AMD XP OR INTEL P4 ???

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hi,
I am upgrading my PC, can you guys enlighten me on which processor to
chose from. Should I go for AMD Athlon XP 2600 or Intel 2.8E HT???
Could you please suggest 1) motherboard 2) video card to go with your
suggestion? I am not a heavy gaming person, I do some home video
editing and I basically have a limited budget ($700).

Thank you for the help .

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2004 05:08:39 -0400, ken@kennos-dot-com.no-spam.invalid
(kennos) wrote:
>I am upgrading my PC, can you guys enlighten me on which processor to
>chose from. Should I go for AMD Athlon XP 2600 or Intel 2.8E HT???

Err, well between those you're looking at the somewhat slower but
quite a bit cheaper AMD chip or a faster but quite a bit more
expensive Intel chip. The AthlonXP 3200+ is roughly the same price as
the P4 2.8E.

Ohh, and FWIW, if you can still get one, the P4 2.8C is a faster
processor than the 2.8E and it runs cooler to boot.

>Could you please suggest 1) motherboard 2) video card to go with your
>suggestion? I am not a heavy gaming person, I do some home video
>editing and I basically have a limited budget ($700).

Given you're limited budget I suspect that you'll have a tough time
fitting the P4 in along with a good amount of memory (absolutely
crucial for video editing) and a halfway decent video card.

Here's a decent sample system though (all prices from www.newegg.com,
not the cheapest dealer but good prices and they're apparently fairly
reliable), with all the parts you are likely to really need to upgrade
your system:

AthlonXP 2600+ $94
MSI K7N2 Delta-L $64
Muskin 512MB PC3200 x2 $158
Maxtor 120GB/7200rpm/8MB cache $88
Sapphire Radeon 9600 $94
Antec True330W power supply $47

Total cost: $543

Add in the cost of shipping, any taxes and any "extra" new parts you
might need (maybe an extra case fan, floppy drive, CD-RW, possibly
even a case) and you'll be pushing right up against that $700 budget.
With any money you've got left over you could easily bump the
processor up to a 2700+ ($109) or 2800+ ($121).

If you go for the P4 then you're looking at all the above the same but
subtract the processor and motherboard and add in something like:

P4 2.8C $181
MSI 865PE NEO2-PLS $73

Total cost: $641

You would probably also want to swap out the Parallel ATA hard drive
for an SATA one on the Intel system (it's support basically for free
on the system board and only adds a few extra dollars in cost to the
hard drive). If you don't need any extra bits other than what is
listed above you should be able to fit this within your $700 budget,
but only just barely.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hi Tony,

Thank you a million for your in-depth suggestion, you are indeed a
tremendous assistance to me. I guess I am going for the Intel 2.8C
you suggested. I probably have to delay a month or two to save up
for the more expensive system.

Regards

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[rush]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

ken@kennos-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (kennos) wrote :

> Hi,
> I am upgrading my PC, can you guys enlighten me on which processor
> to chose from. Should I go for AMD Athlon XP 2600 or Intel 2.8E
> HT???

What to choose : Honda Civic VTec or BMW 536i ?
See the analogy ? Why not go for an AMD XP 3200, the price is the same
as 2.8E intel.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

RusH wrote:
>
> ken@kennos-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (kennos) wrote :
>
> > Hi,
> > I am upgrading my PC, can you guys enlighten me on which processor
> > to chose from. Should I go for AMD Athlon XP 2600 or Intel 2.8E
> > HT???
>
> What to choose : Honda Civic VTec or BMW 536i ?
> See the analogy ? Why not go for an AMD XP 3200, the price is the same
> as 2.8E intel.

There is no BMW 536i !

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen <johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote:
> There is no BMW 536i !

Perhaps not in the US, but overseas manufacturers make lots
of different models that they never import into the US.
Either no demand or too expensive to EPA or safety certify.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2004 19:06:52 -0400, ken@kennos-dot-com.no-spam.invalid
(kennos) wrote:

>Thank you a million for your in-depth suggestion, you are indeed a
>tremendous assistance to me. I guess I am going for the Intel 2.8C
>you suggested. I probably have to delay a month or two to save up
>for the more expensive system.

