Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Hi,

I'm planning on building a new system to replace my old one. The specs are
below. It'll be my first homebuild, and I don't want to spend too much.
Have I missed anything vital out? Or have I completely screwed up? Let me
know what you think.

Processor: AMD Athlon 3200+ 400 MHz FSB 512k cache Barton £106.99
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] _uid=54995

RAM: Twinmos 512mb DDR400 Cl2.5
£55.87
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] _uid=55344

Mboard: PcChips M848ALU SKT A SIS 748 400 DDR 6ch sound/lan/usb2.0
£19.85
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] 1760#pinfo

Case: eBuyer KG-888-S 400watt ATX £17.99
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] _uid=56979

HD: ?? gig (rma upgrade from old system manufacturer) £50-100

Video: Radeon 9200 256mb (upgrade for old system) £free

DVD: LG 8x DVD DUAL R/RW/RAM Int Ide Burner - Retail Box £59.97
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] _uid=60555

Total cost: £300-£350 (all ex. VAT)

Thanks in advance,

Nick

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:18:22 +0100, Nick wrote:

> I'm planning on building a new system to replace my old one. The specs are
> below. It'll be my first homebuild, and I don't want to spend too much.
> Have I missed anything vital out? Or have I completely screwed up? Let me
> know what you think.
>
> Processor: AMD Athlon 3200+ 400 MHz FSB 512k cache Barton £106.99
> http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] _uid=54995
>
Since you don't want to spend much, get a 2500+ and just set it to 3200+.
or the 2600+ for $45UK. Get OEM and TR2-M1 (or M3) cooler, The retail
coolers aren't that good.

> Mboard: PcChips M848ALU SKT A SIS 748 400 DDR 6ch sound/lan/usb2.0
> £19.85

I'd see how it compares to the Asrock K7S8XE+ before buying this one.

> Case: eBuyer KG-888-S 400watt ATX £17.99
> http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] _uid=56979
>
Probably OK, but I'd get a bigger PSU, 550W min for future and to insure
stability.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:18:22 +0100, Nick wrote:

> Total cost: £300-£350 (all ex. VAT)
>
Might want to consider an AMD 64 if you plan on spending this much.
S755MAX MB. Athlon 64 3000+ will be a lot faster than the Barton 3200+,
and there's room to grow,

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> > Total cost: £300-£350 (all ex. VAT)
> >
> Might want to consider an AMD 64 if you plan on spending this much.
> S755MAX MB. Athlon 64 3000+ will be a lot faster than the Barton 3200+,
> and there's room to grow,

Thought about it, but considering that both Intel and IBM are coming out
with 'super' chips next year to go in the latest xbox and ps3 respectively I
don't think much will remain upgradeable. Not to mention PCI express and BTX
form factor.

Also, will cost at least £50 more for the motherboard. Though it would be a
much nicer motherboard... with gigabit, and firewire and double the fsb...
hmmmm....

Will have to think about it more. Maybe up the budget. Would be *nice* to
have a spanking system.

Thanks for the advice.

Nick

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> > Processor: AMD Athlon 3200+ 400 MHz FSB 512k cache Barton £106.99
> >
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/pro [...] _uid=54995
> >
> Since you don't want to spend much, get a 2500+ and just set it to 3200+.
> or the 2600+ for $45UK. Get OEM and TR2-M1 (or M3) cooler, The retail
> coolers aren't that good.
>
> > Mboard: PcChips M848ALU SKT A SIS 748 400 DDR 6ch sound/lan/usb2.0
> > £19.85
>
> I'd see how it compares to the Asrock K7S8XE+ before buying this one.

Seems like my options are to go for higher spec 64 bit processing and spend
more, or spend £50 less and overclock for the same performance. I'm thinking
spend less and try oc'ing.

First time for everything...

Thanks.

Nick

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:18:22 +0100, "Nick" <Reply to Group> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm planning on building a new system to replace my old one. The specs are
>below. It'll be my first homebuild, and I don't want to spend too much.
>Have I missed anything vital out? Or have I completely screwed up? Let me
>know what you think.
>
>Processor: AMD Athlon 3200+ 400 MHz FSB 512k cache Barton £106.99
>http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=54995
>

There's poor value from highest speed CPU in any family. You might
consider shaving a few $$ from this part and applying to other parts of
system. It should be at least $20-40 less for the XP3000 and you'd never
notice the difference in use...or as Wes suggested, if you're inclined to
overclock it's pretty easy to do that. Easiest would be to buy a mobile
Barton XP2400 but you may also need a different motherboard, I don't know
if the PCChips has CPU vCore adjustment option.

>RAM: Twinmos 512mb DDR400 Cl2.5
>£55.87
>http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=55344

Not a bad start for a value-priced-pc, but consider the uses of the
system. Many people find gains in moving to at least 768MB of memory. If
you will potentially use more memory, it may be best to buy all that
memory at once, else you might find that module isn't compatible, rather,
doesn't have enough margin for stabilty with multiple other modules
installed... it "may", but to be sure you'd need to test that while you
still have option of returning the memory if it doesn't work... almost any
module will work fine alone in a board unless it's literally defective or
damaged, opposed to low-bin chips.

