Computers: This is my new PC!!!

[mrwiseman]

IRT Cata: I'll get an Athlon 64 of whatever model has the best performance to price ratio by the day I get it, after checking Tom's Hardware (a very reliable and knowledgeable site). I'll get a suitable MSI motherboard with AGP bus and at least 4 PCI slots for cards and stuff, 1 GB dual channel RAM, Kingston ValueRAM maybe, at the appropiate speed by that time, and a good fan, maybe Zalman's (expensive, but the best at cooling and low noise). 1 GB RAM will be enough for quite some time; I've always kept my system bloat─free and optimized everything.

I also want another hard disk (anything over 100 GB that's fast), which I'll probably get sooner, but I need to finish this project first as I'll have to port Windows 2000 from an older hard disk there, and reorganize everything I have.

[Cataferal]

That sites really interesting Wiseman. I just read the article on women and videogames, and its got some interesting points for both sides of the argument. Good read.

Anyway, how do you guys feel about the following contrasts - and why?

ATI vs Nvidia

Pentium vs Athlon

<font color="#345E81" size="1">[ August 28, 2005 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Cataferal ]</font>

[Dreamer7000]

The only thing I'm lacking in is memory! Damn I only have 256, another 512 would be fine. I don't necessarily need anything else. I'm fine with my current computer. Although the 2 concerts I'm going to won't let me save any money for extra Ram. And my X-mas present is eaten up by WoW. AND I still have to pay my cousin for my PS2... &gt;_&gt;
OMG... this is a lost project for now.

[mrwiseman]

IRT Cata: Tom's Hardware is the very best. I've been following that site every time I needed new hardware, and I saw how the TH guys work (test methodology, laboratory equipment, and deep knowledge of hardware). These are not article writers, these are engineers, and they know what they're saying. And since *fortunately* they aren't with companies, i.e. they don't get paid for reviewing hardware, they are very sincere. For example, while all these "Easy-weasy PC", "Luser Paradise", "Press F1 for help" magazines are always hyping everything new they're given like retards, Tom's Hardware is the first to say an uber new technology featuring BellsAndWhistles? is unnecessary and prove it with hard facts when that's the case.


ATI vs Nvidia: I've been using cards from both, and I could see ATI's seem to offer a better performance to price ratio for mid-end and low-end graphic cards, while nVidia's high end seem to be a better products (more stable, better driver support, better drivers overall). ATI has good priced hardware, but the software end is not as good as nVidia's (that's not to say it's bad, as long as you aren't using the new bloated Catalyst control panel). I went and I'd go for ATI for a more cost-effective graphics card, and I went and I'd go for nVidia when I want a monster.


Pentium vs Athlon: I haven't been following the new processors war closely as of late due to lack of time and need, but with the few facts I could gather quickly, Intel's processors are good performers, but they have a worse performance to price ratio. Besides, AMD has taken the lead technologically-wise, and it's their 64 bit architecture, not Intel's, the future of PCs (this isn't my guess, it's a fact). Because of this, unless I wanted a high-performance server (esp. if multiprocessor), I'd set a budget and go for AMD for two reasons: the soon-to-be de-facto standard 64 bit mode, and the fact (according to the latest data I checked, this might have changed or not) an AMD processor of a given price will perform better than an Intel processor.

[Cataferal]

ATI vs Nvidia - Obviously Nvidia are now in the lead, not just with the power of their latest Geforce 7800's, but through invention of "SLI" technology, which gives a 20% performance boost if you have the money to buy and link up two of them. However, i think ATI will, as usual, one-up them soon with their Radeon Xxxx range. Also, to rival this SLI technology, ATI have Crossfire also allows multiple GPU's to run for increased performance using their "Crossfire" technology. Thanks to certain innovations such as Supertile and SuperAA, its considered to have better graphical effects and overall performance than Nvidia's SLI.

Im leaning towards ATI for the future, but right now ive got my sights on Nvidia, who have the better graphics cards to actually utilise these combination features.

Disclaimer: I dont have much actual experience with either company, (ive been stuck using a 7+ year old Matrox graphics card for years); i just know what i see online through charts and explanations.

