Build a new computer or upgrade my current one?

[ActiveAero]

My current computer is a Dell from 2001. It's a Pentium 4 with a 1.4ghz processor, 258mb, 60gb hard drive, running windows 2000.

I've been eyeing picking up one of those bare bones kits from Tiger direct and building something myself. Some of them seem really cheap and since I have no clue about what mother boards are crap and what not I'm not to sure.

With my new apt and high speed internet (finally) I'd like to get into some computer online gaming. I'd also like to try my hand at making and editing videos and the like.

What would you do?

Regardless of the answer I'd like your opinion on the best bang for your buck processor/motherboard out there. Thanks.

[Obike]

ActiveAero: Build completely from scratch and go with NewEgg... tiger direct blows.

I built my roomie's comp for ~700 that is brand spanking new, he had nothing to work on. That didn't include a video card but I know we can salvage your hard drive and CD roms from the Dell so that would make the price just about even. Lemme know if you want me to give you a list of parts to buy.

[A418t81]

Build yourself a nice A64 rig :)

[WiggiE]

Build yourself a nice A64 rig :)
Uh huh. 8)

Seriously, after messing with your Dell, don't bother upgrading it. And don't bother with the TigerDirect barebones kits, I've seen them in person :?

On the other hand, your computer will take care of most applications. You ought to try the applications/games out and figure out what you need from there. And Newegg fawking rulez.

Best bang for the buck IMO: Athlon 64 with an Asus motherboard. For that setup you'd want a Gig of memory (2 sticks of 512 3200 ddr).

[Obike]

I agree with everything except processor :D

But that boils down to personal opinion, I can argue technicalities until I'm blue in the face.

[adam p]

Hey, I built my computer last summer. I agree, the best bang for the buck is what I have: Athlon 64. However, I have a limited edition Gigabyte MB with lots of features, including Dula Bios, and it was very cheap. However, I'm pretty sure you can't find one anymore. Gigabyte is great though, I would go with them! They look great, have good instructions, and lots of good software comes with them.

You can build a great nice sub-1000 dollar gaming machine. I didn't, but I didn't spare on any of the parts either. I would also go with my graphics card, now that it went down over 200 dollars. I have a 256mb Radeon 9800XT. I bought it when it was new (500 bucks :shock: ) but now it is alot cheaper than the new x800.

Anyways, good luck. I bought all my stuff from newegg except my case and just hand picked everything. I recommend it! Yes some parts will be a few dollars cheaper at different online stores, but ordering each part from each store is not reliable, and the money saved will probably be made back up in all the individual shipping. Newegg.com! Also, I have crucial ram, but I hear mushkin is the best. However, I am pretty sure you have to order it directly from mushkin themselves. Also, don't settle for less than 1GB RAM.

My computer:http://www.hostdub.com/albums/N3ptune/Img_0440.jpg

[WiggiE]

I agree with everything except processor :D

But that boils down to personal opinion, I can argue technicalities until I'm blue in the face.
I agree that both Intel and AMD make very good processors.

Now for someone that doesn't have much experience building computers, don't you think that an Athlon64 would be a more forgiving processor for the same price? Remember that P4's give off a ton of heat and someone without experience is not going to have a good flowing case due to improper wire routing and proper case fans. Also, for the price don't you think that they'll get more bang for the buck if they are not looking to overclock at all?

[WiggiE]

Also, I have crucial ram, but I hear mushkin is the best. However, I am pretty sure you have to order it directly from mushkin themselves. Also, don't settle for less than 1GB RAM.
I have Crucial ram as well due to the pricing it was offered for at the time. I was going to get Corsair (which is best "all-around" ram IMO), but I couldn't pass up the price on Crucial.

For someone new I would tell them to get Crucial. It is not the fastest, but it's not expensive, it's reliable, and it's very compatible.

[Obike]

Sorry Wiggie, but your facts are around backwards...

