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

Hello from a first-time poster:

I am trying to figure out my next PC build. I do high-end, intensive
desktop publishing (little gaming, mostly business use). I have had
great results with dual-processor towers, both ASUS, one a dual PII
and the current one a dual PIII 1Ghz from 2001 with 1.5 gigs of RAM
and an 8000 series ATI AGP video card, and a bunch of drives. It runs
under Windows 2000, but I have a Linux partition. The box is still
good, but is showing its age as I migrate to newer apps.

What's my next move?

I tend to get a new box every three years for speed and tax reasons.

I like and want to keep either dual processors or get into dual core
as many of my apps see and use multi-threading, etc.

All I see for dual P4 mobos is based on the Xeon processor and older
chipsets...nice, but stunning? Dunno.

I am intrigued by the BTX form factor, the PCIe standard and anything
that offers cooler, QUIETER operation..oh, yeah, faster is good.

Should I buy this year or wait for the dust to settle? What's the
best bet in dual processors, or is that even the right question
anymore?

TIA
R.

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

rhys wrote:

> Hello from a first-time poster:
>
> I am trying to figure out my next PC build. I do high-end, intensive
> desktop publishing (little gaming, mostly business use). I have had
> great results with dual-processor towers, both ASUS, one a dual PII
> and the current one a dual PIII 1Ghz from 2001 with 1.5 gigs of RAM
> and an 8000 series ATI AGP video card, and a bunch of drives. It runs
> under Windows 2000, but I have a Linux partition. The box is still
> good, but is showing its age as I migrate to newer apps.
>
> What's my next move?

A dual Opteron system.

>
>
> I tend to get a new box every three years for speed and tax reasons.
>
> I like and want to keep either dual processors or get into dual core
> as many of my apps see and use multi-threading, etc.
>
> All I see for dual P4 mobos is based on the Xeon processor and older
> chipsets...nice, but stunning? Dunno.
>
> I am intrigued by the BTX form factor, the PCIe standard and anything
> that offers cooler, QUIETER operation..oh, yeah, faster is good.
>
> Should I buy this year or wait for the dust to settle? What's the
> best bet in dual processors, or is that even the right question
> anymore?
>
> TIA
> R.

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

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:34:11 -0400, rhys while doing time wrote:

> Hello from a first-time poster:
>
> I am trying to figure out my next PC build. I do high-end, intensive
> desktop publishing (little gaming, mostly business use). I have had
> great results with dual-processor towers, both ASUS, one a dual PII and
> the current one a dual PIII 1Ghz from 2001 with 1.5 gigs of RAM and an
> 8000 series ATI AGP video card, and a bunch of drives. It runs under
> Windows 2000, but I have a Linux partition. The box is still good, but
> is showing its age as I migrate to newer apps.
>
> What's my next move?
>
> I tend to get a new box every three years for speed and tax reasons.
>
> I like and want to keep either dual processors or get into dual core as
> many of my apps see and use multi-threading, etc.
>
> All I see for dual P4 mobos is based on the Xeon processor and older
> chipsets...nice, but stunning? Dunno.
>
> I am intrigued by the BTX form factor, the PCIe standard and anything
> that offers cooler, QUIETER operation..oh, yeah, faster is good.
>
> Should I buy this year or wait for the dust to settle? What's the best
> bet in dual processors, or is that even the right question anymore?
>
> TIA
> R.

I think dual processors are overkill for business applications. Cooler
quieter is AMD 64 technology. You're safe purchasing any of the mid to
high end Intel or AMD cpus with ATI or nVidia vga solutions. I'd check
specs at Tomshardware, ComputerShopper, PC Magazine for new prebuilt pc
rather than upgrading the current system. Some really fast and efficient
pcs are out now by others like www.ibuypower.com rather than name brands
like HP. You could convert your existing box as a file server under W2k
or preferably Linux or sell it on ebay to pay the shipping charges for the
new machine.

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

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:50:24 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>
>
>rhys wrote:
>
>> Hello from a first-time poster:
>>
>> I am trying to figure out my next PC build. I do high-end, intensive
>> desktop publishing (little gaming, mostly business use). I have had
>> great results with dual-processor towers, both ASUS, one a dual PII
>> and the current one a dual PIII 1Ghz from 2001 with 1.5 gigs of RAM
>> and an 8000 series ATI AGP video card, and a bunch of drives. It runs
>> under Windows 2000, but I have a Linux partition. The box is still
>> good, but is showing its age as I migrate to newer apps.
>>
>> What's my next move?
>
>A dual Opteron system.

Why is that better than dual Xeon? What mobos are best with the AMD
CPUs? I've had straight Intel since my 1989 AMD 386...which was robust
under DOS and Windows 3.0-3.1, so I am not shy about AMD...just out of
the loop for the last ten years.

If there are web sites that compare head to head and include OS
recommendations (I have to run 32-bit apps on 64-bit CPUs? problems?
special RAM requirements?) let me know, please.

Thanks,
R.

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

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:46:07 GMT, jaster <jaster@home.net> wrote:

>I think dual processors are overkill for business applications.
That has not been my experience since my first dual machine in 1997
under NT. My design apps are hungry and benefit from whatever I can
give them for the most part, particularly fast video and lots of RAM.

