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

I am going to be assembling a new computer shortly. What makes it
hard is I use it for a wide variety of uses.

1. Microsoft Office (mostly Word and Excel)
2. Design and Graphics-I also do a lot of photo editing with Adobe
Photoshop. I use the Adobe suite as well as Dreamweaver for web
page development. Also for work I create DVD's so use Pinnacle
Studio.
3. Multimedia-I want a system that is the ultimate multimedia computer
since I do the video and graphics work and I want it to be HDTV
ready meaning I'll be able to get a high definition drive for
it, play video from the computer onto a HDTV, record video from
satellite TV, etc.
4. Gaming-I want it to be a good gaming computer and be able to play
the latest games.

Other Questions:

AMD vs. Intel: I read for gaming AMD is best (likely the Athlon 64)
and for video/graphics Intel is best (dual core). It seems for my use
Intel may be best but yet for gaming will I suffer that much by not
going with AMD? I can imagine Intel cost more as well. With Longhorn
coming out next year though being 64 bit would it be better to be with
a 64 bit chip rather than dual core which I believe is 32 bit?

Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
any problems?

I know for this I will get a good PCI Express card such as geforce. As
well probably a good surround sound high definition card such as the
Soundblaster Audigy unless the sound is built into the motherboard.
the problem I find is I want a computer that just about covers every
use. I know I will have more questions to ask later such as what case
to go with, what specific sound card, for memory I assume DDR2 is best,
and what graphics card but this is a start.

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

I forgot to add this but what brand of motherboard is best? In the
past I've always gone with ASUS.

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

Overall, you'll get better bang for your buck with an A64, dual-core today if
you can afford it. Your games will likely rely as much on the GFX card as the
CPU, so consider that as well.

The Intel advantage in video editing doesn't, AFAIK, extend to photo editing.
Photoshop is also SMP aware, and will take full advantage of the dual core.

<markw10@hotmail.com> wrote...
> I am going to be assembling a new computer shortly. What makes it
> hard is I use it for a wide variety of uses.
>
> 1. Microsoft Office (mostly Word and Excel)
> 2. Design and Graphics-I also do a lot of photo editing with Adobe
> Photoshop. I use the Adobe suite as well as Dreamweaver for web
> page development. Also for work I create DVD's so use Pinnacle
> Studio.
> 3. Multimedia-I want a system that is the ultimate multimedia computer
> since I do the video and graphics work and I want it to be HDTV
> ready meaning I'll be able to get a high definition drive for
> it, play video from the computer onto a HDTV, record video from
> satellite TV, etc.
> 4. Gaming-I want it to be a good gaming computer and be able to play
> the latest games.
>
> Other Questions:
>
> AMD vs. Intel: I read for gaming AMD is best (likely the Athlon 64)
> and for video/graphics Intel is best (dual core). It seems for my use
> Intel may be best but yet for gaming will I suffer that much by not
> going with AMD?

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

What brand of car is best?

Figure out your requirements, then shop around for the boards that meet those
requirements. If you like Asus, buy one of those.

<markw10@hotmail.com> wrote...
>I forgot to add this but what brand of motherboard is best? In the
> past I've always gone with ASUS.

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

<markw10@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121663807.791082.157380@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am going to be assembling a new computer shortly. What makes it
> hard is I use it for a wide variety of uses.
>
> 1. Microsoft Office (mostly Word and Excel)
> 2. Design and Graphics-I also do a lot of photo editing with Adobe
> Photoshop. I use the Adobe suite as well as Dreamweaver for web
> page development. Also for work I create DVD's so use Pinnacle
> Studio.
> 3. Multimedia-I want a system that is the ultimate multimedia computer
> since I do the video and graphics work and I want it to be HDTV
> ready meaning I'll be able to get a high definition drive for
> it, play video from the computer onto a HDTV, record video from
> satellite TV, etc.
> 4. Gaming-I want it to be a good gaming computer and be able to play
> the latest games.
>
> Other Questions:
>
> AMD vs. Intel: I read for gaming AMD is best (likely the Athlon 64)
> and for video/graphics Intel is best (dual core). It seems for my use
> Intel may be best but yet for gaming will I suffer that much by not
> going with AMD? I can imagine Intel cost more as well. With Longhorn
> coming out next year though being 64 bit would it be better to be with
> a 64 bit chip rather than dual core which I believe is 32 bit?
>
> Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
> and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
> both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
> any problems?

