radeon 8500. i don't know where you're from, Clarentavious, but here in Europe those GF4s are still about 360-400 euros.
anyway, if you want a steady card, go for nvidea. if you want a budget card and don't care about installing new drivers every month, go for a Radeon.

the reason i recommend LiteOn for a cd burner is that it can copy almost any cd.. and again, it's cheap and of good quality. i've had a plextor, which made 3 cds explode and an Aopen that broke down a month after the warranty period. i really hated that plextor incident, because it is said that plextor does make the best burners. not in my case, unfortunately. it's a personal issue between me & plextor

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yes i totally agree on this one! i have an Athlon XP 2000+ myself.

don't know anything about RDRAM..

 

If I had the cash, I would be following a different strategy, I would actually build my own, but I usually decide wether from scratch or from a basic build that you would probably get for less than $200.

I would then buy the parts yourself, that way you get all the boxes, drivers and other info, But this is just me.

In the case of building a machine you have to not just decide how much your prepared to spend, but you have to tally what sort of computer you intend to build.

You could build a P4 2.26, but if at a later date you sell your system to get yet a better upgrade then you might think about building one of the older systems for cheaper. (This way you don't lose as much money selling it on).

You might how ever want a system that you can continue upgrading, that means that you will need a board that is compatible with beta types etc, and make sure it can be FLASHED.
(Loading a new BIOS program to it)

With RAM you have to understand that FASTER RAM is better for GUI's, especially ones with higher threading (Namely as mentioned the RDRAM). You might think that a few Mega Hertz here and there doesn't make any difference but it does effect how quickly graphics can load up. (since most of the newer AGP slotted graphics cards use the COMPUTERS RAM not their own RAM).

So there would be no point getting a really fast rendering graphics card if the RAM is holding it back.
(I would look at this as a future upgrade option and put the faster RAM in)

As for soundcards, well you've pick a brand thats good since there will be drivers for it.

With CD-RW and DVD's, well there are DVD writers available, personally I would look for devices that can be FLASHED, so if they have a habit of writing something incorrectly they can be FLASHED with an update.

(Note some of these newer drives might have protection boards in them, since that's the way the world is going against copyright theft)

With your power box, just make sure it supports your board. Most standard P4 power supplies are about 350W. (Thats CPU FAN and one BOX fan) If you use a 420W then you've got juice for about 2 extra fans.

Just remember if you open your box, make sure you hold the casing to inert you to static.

 

Frieda it depends what version of the GeForce 4 you are talking about. The 4600's are likely that expensive yes, but the 4200's are not (the 4400's are about mid way). Ordering online is generally cheaper, but you are dependant on the online company's reliability.

I don't like Plextor as of this moment either. They fell to this copyright garbage Stryder just mentioned. They won't write SafeDisc 2.5 protected CDs correctly I believe. That is why I would recommend Yamaha.

I'm all for copyright protection, but more in the form of forcing online registration with CD keys - or some other method. I've lost too many CDs to scratches

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I make backup copies of anything I can (you are legally allowed to own one backup copy of any SW in the US, I don't know about other countries).

RDRAM actually started with a good concept (the idea behind it). The quality of the RAM itself is actually better. But the problem was, when it was released, it was only at 100MHz, and way to expensive (so it got off to a bad start and hasn't really done too well since). It is faster but has higher latency times (almost 10x as much, like comparing 5 nanoseconds to 50 ns)

If you want our opinion Nobluo, you really should get an AMD system. And at this point I would really recommend an SiS chipset over a VIA chipset. Or even maybe look into an AMD motherboard. There are no other chipset makers for AMD CPUs except ALi (which you should definitely avoid, just the Acer company under a new name).

VIA has become too obsessed with RAM, and more and more I hear about data corruption and how their 4 in 1 drivers are not stable. Though I must say I like my 266A :-S

Plus the C3 hasn't done so well. It is a good value processor, but I'm just not so sure of VIA anymore.