There might not be any 2.8C on retail sale by then. Already I'm seeing
only 2.8E being advertised in local shops.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Why not go for an Athlon 64 instead? The Athlon 64 3000+ is only slightly
more expensive than the P4 2.8C. There is also an Athlon 64 2800+
which is very close in price to the P4 2.8 C.

kennos wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> Thank you a million for your in-depth suggestion, you are indeed a
> tremendous assistance to me. I guess I am going for the Intel 2.8C
> you suggested. I probably have to delay a month or two to save up
> for the more expensive system.
>
> Regards
>
> ==============
> Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hi Guys,

Appreciate your inputs and anology. Hey have you guys got any other
sample specifications for me to take note? I think I might have to
take a bus at the moment :lol:

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[rush]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen
<johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote :

> There is no BMW 536i !

Sure there is (was), M5 with 3.6 engine.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

RusH wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote :
>
> > There is no BMW 536i !
>
> Sure there is (was), M5 with 3.6 engine.

But I'm pretty sure not with a BMW 536i badge anywhere. BMW often uses
numbers on the badge that doesn't necessarily reflect the engine capacity.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> Why not go for an Athlon 64 instead? The Athlon 64 3000+ is only slightly
> more expensive than the P4 2.8C. There is also an Athlon 64 2800+
> which is very close in price to the P4 2.8 C.

However, P4 2.8C/800 can use dual channel memory.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

The Athlon 64 has an on chip DDR memory controller!

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9503,00.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9493,00.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9492,00.html




Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > Why not go for an Athlon 64 instead? The Athlon 64 3000+ is only slightly
> > more expensive than the P4 2.8C. There is also an Athlon 64 2800+
> > which is very close in price to the P4 2.8 C.
>
> However, P4 2.8C/800 can use dual channel memory.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> The Athlon 64 has an on chip DDR memory controller!

Yes, that saves costs on motherboard and makes for consistent implementation.

> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9492,00.html

But then look at the quoted difference in memory bandwidths for the socket
754 AMD 64 and the P4 (Northwood). The socket 939 AMD 64 is in another price
bracket. Main advantage of AMD 64 is the '64' for future OS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:45:44 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
<johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote:

>
>
>JK wrote:
>>
>> The Athlon 64 has an on chip DDR memory controller!
>
>Yes, that saves costs on motherboard and makes for consistent implementation.
>
>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9492,00.html
>
>But then look at the quoted difference in memory bandwidths for the socket
>754 AMD 64 and the P4 (Northwood). The socket 939 AMD 64 is in another price
>bracket. Main advantage of AMD 64 is the '64' for future OS.

Then look at effective latencies. Very few people have "bandwidth
problems" - everybody benefits from low latency and those who need the
bandwidth of 939 can generally afford it.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[rush]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen
<johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote :

> ??? Didn't say any of that, but this is usenet. There are always
> lots of issues and you can't win. But now I don't care because the
> new system is already built and will have to do the next couple of
> years. So far I've no complaints. I could equally have chosen an
> AMD 64, it would probably make little difference one way or
> another. I do use my system for numerical calculations and like to
> have a fast processor & memory, although probably for 95% of the
> time I don't need the full power. Heat output and noise is also a
> major concern, hence I chose Northwood over Prescott.

thats not the point, I was making fun of "dual channel memory"
argument. It doesnt matter how they do it as long as it work, buying
something becouse it has those 'funky groovy turbo intercooled
mega SUPER extra thingies' makes no sense if theyr counterparts get the
job done just for 70% of the price.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