I was under the impresion was the big heat generator was the Pentium
and that is certaintly true of the duel core Pentiums compared to
duel core AMD so I assume it is the same for 'normal' single core
chips.
I am dead against Pentium for this reason, heat is a bit of an issue for me
because my PC tends to be on a lot and all that power adds up in terms
of cost.
IF you work out how much it costs to run a PC it is quite a significant sum
in terms of electricity, My old PC is only 100watts, these PC's with 500
watt PSU's
frighten me, thats half a 1 kilowatt heater!!
Same goes for monitors TFT panels are more expensive to buy but as they
use less power I believe they actually work out cheaper then CRT in the
long run.
Then you will need to cool the dammed thing which ultimatley means more
noise.


>
> I know for this I will get a good PCI Express card such as geforce. As
> well probably a good surround sound high definition card such as the
> Soundblaster Audigy unless the sound is built into the motherboard.
> the problem I find is I want a computer that just about covers every
> use. I know I will have more questions to ask later such as what case
> to go with, what specific sound card, for memory I assume DDR2 is best,
> and what graphics card but this is a start.
>

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

I got the Athlon 64 Venice (socket 939). Runs Office, graphics,
music, compilations and gaming well, plus at a lower cost than Intel.
The video will largely depend on the video card selected. Dual core
CPUs are rather expensive right now. Bottom line, the brands make
little difference compared to yesteryears.

On 17 Jul 2005 22:16:47 -0700, markw10@hotmail.com wrote:

> I am going to be assembling a new computer shortly. What makes it
>hard is I use it for a wide variety of uses.
>
>1. Microsoft Office (mostly Word and Excel)
>2. Design and Graphics-I also do a lot of photo editing with Adobe
>Photoshop. I use the Adobe suite as well as Dreamweaver for web
>page development. Also for work I create DVD's so use Pinnacle
>Studio.
>3. Multimedia-I want a system that is the ultimate multimedia computer
>since I do the video and graphics work and I want it to be HDTV
>ready meaning I'll be able to get a high definition drive for
>it, play video from the computer onto a HDTV, record video from
>satellite TV, etc.
>4. Gaming-I want it to be a good gaming computer and be able to play
>the latest games.
>
>Other Questions:
>
>AMD vs. Intel: I read for gaming AMD is best (likely the Athlon 64)
>and for video/graphics Intel is best (dual core). It seems for my use
>Intel may be best but yet for gaming will I suffer that much by not
>going with AMD? I can imagine Intel cost more as well. With Longhorn
>coming out next year though being 64 bit would it be better to be with
>a 64 bit chip rather than dual core which I believe is 32 bit?
>
>Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
>and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
>both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
>any problems?
>
>I know for this I will get a good PCI Express card such as geforce. As
>well probably a good surround sound high definition card such as the
>Soundblaster Audigy unless the sound is built into the motherboard.
>the problem I find is I want a computer that just about covers every
>use. I know I will have more questions to ask later such as what case
>to go with, what specific sound card, for memory I assume DDR2 is best,
>and what graphics card but this is a start.

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:37:28 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:


>> Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
>> and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
>> both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
>> any problems?
>
>I was under the impresion was the big heat generator was the Pentium
>and that is certaintly true of the duel core Pentiums compared to
>duel core AMD so I assume it is the same for 'normal' single core
>chips.