With SiS you get a single motherboard controller chip (so there is no northbridge to southbridge link). That is one of the things that has kept them different from most chipset makers.

Edit: there are of course the nForce motherboards from Nvidia, which support dual channel DDR RAM (meaning it also writes at almost twice as fast, not just read speeds). I think ATI also made a few motherboard chipsets awhile back.

 

I thought that Intel was trying to ween itself off of Rambus and RDRAM. I read some article (probably from TomsHardware) that Intel was going to be looking to DDR for the near future. I know the first P4 were engineered to work the best with RDRAM, but I think with the newer P4, Intel has gone the other direction.

Anyway...if you do have the extra cash you should go for the Radeon 8500. If this computer is to last you for awhile and you play games, you don't want to get an outdated card. It sounds like this computer is all-around, not specified for one task, so if you have the extra money, go for the 8500.

If I may, I suggest you get Altec Lansing 641 speakers, or Logitech z-560. They both pack a lot of power (if you want to blast it) and both are really good quality (for computer speakers) for their price. Both can be found for around $150. Both have 4 speakers and a sub.

Do a little research on your motherboard too. It always sucks when some little problem comes up with that.

 

now im thinking about getting that 512 instead of 256. its possible though that i may stick with the 256 and then see what that's like in then christmas do an upgrade to 512.

oh wow!! really?? i was reading on another forum and most of the replies (about intel vs amd) seemed to be geared toward intel because of stability. theory there was that AMD's are cheaper and faster but not stable. they say pay the extra for Intel more expensive but reliable and stable. and also with hammer coming out..........go with the new intel w. 533 fsb??

ok. i think im retarded. is there a way i can find out if they can be flashed? i'll look though

also i want to be able to upgrade every so often. i dont want to be stuck with something i wont be able to work with later. so a good motherboard (via which chipsets) which would then decide if intel or AMD.

if intel, then i was definately thinking AOPEN AX45-8XN SIS chipset.......or MSI 648 MAX-L SIS chipset. both DDR400 533mhz fsb. as for AMD im stumped.


thanks.

 

the 4600s are about 400 euros, the 4200 are 180+ for a 64mb. the Radeon 8500 is 120 euros.

for this same reason i recommend LiteOn. burns everything.


to nobluo:

AMD XP cpus are stable, if you have a good cooler. the only time my cpu was overheat was when i'd been playing the Unreal 2003 demo for 7 hours..

good luck with your choice!

 

FREAK!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

7 hours....wow

AMD has sorted out its compatibility problems...if you go for an AMD chip similarly priced as the P4 2.26, you won't be disapointed. It's your preference with regards to AMD vs. Intel. Although, I would be interested to see how the slower bussed AMD compares to Intel's 533. I wonder if its a noticable difference...of course if you only have owned one you'll love either.

 

The 533 front side bus speed from Intel is nothing but a hoax based on the quad pumped concept (4x). That's why RDRAM, while good, does not perform as if 400MHz when in reality 100MHz 4x (or 133 in the case of PC 1066)

The only reason Intel got any good performance was because their recent core revision.

DDR is a valid technology. That's why all video cards use DDR RAM. You don't see them using RDRAM at 4x

Intel became almost worthless around the year 2000 as far as I am concerned.

They tried to introduce new technology that does not perform at the speed they claims it does.

They wanted to focus on sheer clock speed, and forget about design decisions.

That's like saying:

You have 2 cars. Car A speed monitor has a maximum read of 200 MPH While car B speed monitor has a max of only 150. Well let's say car A tires are really low on air, it has bad aerodynamics, it doesn't have clean oil, etc..... Well car B is in tip top shape - hey, maybe even with a new paint job

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you understand what I am saying now? Intel simply wanted to lie about their specs and focus only on clock speed. AMD rather, focused on processor design.

If you take a GeForce 4 with no drivers, you are looking at 640x480 in 16 colors.

