Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hi

I am confused on what CPU to buy for a desktop PC with winXP home
..
I want a computer for word processing, internet web broswing and some emails
only. Low usage I guess.
I want about 512ram, 80gHD, onboard graphics,sound,CD.....what CPU

Whats the difference in perfomance with Celeron,AMD,Pentium. I want better
than Pentium4 2.0Ghz. I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and are less
relaible/.

but for my usage are they (celeron,AMD)OK?
, I dont want my PC crashing in 2 years time.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and
> are less relaible/.

I am not going to speak on behalf of the Celeron but AMD is as high a
quality as Intel and gets better performance while at a operating at a lower
GHz range. I guess the best way to compare an AMD to an Intel is an AMD 3200
would be similar to an Intel 3.2 for example. Mind you that's a rather broad
generalization but it's close enough for what I'm saying.

You can expect any chip to fail eventually and any chip maker will have a
bad chip come off the line. I've never had to RMA an AMD though I've sent a
Xeon back in the past. I prefer AMD over Intel for a number of reasons but
the primary reason is price and reliability. This is, of course, just my
opinion but I'd recommend you take a good look at the AMD and don't consider
it a step down but rather daring and bold. They're great chips with good
consistant power and a great price.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23fKK%23$BPFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> In news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
> john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and
>> are less relaible/.
>
> I am not going to speak on behalf of the Celeron but AMD is as high a
> quality as Intel and gets better performance while at a operating at a
> lower GHz range. I guess the best way to compare an AMD to an Intel is an
> AMD 3200 would be similar to an Intel 3.2 for example. Mind you that's a
> rather broad generalization but it's close enough for what I'm saying.
>
> You can expect any chip to fail eventually and any chip maker will have a
> bad chip come off the line. I've never had to RMA an AMD though I've sent
> a Xeon back in the past. I prefer AMD over Intel for a number of reasons
> but the primary reason is price and reliability. This is, of course, just
> my opinion but I'd recommend you take a good look at the AMD and don't
> consider it a step down but rather daring and bold. They're great chips
> with good consistant power and a great price.
>
> Galen
> --
> Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
>

I want to get AMD 2800 or higher with Asrock K7MV3Motherboard. Is the speed
comparible to P4 equivalent. I only use the PC for web/word

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:42565762$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> I want to get AMD 2800 or higher with Asrock K7MV3Motherboard. Is the
> speed comparible to P4 equivalent. I only use the PC for web/word

That would be plenty fast. It would be similar in performance to an P4 2.8
GHz or faster. For a few dollars more, probably, you can get a nice GigaByte
board with an AMD 3200+

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

AMD less reliable? Not hardly! I will use nothing but.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew half as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi
>
> I am confused on what CPU to buy for a desktop PC with winXP home
> .
> I want a computer for word processing, internet web broswing and some
> emails
> only. Low usage I guess.
> I want about 512ram, 80gHD, onboard graphics,sound,CD.....what CPU
>
> Whats the difference in perfomance with Celeron,AMD,Pentium. I want better
> than Pentium4 2.0Ghz. I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and are less
> relaible/.
>
> but for my usage are they (celeron,AMD)OK?
> , I dont want my PC crashing in 2 years time.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaaWATCPFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> In news:42565762$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
> john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> I want to get AMD 2800 or higher with Asrock K7MV3Motherboard. Is the
>> speed comparible to P4 equivalent. I only use the PC for web/word
>
> That would be plenty fast. It would be similar in performance to an P4 2.8
> GHz or faster. For a few dollars more, probably, you can get a nice
> GigaByte board with an AMD 3200+
>
> Galen
> --
> Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
>

what the difference with the gigabyte more with performance with AMDcompared
to asrock, I can get GIGABYTE 8S648FX for a bit more.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I will second that! Modern AMD CPUs are far more robust and capable than
anything Intel is producing at the moment. One just has to witness the
dramatic increase in market share that AMD has enjoyed over the last 18
months. In the 64 bit (x86-64) world, AMD just totally leaves Intel in the
dust. On board memory controller, 2000 MHZ Hypertransport bus, hardware
Data Execution Protection (instead of software implementation of the No
Execute Bit ala Intel)...just a better product any way you look at it. My
Intel 3.06 GHz Intel has been relegated to a role as a file server on my
home network. I'll never buy another Intel CPU.