All AMDs have a MASSIVE issue with heat, P4s can never overheat and fry due to the heat sensor on them... however AMDs can (due to a engineering flaw in the sensor itself). A friend of mine that worked at Intel and now works at AMD (he's a Comp Eng major from UIUC) says a lot of engineers are scared to be testing their processors due to the massive amounts of heat they give off. He's told me a few stories of the processors catching on fire in the lab.

P4s are innately better engineered, AMDs aren't as well engineered... HOWEVER they are still decent processors. Cash used to be a big concern 2 or more years ago, but now it comes down to how long you are going to keep it and how much you like your house. If you recall there was a Tom's Hardware video that showed the fan/heatsink being taken off and the status of the processors afterwards. The Intel processors were never permanately destroyed, yet the AMDs reached a temperature of 700+ degrees Fahrenheit.

As far as the Athlon 64... it isn't a true 64-bit processor. It does the reverse of what the Intel Itanium processor does. The Itanium processor runs 64-bit natively and emulates 32-bit if needed. The A64 runs 32-bit natively and 64-bit in emulation (with some operations pure hardware... it's a bastardization of emulation and hardware acceleration). The A64 will run 32-bit applications all fine and dandy, but as a 64-bit processor it blows monkey balls and is a horrible failure.

However, 64-bit isn't even needed. There is no Windows operating system commercially released that supports 64-bit and you need to find a 64-bit build of the binary in order for it to run on that OS (unless they changed that recently). So as of now it's pretty much pointless to have a A64, it just basically came down to that AMD did the smart thing and advertised their processor to the public while Intel knew that the evolution of 64-bit was a few years in the future and didn't take advantage of the fact that they had the first TRUE 64-bit processor on the market (I believe it was available in late 2000/early 2001).

Now back to 32-bit land :D

AMDs and Intel will perform roughly the same, AMD has made some great improvements and so has Intel. Personally I say go Intel simply because of Hyper Threading, it does give a performance increase and generally is more reliable than AMD. AMDs have more of a OverClocking following though...

But I agree, Asus mobos all the way ^_^

[WiggiE]

Maybe it's just my personal experience with Intel P4's (esp the Prescott) running super hot and my A64 only running at 90-110 degrees Farenheit no matter how much load I put on the processor. I'm speaking of A64's not all AMD's.

I totally understand what you are talking about with the P4's having the heat sensor and shutting down if they get too hot. I think the video you are talking about was actually from an early Athlon before they had the heat sensor. From my understanding (and I could be wrong), AMD fixed the heat sensor problem and it's works properly.

Now I don't have any friends on the inside, but the Intel probably is a better engineered piece. That's not to say the AMD won't do everything you want it to and more.

I understand there is no "Windows operating system commercially released that supports 64-bit", yet the A64 does a very good job at 32 bit. Although you would have to have a 64-bit OS to take full advantage of the chip, it is still priced competively enough to be considered as a rival for the P4 at 32 bit.

Yes, AMD and Intel will both perform fairly close. If you are doing much multimedia editing or CAD, I would def say Intel as it's a stronger processor in this area.

[adam p]

Exactly. I didn't buy my Athlon 64 for 64 bit. It would be pointless. My Athlon 64 has great 32bit performance for the price, and runs very cool. My case isn't the best flowing, but my processor remains very cool at all times. I still would recommend my Gigabyte over an Asus mobo based on pure features. It really is a great package.

Athlon 64 = value, runs cool, great for beginners. It worked for me for my first PC, and it will work for you! My setup (Athlon 64 3000+, 1gig crucial RAM, Radeon9800XT) isn't the NEWEST system, but it plays all the latest games wonderfull, even Doom 3! I would recommend any part I have to somebody else.

[Jess]

Nobody has even mentioned Cyrix processors. Those things are the bomb. look into it

[WiggiE]

Nobody has even mentioned Cyrix processors. Those things are the bomb. look into it
Bitch I still have one. HAHA....it's a Cyrix 200+ aka 150mhz chip with a 175mhz bus.