The short answer is:

The OP's assumption about running hotter based on fans is
invalid. That is a sign of an improperly set up system and
one could configure their TI graphing calculator to be that
loud by strapping a couple loud fans to it, or a P4 or
Athlon XP quietly with proper heatsink, fans, and case
design.

The longer answer:

We would need compare per era, as there we have at least a
certain degree of performance parity. During the Athlon XP
Palomino era, Athlons ran hotter at idle and full load (the
two extremes). During T'Bred and thereafter, all the
following up to the last Athlon, AMD had shrunk their
process size and the story changed- P4 was then hotter at
full load but cooler at idle. HOWEVER, most of the
difference in the two CPUs idle temps was due to motherboard
manufacturers disabling the bus-disconnect chipset registers
in the bios, because it caused lesser change in amperage
swing on 5V rail- they simply perceived it would reduce
headaches for them if customers used poor power supplies
that (would tend to cause) more instabiliy if larger current
swings were demanded. So, an Athlon XP system running from
a fairly good power supply CAN have the bus-disconnect bit
enabled to achieve significantly lower idle temps.

I really depends on what kind of user someone is, if they're
prone to run long jobs or game then full load temps are a
quite significant factor, and any "non-defective" system
should have ample cooling to handle exteneded full-load
running states. Regardless, the average user does not use
the vast majority of their CPU power, it's mostly idle and
for them a P4 would've produced less head with all other
things remaining equal (that is, non-optimized).

Once Intel went to Prescott P4, there was no turning back,
they had the hotter CPU and have retained that position till
today. AMD's A64 is cooler running than Athlon XP was, but
P4 has continued to rise in heat. Intel's saving grace
right now is the Pentium-M, which is far cooler running but
I can only speculate that it's performance per watt heat is
slightly lower than A64. Either way, it still comes back to
my first, "short answer", that given proper system setup
either can run without excessive fan noise. Even so,
Prescott P4 is hard to justify unless one knows quite
specifically that their target "most demanding" application
benefits from the P4's specific architecture the most.

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

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
newsb2od15jlnuplfo0dis7n7kt499miegtfp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:37:28 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
> >> and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
> >> both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
> >> any problems?
> >
> >I was under the impresion was the big heat generator was the Pentium
> >and that is certaintly true of the duel core Pentiums compared to
> >duel core AMD so I assume it is the same for 'normal' single core
> >chips.
>
>
> The short answer is:
>
> The OP's assumption about running hotter based on fans is
> invalid. That is a sign of an improperly set up system and
> one could configure their TI graphing calculator to be that
> loud by strapping a couple loud fans to it, or a P4 or
> Athlon XP quietly with proper heatsink, fans, and case
> design.
>
> The longer answer:
>
> We would need compare per era, as there we have at least a
> certain degree of performance parity. During the Athlon XP
> Palomino era, Athlons ran hotter at idle and full load (the
> two extremes). During T'Bred and thereafter, all the
> following up to the last Athlon, AMD had shrunk their
> process size and the story changed- P4 was then hotter at
> full load but cooler at idle. HOWEVER, most of the
> difference in the two CPUs idle temps was due to motherboard
> manufacturers disabling the bus-disconnect chipset registers
> in the bios, because it caused lesser change in amperage
> swing on 5V rail- they simply perceived it would reduce
> headaches for them if customers used poor power supplies
> that (would tend to cause) more instabiliy if larger current
> swings were demanded. So, an Athlon XP system running from
> a fairly good power supply CAN have the bus-disconnect bit
> enabled to achieve significantly lower idle temps.
>
> I really depends on what kind of user someone is, if they're
> prone to run long jobs or game then full load temps are a
> quite significant factor, and any "non-defective" system
> should have ample cooling to handle exteneded full-load
> running states. Regardless, the average user does not use
> the vast majority of their CPU power, it's mostly idle and
> for them a P4 would've produced less head with all other
> things remaining equal (that is, non-optimized).
>
> Once Intel went to Prescott P4, there was no turning back,
> they had the hotter CPU and have retained that position till
> today. AMD's A64 is cooler running than Athlon XP was, but
> P4 has continued to rise in heat. Intel's saving grace
> right now is the Pentium-M, which is far cooler running but
> I can only speculate that it's performance per watt heat is
> slightly lower than A64. Either way, it still comes back to
> my first, "short answer", that given proper system setup
> either can run without excessive fan noise. Even so,
> Prescott P4 is hard to justify unless one knows quite
> specifically that their target "most demanding" application
> benefits from the P4's specific architecture the most.