Bobby

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uiPyznCPFHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> AMD less reliable? Not hardly! I will use nothing but.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> If you knew half as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Hi
>>
>> I am confused on what CPU to buy for a desktop PC with winXP home
>> .
>> I want a computer for word processing, internet web broswing and some
>> emails
>> only. Low usage I guess.
>> I want about 512ram, 80gHD, onboard graphics,sound,CD.....what CPU
>>
>> Whats the difference in perfomance with Celeron,AMD,Pentium. I want
>> better
>> than Pentium4 2.0Ghz. I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and are less
>> relaible/.
>>
>> but for my usage are they (celeron,AMD)OK?
>> , I dont want my PC crashing in 2 years time.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In this world you get what you pay for; Intel set the
standard years ago. AMD has caught and passed Intel in some
measures and not in others.

All are good chips...
P4 chips have more cache and they also have hyperthreading
in the later versions. The Celeron is a P4 with less cache,
no hyperthreading and that means it costs less. Service
life and reliability are the same.

AMD makes chips under different names that cost 10% less
than a comparable Intel because AMD does not include some
internal circuits that Intel does, this reduces the AMD cost
and also allows the AMD CPU to be over-clocked.

For your listed tasks, you could get by with WebTV.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.



"john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
message
news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Hi
|
| I am confused on what CPU to buy for a desktop PC with
winXP home
| .
| I want a computer for word processing, internet web
broswing and some emails
| only. Low usage I guess.
| I want about 512ram, 80gHD, onboard
graphics,sound,CD.....what CPU
|
| Whats the difference in perfomance with
Celeron,AMD,Pentium. I want better
| than Pentium4 2.0Ghz. I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper
and are less
| relaible/.
|
| but for my usage are they (celeron,AMD)OK?
| , I dont want my PC crashing in 2 years time.
|
|
|

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

If you only plan to use your machine for the Web and Word, consider also
your means of connecting to the Internet. A powerful machine warrants a
faster connection than dial-up. I use an AMD 2200 on a cheap motherboard,
and download speed (particularly for images) is my main complaint. I am
happy with the computer itself.

"john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42565762$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23fKK%23$BPFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > In news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
> > john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:
> >
> > My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
> >
> >> I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and
> >> are less relaible/.
> >
> > I am not going to speak on behalf of the Celeron but AMD is as high a
> > quality as Intel and gets better performance while at a operating at a
> > lower GHz range. I guess the best way to compare an AMD to an Intel is
an
> > AMD 3200 would be similar to an Intel 3.2 for example. Mind you that's a
> > rather broad generalization but it's close enough for what I'm saying.
> >
> > You can expect any chip to fail eventually and any chip maker will have
a
> > bad chip come off the line. I've never had to RMA an AMD though I've
sent
> > a Xeon back in the past. I prefer AMD over Intel for a number of reasons
> > but the primary reason is price and reliability. This is, of course,
just
> > my opinion but I'd recommend you take a good look at the AMD and don't
> > consider it a step down but rather daring and bold. They're great chips
> > with good consistant power and a great price.
> >
> > Galen
> > --
> > Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> > Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
> >
>
> I want to get AMD 2800 or higher with Asrock K7MV3Motherboard. Is the
speed
> comparible to P4 equivalent. I only use the PC for web/word
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Yes, I agree with Jim. Web TV would be a good option considering what you
will be using it for.

Why go out and try to search for a good chip if you have "low usage" purposes?

For the type of tasks you said you would be doing, Web TV is something you
should consider.