>
>Mboard: PcChips M848ALU SKT A SIS 748 400 DDR 6ch sound/lan/usb2.0
>£19.85
>http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=51760#pinfo

I'd get a different brand of board, PCCHips are a PITA if they don't work
right, if you want a bios update later, or need more features. Gigabyte
makes good compromise boards pricewise but if you'd be using this box
long-term you might consider Asus or Abit.

>
>Case: eBuyer KG-888-S 400watt ATX £17.99
>http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=56979

Spend the savings I suggested on the CPU, on a better power supply or case
that includes better power supply. If that case has thin metal it may
result in a relatively loud system and may not have decent fan mounts,
requiring cutting of metal to improve airflow but that further reduces the
already marginal structural integrity of those low-end cases.

>
>HD: ?? gig (rma upgrade from old system manufacturer) £50-100
>
>Video: Radeon 9200 256mb (upgrade for old system) £free
>
>DVD: LG 8x DVD DUAL R/RW/RAM Int Ide Burner - Retail Box £59.97
>http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=60555
>
>Total cost: £300-£350 (all ex. VAT)
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Nick
>

Even if you do switch to some newer platform down the road, for example
BTX, the power supply will be reusable. Better to spend enough $ to get a
good one that can be reused, not a potential liability, and looking
towards the future it would be better to get one with SATA drive support
(connectors) providing the cost difference isn't large enough to make it a
better value to just buy adapters separately as needed.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Everything looks good except your mother-board..... the PC_Chips brand
has a reputation for poor quality.
-
Of course.... I can't be sure they haven't improved in recent years.....
I haven't touched one in at least 3 years.
-
~ Guy ~
-
PS.....
You can't go wrong with a Microstar..... I've never had a problem with
them..... and I've built many.
-

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> >I think, from looking in my crystal ball, reading the portents, and
> >sacrificing a few chickens to read their entrails, that the system will
be
> >my main system for about a year or until the ibm cell chip moves out of
ps3
> >into pc's, so max 2 years??
>
> You have a reliable source to suggest we'll be buying IBM "cell chips" in
> 2 years? Is this going to be cost effective and/or mature enough at that
> point or an alpha/experiment?

I hope so... 200 times faster than the PS2 chip (equivalent to a 733 MHz
PIII)... drool...

See New Thread: Next Generation Processing


> Hmm, I'd say your T-Bird 1.4 may already be better than her Celery 2.8,
> depending on what else is in those boxes of course.

Quite possibly. She has onboard graphics with 64mb shared memory, knocking
the 512mb down, while mine is 768mb with graphics and sound card separate.
But there are other reasons, as I say below.


> But you're aware that any of them can be ran at 200MHz, DDR400 FSB,
> providing your motherboard has FSB adjustments, and PC3200 memory suited
> to synchronous mode. I even have an old XP1700 running at DDR400, albeit
> only at ~ 2.5GHz.

My point was more along the lines of "Will it reduce bottlenecks by keeping
the fsb synchronous with the ram?" I am aware that the slower fsb XP's can
be overclocked.


> >Mediocre option with 1024mb ram. Now I just need the cash...
>
> like a WD Raptor...

Yes, they're cheap. Not. £170 for 36gb at 15k versus £35 for 40gb at 7200...
Considering what I want from the system, not the greatest investment.

> isn't all that slow with a 1.4GHz CPU in it, could be the HDD is the
> biggest bottleneck though you didn't mention the actual uses of the system
> beyond keeping up with the g'friend.

I use my comp for internet, dvd ripping & playing, some gaming, storage &
playback of up to c.700mb video files. At the moment, I have over 40gb of
video on this hd, which i installed 2 weeks ago, and would be uneconomic to
write to cd (ie 1 cd per file over 70 files). Not to mention the irritation
of having to write them all.

To be honest the gf is a secondary factor. This comp keeps hanging and
taking it's own sweet time to open any sizable program or run any big file.
Basically, it's old and slow, and I want a computer that will do what I want
when I tell it to. Not start thinking about it 10 seconds later. (Another
factor in this may well be that I have WinMX running in the background
permanently, so leave XP home running as long as I can cope with the lag
before restarting.)

I will definitely consider buying in bits to spread the cost out, ie dvd rw
and ram can go in this comp temporarily, while the case would make a nice
paperweight, especially with a silent flashing fan. Mmmmm....

Thanks,

Nick

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Nick" <Reply to Group> said:

> I hope so... 200 times faster than the PS2 chip (equivalent to a 733 MHz
> PIII)... drool...

Where do you get that a PS2 is equivalent to a P3 733mhz?