RusH wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote :
>
> > ??? Didn't say any of that, but this is usenet. There are always
> > lots of issues and you can't win. But now I don't care because the
> > new system is already built and will have to do the next couple of
> > years. So far I've no complaints. I could equally have chosen an
> > AMD 64, it would probably make little difference one way or
> > another. I do use my system for numerical calculations and like to
> > have a fast processor & memory, although probably for 95% of the
> > time I don't need the full power. Heat output and noise is also a
> > major concern, hence I chose Northwood over Prescott.
>
> thats not the point, I was making fun of "dual channel memory"
> argument. It doesnt matter how they do it as long as it work, buying
> something becouse it has those 'funky groovy turbo intercooled
> mega SUPER extra thingies' makes no sense if theyr counterparts get the
> job done just for 70% of the price.

Obviously, dual channel memory is worth having. But I take your point more
in respect to Intel's HT hype; poorly understood by most, in fact many
thinks that threading is something new and exciting when threads have
always existed.

Even Intel hints that Hyper Threading may allow the processor to handle
several tasks at the same time! The lack of published results are explained
away by the necessity of appropriate software. I think it is about using
idle pipeline stages (that may occur from faulty branch predictions) for
alternative threads, hence the pipeline may contain broken pieces from
separate threads. But I've never found a proper explanation for HT other
than the hype.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:45:44 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >JK wrote:
> >>
> >> The Athlon 64 has an on chip DDR memory controller!
> >
> >Yes, that saves costs on motherboard and makes for consistent implementation.
> >
> >> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9492,00.html
> >
> >But then look at the quoted difference in memory bandwidths for the socket
> >754 AMD 64 and the P4 (Northwood). The socket 939 AMD 64 is in another price
> >bracket. Main advantage of AMD 64 is the '64' for future OS.
>
> Then look at effective latencies. Very few people have "bandwidth
> problems" - everybody benefits from low latency and those who need the
> bandwidth of 939 can generally afford it.

I think that's an odd argument. Unfortunately, you can be very highly skilled
& educated and use the computer as a professional tool rather than a toy, yet
due to circumstances not be financially well off. It happens.

 

[mygarbage2000]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2004 05:08:39 -0400, ken@kennos-dot-com.no-spam.invalid
(kennos) wrote:

>Hi,
>I am upgrading my PC, can you guys enlighten me on which processor to
>chose from. Should I go for AMD Athlon XP 2600 or Intel 2.8E HT???
>Could you please suggest 1) motherboard 2) video card to go with your
>suggestion? I am not a heavy gaming person, I do some home video
>editing and I basically have a limited budget ($700).
>
>Thank you for the help .
>
>==============
>Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

Neither one - go Athlon64. A64-2800+ is less expensive than P4-2.8,
will beat both P4-2.8 and XP2600 in almost any app, and can run WinXP
64 as soon as it is released. Socket 754 is upgradeable to at least
3700+, possibly even higher, while P4 socket 478 reached end of the
road.
The mobo? Go with the cheapest from a trusted brand (ASUS, MSI,
Gigabyte, etc) you can find. Quick check on PW: Gigabyte -
GA-K8VT800M - $78.97.
If you do video capture, ATI All-In-Wonder video card is right for
you. Otherwise, go with the minimum requirement of your favorite
game. Memory, hard - and optical drives - as you see fit to your
taste and budget. NIC and sound card - most today's motherboard have
them included, unless you need multiple network connections or pro
quality sound.

Also check http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2122
It's above your price range, but without monitor, speakers, with less
fancy case it should fit. Also note that the prices at Anand's are a
bit higher than on pricewatch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>
> wrote:
> nobody@nowhere.net
>
> Neither one - go Athlon64. A64-2800+ is less expensive than
P4-2.8,
> will beat both P4-2.8 and XP2600 in almost any app, and can run
WinXP
> 64 as soon as it is released. Socket 754 is upgradeable to at
least
> 3700+, possibly even higher, while P4 socket 478 reached end of the
> road.
> The mobo? Go with the cheapest from a trusted brand (ASUS, MSI,
> Gigabyte, etc) you can find. Quick check on PW: Gigabyte -
> GA-K8VT800M - $78.97.
> If you do video capture, ATI All-In-Wonder video card is right for
> you. Otherwise, go with the minimum requirement of your favorite
> game. Memory, hard - and optical drives - as you see fit to your
> taste and budget. NIC and sound card - most today's motherboard
have
> them included, unless you need multiple network connections or pro
> quality sound.
>
> Also check http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2122
> It's above your price range, but without monitor, speakers, with
less
> fancy case it should fit. Also note that the prices at Anand's are
a
> bit higher than on pricewatch.