"Jim Macklin" wrote:

> In this world you get what you pay for; Intel set the
> standard years ago. AMD has caught and passed Intel in some
> measures and not in others.
>
> All are good chips...
> P4 chips have more cache and they also have hyperthreading
> in the later versions. The Celeron is a P4 with less cache,
> no hyperthreading and that means it costs less. Service
> life and reliability are the same.
>
> AMD makes chips under different names that cost 10% less
> than a comparable Intel because AMD does not include some
> internal circuits that Intel does, this reduces the AMD cost
> and also allows the AMD CPU to be over-clocked.
>
> For your listed tasks, you could get by with WebTV.
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
>
>
>
> "john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
> message
> news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | Hi
> |
> | I am confused on what CPU to buy for a desktop PC with
> winXP home
> | .
> | I want a computer for word processing, internet web
> broswing and some emails
> | only. Low usage I guess.
> | I want about 512ram, 80gHD, onboard
> graphics,sound,CD.....what CPU
> |
> | Whats the difference in perfomance with
> Celeron,AMD,Pentium. I want better
> | than Pentium4 2.0Ghz. I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper
> and are less
> | relaible/.
> |
> | but for my usage are they (celeron,AMD)OK?
> | , I dont want my PC crashing in 2 years time.
> |
> |
> |
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Even a P3 800 will more than handle anything an internet browser can throw
at it. The bandwidth available over broadband connections is just too slow
to bottleneck any modern processor, especially your AMD 2200. I would look
further into your problem. . .

"T. Waters" <@$%$%#^@jdjgkl.com> wrote in message
news:%23HGlYDGPFHA.3156@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If you only plan to use your machine for the Web and Word, consider also
> your means of connecting to the Internet. A powerful machine warrants a
> faster connection than dial-up. I use an AMD 2200 on a cheap motherboard,
> and download speed (particularly for images) is my main complaint. I am
> happy with the computer itself.
>
> "john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42565762$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23fKK%23$BPFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > In news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
> > > john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:
> > >
> > > My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
> > >
> > >> I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and
> > >> are less relaible/.
> > >
> > > I am not going to speak on behalf of the Celeron but AMD is as high a
> > > quality as Intel and gets better performance while at a operating at a
> > > lower GHz range. I guess the best way to compare an AMD to an Intel is
> an
> > > AMD 3200 would be similar to an Intel 3.2 for example. Mind you that's
a
> > > rather broad generalization but it's close enough for what I'm saying.
> > >
> > > You can expect any chip to fail eventually and any chip maker will
have
> a
> > > bad chip come off the line. I've never had to RMA an AMD though I've
> sent
> > > a Xeon back in the past. I prefer AMD over Intel for a number of
reasons
> > > but the primary reason is price and reliability. This is, of course,
> just
> > > my opinion but I'd recommend you take a good look at the AMD and don't
> > > consider it a step down but rather daring and bold. They're great
chips
> > > with good consistant power and a great price.
> > >
> > > Galen
> > > --
> > > Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> > > Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
> > >
> >
> > I want to get AMD 2800 or higher with Asrock K7MV3Motherboard. Is the
> speed
> > comparible to P4 equivalent. I only use the PC for web/word
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Sadly, I have dialup.