--
Sincerely,
The Vice President

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Mr. Vice President" <vp@whitehouse.guv> wrote in message
news:Xns94EAEF8496776vpwhitehouseguv@24.25.9.42...
> "Nick" <Reply to Group> said:
>
> > I hope so... 200 times faster than the PS2 chip (equivalent to a 733 MHz
> > PIII)... drool...
>
> Where do you get that a PS2 is equivalent to a P3 733mhz?

The PS2 chip is actually a 128bit 295MHz processor, which a random site I
read (and can't find now) equated to a PIII 733MHz (32 bit). More of a guess
than a direct comparison I think.

Anyway, 200x 733MHz (140GHz) vs 200x 295MHz (a mere 59GHz) who cares. Still
very quick.

Nick

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:10:15 +0100, "Nick" <Reply to Group> wrote:


>I think, from looking in my crystal ball, reading the portents, and
>sacrificing a few chickens to read their entrails, that the system will be
>my main system for about a year or until the ibm cell chip moves out of ps3
>into pc's, so max 2 years??

- Won't happen in 10 years. - In fact, won't happen at all.

ancra

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"ancra" <somebody@some.domain> wrote in message
news:tk39b0l29e276eplrdvqhvv7gh8uc3804s@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:10:15 +0100, "Nick" <Reply to Group> wrote:
>
>
> >I think, from looking in my crystal ball, reading the portents, and
> >sacrificing a few chickens to read their entrails, that the system will
be
> >my main system for about a year or until the ibm cell chip moves out of
ps3
> >into pc's, so max 2 years??
>
> - Won't happen in 10 years. - In fact, won't happen at all.
>
> ancra
>

Why don't you think so? Why would it not?

Nick

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:22:52 +0100, "Nick" <Reply to Group> wrote:

>
>"ancra" <somebody@some.domain> wrote in message
>news:tk39b0l29e276eplrdvqhvv7gh8uc3804s@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:10:15 +0100, "Nick" <Reply to Group> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I think, from looking in my crystal ball, reading the portents, and
>> >sacrificing a few chickens to read their entrails, that the system will
>be
>> >my main system for about a year or until the ibm cell chip moves out of
>ps3
>> >into pc's, so max 2 years??
>>
>> - Won't happen in 10 years. - In fact, won't happen at all.
>>
>> ancra
>>
>
>Why don't you think so? Why would it not?

Well, I should admit I'm not 100% enlightened about IBM's cell
processor. But:

The first thing is that there is no Windows planned for the cell
processor. Nor will any PC software work, even if there was a Windows.
The cell processor will not fit into the PC's existing infrastructure.

Basically, if the cell processor is to play any role in mainstream
computing, we'd all have to switch platform to something completely
new and different. Almost surely proprietary system. Despite a number
of "superior" alternatives available in the past, the market has sofar
refused to turn away from the Windows/Linux X86 PC, because of the
huge benefits of a standardized system. I really can't see it doing so
in the future either, now that we have a transition to 64-bit.



Secondly, I think you're mistaken about the performance. There cannot
be achieved 'dramatic' performance improvements over today's
architectures, with similar amount of transistors.

Sure, performance may differ, depending on how smart the architecture
is, and on how well suited the software task is for that architecture.
But you're not going to achieve any truly 'dramatic' advantage.

One of the neat things about the cellprocessor seem to be that it's
highly scaleable. That "TeraFlops" performance figure got to be for a
true supercomputer, very expensive and built with many large 'cell
processors'. You're not going to see that performance in a PS3 or any
early IBM/Sony workstation.

The cell processor right now, is - I think - basically 16, "lean"
'Power4'-cores. Something like that, even ignoring IO-bandwidth
restrictions, cannot possibly reach 200 X 733MHz PIII -performance. -
But of course, if all that processing power in those 16 cores could be
utilized, it's still quite respectable.



But even as the 'cell processor' is a thorough attempt at using a
large number of transistors to good effect, I think Intel and AMD have
some very good options to grow. Primarily, they're soon going to go
multicore as well. Not many lean cores, rather like few cores on
steroids. But I think that is going to work much better with existing
IO hardware and few-threaded software.

Speaking of IO restrictions. Here's another reason not to expect any
dramatic revolution. Any cpu basically performs its work on data
models in memory. So the 'work' need to travel into the cpu and out
again to memory. If IBM&Sony truly have a cpu revolution, they would
also have to have a revolution in bus technology at hand.

The past has also showed that even if similar performance could be
achieved with less transistors on other architectures, the very large
PC market had no difficulties in keeping the X86-PC in the cheapest
position. The larger PC market can engineer and produce larger and
faster clocked cpus at lower cost.. As cpus became ever larger and
employing more and more refined technologies, the penalties of the X86
architecture disappeared or became neutralized. I expect the exact
same to happen to any other future X86 disadvantage.

I won't rule out that Sony might feel like intruding on home-PC's
domains with the PS3, or future PS4. In fact, I expect them to explore
that market. But their eventual chances of a breakthrough, won't
depend on performance. - Because I believe the PlayStation will always
lag considerably behind the X86 PC.


ancra