My situation is that I believed, rightly or wrongly that an Athlon
ie a semperon, or more specifically an Athlon 64 is a cooler
chip powerwise than an equilibvant performing pentium,
Put simply would I be better off with an Athlon 64 or a pentium
in my next system?
Basically my system is pretty idle, general surfing and playing
poker online.
Mind you I just looked at the CPU usage and it is high 100%ish!!
only running OE and explorer (8 windows open) it is not slow
though, I expect something in an explorer window is 'wasting'
the CPU doing bugger all.
Also the Pentium- is for mobiles(?) so that 'doesn't' count as I am
looking at a desktop.
I did read that for duel core the AMD is much better than the power
hungry pentium but I can't afford a duel core anyway.

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

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
newsb2od15jlnuplfo0dis7n7kt499miegtfp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:37:28 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
> >> and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
> >> both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
> >> any problems?
> >
> >I was under the impresion was the big heat generator was the Pentium
> >and that is certaintly true of the duel core Pentiums compared to
> >duel core AMD so I assume it is the same for 'normal' single core
> >chips.
>
>
> The short answer is:
>
> The OP's assumption about running hotter based on fans is
> invalid. That is a sign of an improperly set up system and
> one could configure their TI graphing calculator to be that
> loud by strapping a couple loud fans to it, or a P4 or
> Athlon XP quietly with proper heatsink, fans, and case
> design.
>
> The longer answer:
>
> We would need compare per era, as there we have at least a
> certain degree of performance parity. During the Athlon XP
> Palomino era, Athlons ran hotter at idle and full load (the
> two extremes). During T'Bred and thereafter, all the
> following up to the last Athlon, AMD had shrunk their
> process size and the story changed- P4 was then hotter at
> full load but cooler at idle. HOWEVER, most of the
> difference in the two CPUs idle temps was due to motherboard
> manufacturers disabling the bus-disconnect chipset registers
> in the bios, because it caused lesser change in amperage
> swing on 5V rail- they simply perceived it would reduce
> headaches for them if customers used poor power supplies
> that (would tend to cause) more instabiliy if larger current
> swings were demanded. So, an Athlon XP system running from
> a fairly good power supply CAN have the bus-disconnect bit
> enabled to achieve significantly lower idle temps.
>
> I really depends on what kind of user someone is, if they're
> prone to run long jobs or game then full load temps are a
> quite significant factor, and any "non-defective" system
> should have ample cooling to handle exteneded full-load
> running states. Regardless, the average user does not use
> the vast majority of their CPU power, it's mostly idle and
> for them a P4 would've produced less head with all other
> things remaining equal (that is, non-optimized).
>
> Once Intel went to Prescott P4, there was no turning back,
> they had the hotter CPU and have retained that position till
> today. AMD's A64 is cooler running than Athlon XP was, but
> P4 has continued to rise in heat. Intel's saving grace
> right now is the Pentium-M, which is far cooler running but
> I can only speculate that it's performance per watt heat is
> slightly lower than A64. Either way, it still comes back to
> my first, "short answer", that given proper system setup
> either can run without excessive fan noise. Even so,
> Prescott P4 is hard to justify unless one knows quite
> specifically that their target "most demanding" application
> benefits from the P4's specific architecture the most.