[Jess]

bet that keeps you warm in the winter

[Obike]

Wiggie: The flaw that was in the heat sensor is still there, it has not been fixed. The problem was that it couldn't take greater than 5 degree temperature increases within a certain time, n. Most AMD motherboards have worked around this and placed their own heat sensor near the processor to override AMDs.

[adam p]

Like my gigabyte.

[Jess]

STFU about your stupid gigabyte.

Abit RULEZZ0RZZZZ

[adam p]

LOL SOMEONE LIKE THE GIGABYTE, PLEASE!

[WiggiE]

Gigabyte's are gh3y. They couldn't even come up with their own name. :lol:

[WiggiE]

Wiggie: The flaw that was in the heat sensor is still there, it has not been fixed. The problem was that it couldn't take greater than 5 degree temperature increases within a certain time, n. Most AMD motherboards have worked around this and placed their own heat sensor near the processor to override AMDs.
Interesting.

Either way, I think Brock would have a good setup with an A64 or a P4 and an Asus mobo.

[Zx RaTeD]

Exactly. I didn't buy my Athlon 64 for 64 bit. It would be pointless. My Athlon 64 has great 32bit performance for the price, and runs very cool. My case isn't the best flowing, but my processor remains very cool at all times. I still would recommend my Gigabyte over an Asus mobo based on pure features. It really is a great package.

Athlon 64 = value, runs cool, great for beginners. It worked for me for my first PC, and it will work for you! My setup (Athlon 64 3000+, 1gig crucial RAM, Radeon9800XT) isn't the NEWEST system, but it plays all the latest games wonderfull, even Doom 3! I would recommend any part I have to somebody else.

ROFL! you sound like a late night infomercial! lol : )

¢?£¥

[adam p]

ROFL! you sound like a late night infomercial! lol : )


Yeah, that was the desired effect! :) The "It worked for me, it'll work for you" was definately the clincher. 8)

[A418t81]

Sorry Wiggie, but your facts are around backwards...

All AMDs have a MASSIVE issue with heat, P4s can never overheat and fry due to the heat sensor on them... however AMDs can (due to a engineering flaw in the sensor itself). A friend of mine that worked at Intel and now works at AMD (he's a Comp Eng major from UIUC) says a lot of engineers are scared to be testing their processors due to the massive amounts of heat they give off. He's told me a few stories of the processors catching on fire in the lab.

P4s are innately better engineered, AMDs aren't as well engineered... HOWEVER they are still decent processors. Cash used to be a big concern 2 or more years ago, but now it comes down to how long you are going to keep it and how much you like your house. If you recall there was a Tom's Hardware video that showed the fan/heatsink being taken off and the status of the processors afterwards. The Intel processors were never permanately destroyed, yet the AMDs reached a temperature of 700+ degrees Fahrenheit.

As far as the Athlon 64... it isn't a true 64-bit processor. It does the reverse of what the Intel Itanium processor does. The Itanium processor runs 64-bit natively and emulates 32-bit if needed. The A64 runs 32-bit natively and 64-bit in emulation (with some operations pure hardware... it's a bastardization of emulation and hardware acceleration). The A64 will run 32-bit applications all fine and dandy, but as a 64-bit processor it blows monkey balls and is a horrible failure.

However, 64-bit isn't even needed. There is no Windows operating system commercially released that supports 64-bit and you need to find a 64-bit build of the binary in order for it to run on that OS (unless they changed that recently). So as of now it's pretty much pointless to have a A64, it just basically came down to that AMD did the smart thing and advertised their processor to the public while Intel knew that the evolution of 64-bit was a few years in the future and didn't take advantage of the fact that they had the first TRUE 64-bit processor on the market (I believe it was available in late 2000/early 2001).

Now back to 32-bit land :D

AMDs and Intel will perform roughly the same, AMD has made some great improvements and so has Intel. Personally I say go Intel simply because of Hyper Threading, it does give a performance increase and generally is more reliable than AMD. AMDs have more of a OverClocking following though...