Intel Vs AMD - Ive always used Intel's Pentium's, and occasionally had the headache of using a Celeron. The only occasion ive had the pleasure of using AMD's Athlon processor was with OCB's PC, and ive seen little to fault so far. Again, ive seen the charts, and like Wiseman im seeing AMD as the way forward - unless Intel bounce back wth something to equate to their 64bit technology. According to this stress test, run by the clever folks at Tomshardware.com, the AMD's only real shortcoming is in DivX compression. In every other area, from gaming to file extraction, AMD is slightly faster.

Next time i buy a PC, im sure these cases of superiority will be turned upside-down, but right now, in terms of performance Nvidia and AMD are the leaders in their respective markets. In terms of value, i'd say ATI and Intel, which is why you'll see my PC favoured both comnpanies.

<font color="#345E81" size="1">[ August 31, 2005 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Cataferal ]</font>

[SmellyCat]

I see I read this thread much too late [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll start with responding to Cataferal new PC:

It is certainly a nice system. I'm sure it will be more than adequate for your needs the next few years.

Here are some comments:
You have a 200Mhz FSB (Front Side Bus), not 800.
Dell is more expensive than choosing the components yourself (and putting them together). But of course I understand why this is not an option for the average user.

I will post later this evening about some performance hardware tips. And the NVIDIA vs ATI and AMD vs Intel.

[Cataferal]

IRT SmellyCat - According to all specs provided by Dell, i have an 800 Mhz FSB. Either Dell are lying, or theres some niche technicality involved with your accusation of it being 200Mhz. I'll await your response on that one.

Also, i researched putting the components together myself, but i would only have saved a max of ?50 ($100) in the process. I opted for Dell mostly out of laziness, and to get a feel for some sort of standard to work from in future years. 10 years ago it would have been a different story, and i might have saved hundreds, but now technology has cheapened, and lot of technical standards are publicly realised, it doesnt much matter which way you do it. You get what you pay for, and in this case i paid slightly extra for their service of putting all the components together, and the popular Dell branding.

I'll look forward to your comparisons.

[SmellyCat]

Tom's Hardware has a wealth of information about technical information about hardware. They don't just discuss certain products, but also the technical information behind them. I spend many days on the website when I think of buying a new PC or component.

The only problem with Tom's Hardware can be that they can sometimes can go to deep in certain technical subjects when you don't expect it. For example when reading an article about a new LCD display, they may explain in detail the ISO standards to measure them and why they suck. It is actually pretty cool, but when you later want to read this information again it is very difficult to find it, because it is hidden somewhere in an article about a specific product.

IRT Cataferal - Do they lie?
Well they lie in the sense that all marketing people lie. We discussed memory and FSB not long ago on this forum.

Your FSB is really 200Mhz (that's an excellent speed).
When your CPU communicates with your memory it uses Dual Data Rate (DDR).
And therefore the memory is sometimes indicated as 200 * 2 = 400DDR
or
400 * 8bits = PC3200

(doesn't 3200 sound much faster than 200? [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Intel P4 CPU also uses Quad Data Rate (QDR) and from this comes 4 * 200Mhz = 800Mhz

I forgot exactly where the QDR benefits.

Take a look at The Mother of all CPU Charts

[SmellyCat]

Nvidia vs ATI

I have owned graphic card from both. I have had bad experiences with drivers from both companies. I still remember that I could not use a command prompt when Windows 2000 was released, because the NVidia drivers couldn't handle it. I had to wait half a year for them to fix it.

It is difficult to compare bad and bad when it comes to their drivers [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think that at the moment Nvidia is leading in the middle performance range. But it could change soon enough again.

Nvidia has a lot to make up for, because they have done a lot of cheating over the years by increasing their performance by reducing their quality. They have done so especially for benchmark tools.

I think ATI still wins at the quality of the images. But I didn't keep up with it so much anymore.

Also don't forget about power consumption! Nvidia cards have been notorious about needing much more power (and also become hotter).

[SmellyCat]

AMD vs Intel

I think for any gamer the choice is very easy. AMD beats Intel. It is faster, cheaper, less power hungry, less hot, more stable.

The only reason why you might want to choose Intel is if you need a cheap processor that let's you test multi-threaded applications and timing problems (for developers). In that case the hyper-threading in Pentium 4 might be a cheap choice. However dual core AMD systems will become cheaper soon.