"Rube" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:eaN753GPFHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Even a P3 800 will more than handle anything an internet browser can throw
> at it. The bandwidth available over broadband connections is just too slow
> to bottleneck any modern processor, especially your AMD 2200. I would look
> further into your problem. . .
>
> "T. Waters" <@$%$%#^@jdjgkl.com> wrote in message
> news:%23HGlYDGPFHA.3156@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > If you only plan to use your machine for the Web and Word, consider also
> > your means of connecting to the Internet. A powerful machine warrants a
> > faster connection than dial-up. I use an AMD 2200 on a cheap
motherboard,
> > and download speed (particularly for images) is my main complaint. I am
> > happy with the computer itself.
> >
> > "john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:42565762$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%23fKK%23$BPFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > > In news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
> > > > john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:
> > > >
> > > > My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
> > > >
> > > >> I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and
> > > >> are less relaible/.
> > > >
> > > > I am not going to speak on behalf of the Celeron but AMD is as high
a
> > > > quality as Intel and gets better performance while at a operating at
a
> > > > lower GHz range. I guess the best way to compare an AMD to an Intel
is
> > an
> > > > AMD 3200 would be similar to an Intel 3.2 for example. Mind you
that's
> a
> > > > rather broad generalization but it's close enough for what I'm
saying.
> > > >
> > > > You can expect any chip to fail eventually and any chip maker will
> have
> > a
> > > > bad chip come off the line. I've never had to RMA an AMD though I've
> > sent
> > > > a Xeon back in the past. I prefer AMD over Intel for a number of
> reasons
> > > > but the primary reason is price and reliability. This is, of course,
> > just
> > > > my opinion but I'd recommend you take a good look at the AMD and
don't
> > > > consider it a step down but rather daring and bold. They're great
> chips
> > > > with good consistant power and a great price.
> > > >
> > > > Galen
> > > > --
> > > > Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> > > > Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I want to get AMD 2800 or higher with Asrock K7MV3Motherboard. Is the
> > speed
> > > comparible to P4 equivalent. I only use the PC for web/word
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:425668e2$0$5595$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> what the difference with the gigabyte more with performance with
> AMDcompared to asrock, I can get GIGABYTE 8S648FX for a bit more.

Check for one with the nVidia chipset which, given your limited usage, would
be fine with plain onboard video and audio. They're a bit more pricey but
the features are good and I've never had to RMA one to date though I think
that's mostly due to luck. Every manufacturer will send a bad product off
the line at one point or another. The products are too complicated to avoid
it.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

:-(

If you are using a WinModem (software controlled) you may want to scrap it
and get an external. I always had hiccups & pauses with winmodems. My trusty
USR 56K serial external never let me down.

"T. Waters" <@$%$%#^@jdjgkl.com> wrote in message
news0ark9GPFHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Sadly, I have dialup.
>
> "Rube" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:eaN753GPFHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Even a P3 800 will more than handle anything an internet browser can
throw
> > at it. The bandwidth available over broadband connections is just too
slow
> > to bottleneck any modern processor, especially your AMD 2200. I would
look
> > further into your problem. . .
> >
> > "T. Waters" <@$%$%#^@jdjgkl.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23HGlYDGPFHA.3156@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > If you only plan to use your machine for the Web and Word, consider
also
> > > your means of connecting to the Internet. A powerful machine warrants
a
> > > faster connection than dial-up. I use an AMD 2200 on a cheap
> motherboard,
> > > and download speed (particularly for images) is my main complaint. I
am
> > > happy with the computer itself.
> > >
> > > "john townsley" <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:42565762$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > "Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:%23fKK%23$BPFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > > > In news:42564ff4$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au,
> > > > > john townsley <johntownsley@optusnet.com.au> had this to say:
> > > > >
> > > > > My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I know Celeron and AMD are cheaper and
> > > > >> are less relaible/.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not going to speak on behalf of the Celeron but AMD is as
high
> a
> > > > > quality as Intel and gets better performance while at a operating
at
> a
> > > > > lower GHz range. I guess the best way to compare an AMD to an
Intel
> is
> > > an
> > > > > AMD 3200 would be similar to an Intel 3.2 for example. Mind you
> that's
> > a
> > > > > rather broad generalization but it's close enough for what I'm
> saying.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can expect any chip to fail eventually and any chip maker will
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > bad chip come off the line. I've never had to RMA an AMD though
I've
> > > sent
> > > > > a Xeon back in the past. I prefer AMD over Intel for a number of
> > reasons
> > > > > but the primary reason is price and reliability. This is, of
course,
> > > just
> > > > > my opinion but I'd recommend you take a good look at the AMD and
> don't
> > > > > consider it a step down but rather daring and bold. They're great
> > chips
> > > > > with good consistant power and a great price.
> > > > >
> > > > > Galen
> > > > > --
> &