I have just been looking at the issue of power and the phrase
which sticks in my mind is (abbeit a rather long phrase)
"The Intel system consumes 13 percent more power than AMD.
This rises to up to 30 percent when both systems are running under
full load. This once again demonstrates just how power-hungry Intel's
processors are, which can be traced back to their much higher clock
speeds."
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20 [...] st-02.html
That refers to the top of the range procesors, but it is basically
true that Intel clocks higher then AMD and basically, as I am sure
overclockers realise, more megahertz equals more heat so I will
take the AMD path.
I guess most people ignore the power consumption when buying
a PC but if you add it up over say 5 years it probaly comes to a tidy
sum, enough to justify buying a higher spec model probably.

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

I wanted to add this also. I know AMD now has a chip that is both
dual-core as well as 64 bit. Is this a good chip to go with? I know
it's a big price jump for it so I wanted to know if it's worth the
difference.

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

You might find this usefull, if you have not already read it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050714/index.html


<markw10@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121663807.791082.157380@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am going to be assembling a new computer shortly. What makes it
> hard is I use it for a wide variety of uses.
>
> 1. Microsoft Office (mostly Word and Excel)
> 2. Design and Graphics-I also do a lot of photo editing with Adobe
> Photoshop. I use the Adobe suite as well as Dreamweaver for web
> page development. Also for work I create DVD's so use Pinnacle
> Studio.
> 3. Multimedia-I want a system that is the ultimate multimedia computer
> since I do the video and graphics work and I want it to be HDTV
> ready meaning I'll be able to get a high definition drive for
> it, play video from the computer onto a HDTV, record video from
> satellite TV, etc.
> 4. Gaming-I want it to be a good gaming computer and be able to play
> the latest games.
>
> Other Questions:
>
> AMD vs. Intel: I read for gaming AMD is best (likely the Athlon 64)
> and for video/graphics Intel is best (dual core). It seems for my use
> Intel may be best but yet for gaming will I suffer that much by not
> going with AMD? I can imagine Intel cost more as well. With Longhorn
> coming out next year though being 64 bit would it be better to be with
> a 64 bit chip rather than dual core which I believe is 32 bit?
>
> Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
> and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
> both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
> any problems?
>
> I know for this I will get a good PCI Express card such as geforce. As
> well probably a good surround sound high definition card such as the
> Soundblaster Audigy unless the sound is built into the motherboard.
> the problem I find is I want a computer that just about covers every
> use. I know I will have more questions to ask later such as what case
> to go with, what specific sound card, for memory I assume DDR2 is best,
> and what graphics card but this is a start.
>

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:24:21 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:


>My situation is that I believed, rightly or wrongly that an Athlon
>ie a semperon, or more specifically an Athlon 64 is a cooler
>chip powerwise than an equilibvant performing pentium,
>Put simply would I be better off with an Athlon 64 or a pentium
>in my next system?

Yes, a little better off. Relatively though, the two
contenders are contenders for the good performance of
either, and that anything is hot running compared to a
coppermine or most other earlier generation platforms.



>Basically my system is pretty idle, general surfing and playing
>poker online.
>Mind you I just looked at the CPU usage and it is high 100%ish!!
>only running OE and explorer (8 windows open) it is not slow
>though, I expect something in an explorer window is 'wasting'
>the CPU doing bugger all.

Could be, but I'd look into that a bit more as spyware and
viri can also use a lot of CPU time. I just loaded OE and 8
Explorer windows and it wasn't using but ~ 0-2% CPU time in
Task Manager, which is similar to the Task Manager reading
without OE or any of the explorer windows open.


>Also the Pentium- is for mobiles(?) so that 'doesn't' count as I am
>looking at a desktop.
>I did read that for duel core the AMD is much better than the power
>hungry pentium but I can't afford a duel core anyway.
>

There have been Pentium-M desktop boards for awhile now,
here are examples but I don't have a list for you.


http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20041224/