Hi Dude,

Thank you for your interesting suggestion and specifications. It looks
like a viable choice, however over in this part of the world the AMD
64 is still slightly pricey USD$200 for AMD 64 2800+. I will probably
have to make do with my AMD K7 600mhz until September…….dam
!

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:45:44 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
>><johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>JK wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Athlon 64 has an on chip DDR memory controller!
>>>
>>>Yes, that saves costs on motherboard and makes for consistent implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9492,00.html
>>>
>>>But then look at the quoted difference in memory bandwidths for the socket
>>>754 AMD 64 and the P4 (Northwood). The socket 939 AMD 64 is in another price
>>>bracket. Main advantage of AMD 64 is the '64' for future OS.
>>
>>Then look at effective latencies. Very few people have "bandwidth
>>problems" - everybody benefits from low latency and those who need the
>>bandwidth of 939 can generally afford it.
>
>
> I think that's an odd argument. Unfortunately, you can be very highly skilled
> & educated and use the computer as a professional tool rather than a toy, yet
> due to circumstances not be financially well off. It happens.

Not being funny or anything... But the kind of bandwidth that 939
Athlons deliver something special. Yes, you do pay for it, but a
*very* moderate premium. Invest in a time machine and check out
what was charged for an RS/6000 (many times slower than a present
day Athlon) in the mid-90s.

Also the Althons with that bandwidth are more than matched for
price by Intel's offerings... It's true, you don't get something
for nothing.


Cheers,
Rupert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:53:34 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
<johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:45:44 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
>> <johs@sizefitterwiuiuienuivwuivzouvwvuoveswernuaz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >JK wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Athlon 64 has an on chip DDR memory controller!
>> >
>> >Yes, that saves costs on motherboard and makes for consistent implementation.
>> >
>> >> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9492,00.html
>> >
>> >But then look at the quoted difference in memory bandwidths for the socket
>> >754 AMD 64 and the P4 (Northwood). The socket 939 AMD 64 is in another price
>> >bracket. Main advantage of AMD 64 is the '64' for future OS.
>>
>> Then look at effective latencies. Very few people have "bandwidth
>> problems" - everybody benefits from low latency and those who need the
>> bandwidth of 939 can generally afford it.
>
>I think that's an odd argument. Unfortunately, you can be very highly skilled
>& educated and use the computer as a professional tool rather than a toy, yet
>due to circumstances not be financially well off. It happens.

Not sure which "argument" you're referring to but latency (as in low for
the AMD64 CPUs) is more generally useful for most compute tasks than a
minor increase in bandwidth.

I also don't see what's odd about justification based on cost vs. benefits,
though I'm sure we all have personal metrics which we apply. If one's
professional skills can't pay the bills errr........ there's a msg here
somewhere... to do with umm, line of work?;-)

The retail Athlon64 939s became available a couple of days ago - at NewEgg
the 3500+ was selling for $399.... until it sold out... just a few hours
ago. That's more than I'll personally pay but it seems like there *are*
people who think that's a bargain.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=property&catalog=343&propertycodevalue=4954&minprice=&maxprice=&mfrcode=0&DEPA=1&page=2&listStyle=2
or http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1DD252E8

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:46:09 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Why not go for an Athlon 64 instead? The Athlon 64 3000+ is only slightly
>more expensive than the P4 2.8C. There is also an Athlon 64 2800+
>which is very close in price to the P4 2.8 C.