AMD did have some compatibility issues in the past, but it was really more due to VIA's motherboards. They have never been unstable. They have, however, with the Athlon XP's, the tendency to overheat more easily. And AMD isn't good with their warranty policies about thermal death or crushed cores.

Intel's processors shut down when they overheat. AMD's do not. Unless you have a 333 chipset by SolTek or Asus (these 2 vendors included the ABS protection system - while boards from other companies based on the KT333 chipset do not).

With many of these things, they will never reach their maximum listed potential - it is just a marketing gimic.

 

Faster Clock Speeds=More Units Sold.

Intel has the formula right. AMD tried to counter with their naming scheme for the XP processors...but if someone who didn't know much about computers wanted to buy one, why not go for the faster one!

Intel's processors aren't crap though, they just take a different market strategy. Either way, AMD or Intel, you'll have a super-fast machine that can handle the applications nobluo wants for a long time.

 

I can't be sure the Athlon XP's were specifically designed for Windows XP code. However, I can tell you Athlon XP's out perform any P4 or the Xeons (though were are talking MPs with the Xeons) at slightly lower clock speeds at about 8 out of 10 applications.

So if you had a Athlon XP with a true clock speed of 1500MHz, and a P4 at 1600, the Athlon XP would run faster with most programs.

An Intel system would be better for setting up a server (that is the one area the P4's tend to accel). For anything else, like video editting, audio encoding, games, etc..... AMD will be better.

Athlon XP's true clock speeds are not what the chip is listed at (like an 1800+ is approximately 1530MHz). It just means the Athlon XP will perform at the equivalent of a P4 at 1800MHz, or better.

Not to say that AMD hasn't been salesy, or even fallen behind with it's yearly quarter profit estimates, but their processors are better.

The first P4's that were ever released, Pentium 3's actually out performed those

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

after careful considertion and loooking at the replies.....i've decided to reconsider. i think im going to look into an XP2100 system. specs would look as follows.

MSI KT4-VL VIA KT400 PC400MB 8X AGP, USB 2.0
AMD XP 2100+
512MB PC3200 DDR400

problem is....that motherboard does not support ddr400 (or so i hear) i think i can get the kt333 which i was told DOES support ddr400. but in the case that i do go with the via kt400 (which im told doesnt support the ddr400) how would that affect the overall performance?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gigabyte GA-7VAXP, VIA KT400 chipset 8X AGP

dont know if this motherboard solves my problem about the ddr400 support. someone let me know.

 

Really to be honest, if I was going to go with a VIA chipset I would get a 266A or 400

Don't bother with the 333's, alot of people have reported problems with those.

You could get a 400 if you wanted. But your real main advantages there would be integrated support for USB 2.0, Firewire, 100 megabytes ethernet, and 8x AGP (for future cards, or if you got a Radeon 9700, no there's basically no performance difference betweeen the 4x and 8x versions of the GeForce 4's).

For someone like you, you're not going to notice that much performance difference with RAM. If you are doing gaming, it is not going to matter much. If you were doing digital video editting, then it might.

DDR 266 (PC 2100) will work fine for you. VIA lables their chipsets based on RAM, so the KT333 will only support as high as 333 DDR RAM, while the KT400 will support DDR 400.

Though to be truthful I would probably recommend an SiS chipset for you if you are going with an AMD processor.

SiS doesn't sell as well (at least in america), but their boards seem to perform better and be more stable.

 

I'm at school, so I can't do too much now, but here's a board from MSI has ddr400 support..but the ram has to be 4 memory banks and only 2 dimms, whatever that means, but it supports ddr333 too.
Here's the link MSI KT4 Ultra-FISR Make sure you get RAM that is on MSI's compatible list.

Wow, has 6 channel audio and a SPDIF out....sorry I got excited cause I got lots of audio stuff hooked to up to mine.

It uses VIA KT400 chipset.