On the other hand, I don't need the top of the line CPUs. With two of
them trading off, I can go down a few speed levels and get good
performance for fewer $$$.


Cooler
>quieter is AMD 64 technology. You're safe purchasing any of the mid to
>high end Intel or AMD cpus with ATI or nVidia vga solutions. I'd check
>specs at Tomshardware, ComputerShopper, PC Magazine for new prebuilt pc
>rather than upgrading the current system.

The current system will become my new file server. Besides, it's maxed
out.

Some really fast and efficient
>pcs are out now by others like www.ibuypower.com rather than name brands
>like HP. You could convert your existing box as a file server under W2k
>or preferably Linux or sell it on ebay to pay the shipping charges for the
>new machine.

I will keep it as a Linux box, and the only "name-brand" PC I ever
bought since '89 was a Dell Inspiron laptop in '03. The rest were
custom-assembled.

My confusion comes from unfamiliarity with the options now available
in bus speeds, chipsets, form factors (should I hold out for BTX?) and
AMD vs. Intel debates. Basically, I need a kick-ass workstation for
graphics work and (on the side) music production. I am very happy and
used to dualie set-ups and need to suss out how to match my "must use"
applications (InDesign CS, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) to any new
box I would like to build in the next 6-12 months.

R.

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

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:59:30 -0400, rhys while doing time wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:46:07 GMT, jaster <jaster@home.net> wrote:
>
>>I think dual processors are overkill for business applications.
> That has not been my experience since my first dual machine in 1997 under
> NT. My design apps are hungry and benefit from whatever I can give them
> for the most part, particularly fast video and lots of RAM.
>
> On the other hand, I don't need the top of the line CPUs. With two of them
> trading off, I can go down a few speed levels and get good performance for
> fewer $$$.
>

Well, I posted what I read about dual systems from Tomshardware. Not
much of improvement for the average apps. The original post wasn't
specific about what types of business applications.

>
> Cooler
>>quieter is AMD 64 technology. You're safe purchasing any of the mid to
>>high end Intel or AMD cpus with ATI or nVidia vga solutions. I'd check
>>specs at Tomshardware, ComputerShopper, PC Magazine for new prebuilt pc
>>rather than upgrading the current system.
>
> The current system will become my new file server. Besides, it's maxed
> out.
>
> Some really fast and efficient
>>pcs are out now by others like www.ibuypower.com rather than name brands
>>like HP. You could convert your existing box as a file server under W2k
>>or preferably Linux or sell it on ebay to pay the shipping charges for
>>the new machine.
>
> I will keep it as a Linux box, and the only "name-brand" PC I ever bought
> since '89 was a Dell Inspiron laptop in '03. The rest were
> custom-assembled.
>
> My confusion comes from unfamiliarity with the options now available in
> bus speeds, chipsets, form factors (should I hold out for BTX?) and AMD
> vs. Intel debates. Basically, I need a kick-ass workstation for graphics
> work and (on the side) music production. I am very happy and used to
> dualie set-ups and need to suss out how to match my "must use"
> applications (InDesign CS, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) to any new box I
> would like to build in the next 6-12 months.

That's a better question. I stand by my recommendation with the
exception that Intel cpus are better for sound and graphic applications
than AMD and ATI may be better for cooler, smaller graphic cards. I need
their $200 HDTV tuner card.

I look at components $300-$600 for a mid-range single cpu/motherboard
combo but I see $500-$900 systems with the same components plus case,
video, HD, DVDRW, memory, software and 1-3yr warranty.

>
> R.

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

rhys wrote:

> Why is that better than dual Xeon? What mobos are best with the AMD
> CPUs? I've had straight Intel since my 1989 AMD 386...which was robust
> under DOS and Windows 3.0-3.1, so I am not shy about AMD...just out of
> the loop for the last ten years.

x86-64 is why AMD is better. They invented it, but Intel supposedly
reverse engineered it. I'm not sure if the Xeon is available, yet, with
x86-64 technology, but from what I understand, they're behind the curve.
When XP-64 ships, expect a 20% increase in speed just from switching to
64 bits.

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

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:39:43 -0400, Ruel Smith <NoWay@NoWhere.com>
wrote:

>rhys wrote:
>
>> Why is that better than dual Xeon? What mobos are best with the AMD
>> CPUs? I've had straight Intel since my 1989 AMD 386...which was robust
>> under DOS and Windows 3.0-3.1, so I am not shy about AMD...just out of
>> the loop for the last ten years.
>
>x86-64 is why AMD is better. They invented it, but Intel supposedly
>reverse engineered it. I'm not sure if the Xeon is available, yet, with
>x86-64 technology, but from what I understand, they're behind the curve.
>When XP-64 ships, expect a 20% increase in speed just from switching to
>64 bits.

Thanks for your thoughts. So when do you think this wonderful advance
will happen?

So, I guess my options are:

1) Get a dual Xeon 32-bit ATX box

2) Get a dual Opteron 64-bit ATX box with special RAM and XP 64, and
then look for 64 bit-optimized apps while getting a boost on my
current apps.

3) Wait for Xeon 64-bit, and wait for BTX form factor to cool 'em
down.

4) Do something as yet undiscussed.


Have I got that right?