The Athlon64 2800+ might just be able to squeeze into the price point
that the original poster suggested, though it would be tough. I see
that Newegg.com actually lists the 2800+ for $14 less than the P4 2.8C
($165 vs. $179), however when you factor in the cost of a decent
motherboard then the Intel solution comes out ahead.

My main reason for not recommending the Athlon64 line is that, until
the release of the nForce3 250 chipset, I really hadn't been at all
impressed with what I've seen in the way of motherboards. I trust VIA
to make a stable product about as far as I could throw the entire
company, while nVidia's first go of these seemed rather half-hearted.
The nForce3 250 seems like a decent solution, and it's starting to be
fairly widely available, but it still carries a price premium.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:16:57 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:46:09 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Why not go for an Athlon 64 instead? The Athlon 64 3000+ is only slightly
>>more expensive than the P4 2.8C. There is also an Athlon 64 2800+
>>which is very close in price to the P4 2.8 C.
>
>The Athlon64 2800+ might just be able to squeeze into the price point
>that the original poster suggested, though it would be tough. I see
>that Newegg.com actually lists the 2800+ for $14 less than the P4 2.8C
>($165 vs. $179), however when you factor in the cost of a decent
>motherboard then the Intel solution comes out ahead.
>
>My main reason for not recommending the Athlon64 line is that, until
>the release of the nForce3 250 chipset, I really hadn't been at all
>impressed with what I've seen in the way of motherboards. I trust VIA
>to make a stable product about as far as I could throw the entire
>company, while nVidia's first go of these seemed rather half-hearted.
>The nForce3 250 seems like a decent solution, and it's starting to be
>fairly widely available, but it still carries a price premium.

The VIA based K8 boards seem to be working fine and the prices are coming
down fast with the intro of nForce3/250, as is the price on the
Athlon64/754 with the intro of the 939s. Funny but I don't recall seeing
such a wide spread on mbrd prices from intro to general availability as
I've been seeing recently on K8 mbrds. The price on K8s has also been
holding well until the next widget comes along - something new for AMD
CPUs... and a good sign.

I haven't put any exotic cards into a VIA based K8 mbrd yet and I'll
probably never have to, but I haven't seen any problems or performance
issues with them. The fact that much of what would constitute a North
Bridge, the memory controller/interface/arbitration, is now on the CPU die
certainly reduces the scope for a chipset mfr to screw things up. From
what I'm reading it's also reducing the scope for mbrd mfrs to
differentiate product based on timings and overclocking potential.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[mygarbage2000]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:16:57 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:46:09 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Why not go for an Athlon 64 instead? The Athlon 64 3000+ is only slightly
>>more expensive than the P4 2.8C. There is also an Athlon 64 2800+
>>which is very close in price to the P4 2.8 C.
>
>The Athlon64 2800+ might just be able to squeeze into the price point
>that the original poster suggested, though it would be tough. I see
>that Newegg.com actually lists the 2800+ for $14 less than the P4 2.8C
>($165 vs. $179), however when you factor in the cost of a decent
>motherboard then the Intel solution comes out ahead.
>
>My main reason for not recommending the Athlon64 line is that, until
>the release of the nForce3 250 chipset, I really hadn't been at all
>impressed with what I've seen in the way of motherboards. I trust VIA
>to make a stable product about as far as I could throw the entire
>company, while nVidia's first go of these seemed rather half-hearted.
>The nForce3 250 seems like a decent solution, and it's starting to be
>fairly widely available, but it still carries a price premium.
>
>-------------
>Tony Hill
>hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

While VIA is not synonymous with stability, I have yet to see anything
abnormal with my MSI K8T Master2-FAR. I am running it since May with
2xOpreron 242, and it seems to be rock solid, so MSI's claim of it
being a server-class board is quite well-founded, at least
stability-wise (though to me it seems more like entry-level
workstation rather than server - it sports an AGP slot while lacks
PCI-X, onboard SCSI, and other high end attributes).