But I agree, Asus mobos all the way ^_^

Obike, I see you trying to be objective, but its very obvious you are a hardocore intel fan boy ;) The facts are that the A64 kills the prescott P4's in terms of pricing and now, even overclocking. Except for the usual things that intels are strong at with their high clock speeds such as video rendering, etc, the AMD's....especially the A64's.....are a better gaming platform (by more than a marginal percentage). Also, the A64's, hell, even the XP's didn't have the heat issues of the early AMD's. My XP1800+ running at 2.3 ghz idles at 35 deg C with 1.75 Vcore.

Also, the 90nm SOI prescotts have HUGE heat issues...so much in fact that you'll see jokes around the internet about people who have P4 "george foreman's" ;)

Finally, intel is adopting AMD's 64 technology as their own for their round of 64 bit processors which will be coming out in '05 so its obvious that is isn't all that bad (done also for compatibility sakes as AMD's marketshare continues to rise). The 64 bit XP IS available for those who have an A64, but the drivers are still in infancy and as of now, the 32 bit is still a lot faster. That said, unreal and half life people are both writing 64 bit engines for these new processors as well.

In short, they are both great processors. The hyperthreading is nice if you have like 4000 things open at once, which I never do. That said, the hypertransport bus on the A64 makes up for most of that deficite. It really comes down, for me, anyways, to the price per performance and the A64 is where it's at.

Edit, you should do some research on the A64's compared to similar performance P4's. The results will suprise you. These A64's are a TOTALLY new breed.

I LOVE mine :) I have an a64 3600+ in my laptop ;)

[adam p]

Athlon 64 RULEZ!!!!!1!!!11

And go Gigabyte!

[AU RSX-S]

You guys have too much time on your hands. :wink: :lol:

[Obike]

A418t: Actually, I was at QuakeCon when AMD revealed the 64-bit processor for the first time to consumers (all tournament machines were powered by it). The only thing Intel is adopting is the instruction set for having that bastardized emulation + hardware acceleration going... but I digress about that.

One thing that I agree on is that I am an Intel fan boy, but I do _TRY_ to be objective of the other people (which is why I don't sacrifice people that have nVidia video cards :D). As far as comparing A64 to P4 performance, without going into technical specs, it's hard to truly compare them... mainly due to the completely different pipes, mobo chipsets, and mobo architectures out there. The only time you'll get remotely accurate test figures is if you run a equivalent chipset and motherboard (which they almost never do). Another thing that you need to look at is the FSB... hyper transport doesn't do shit if you don't have the FSB to back up all that data jumpin around. Remember, your computer is only as fast as the slowest part (due to clocking).

The main thing that A64 has going for it is that you can overclock all these settings like a bitch (which I think is bad, cuz a mobo can only take so much O.o)... the A64 provides the advantage of allowing 64-bit code to run semi-natively while the P4 doesn't. Then again it doesn't really matter because 64-bit is gonna need another 2yrs to mature, and by that time your processor will be outdated and it better alternatives will exist.

Also one thing that Intel, AMD, and IBM have is that if a core instruction set exists already in the marketplace and you are going to introduce a competing product then you must use the existing instruction set. This allows for a pretty much level playing field in that you don't have different instruction sets and standards floating around (which is why OpenGL sucks so much).

[CPMaverick]

I would like to do this as well... I have a PC with pretty much everything I want for right now- DVD-ROM, CD-R, 160 GB, I have a single 512 MB of RAM. But it's an older MB with a 1.5 Athalon.

I'd love to upgrade my MB, add a better processor and more RAM, but I don't know where to start. There are all kinds of different MB and RAM types.

Any recommendations on a good book, manual, or website to familiarize yourself with this kind of thing?

[Obike]

anandtech.com

[WiggiE]

anandtech.com
www.tomshardware.com too

If you need help trying to figure out what you need, let us know your budget and goal and we'll sure try to help you out, Charlie.