Originally posted by: sisooktom
This is BS. Almost anyone can drop in a stick of RAM. Just because you put a bunch of new components in an old case doesn't make it an "upgrade". Swapping out a mobo and CPU is a whole new PC. And where do you get that S754 is going be shorter lived than socket A? The Sempron will actually be available on all 3 sockets initially, but I guarantee you that AMD drops Socket A before Socket 754. The integrated memory controller is the tech of the future, and as costs come down Socket A will fade away.
OK, I know adding RAM is pretty simple, but the longevity argument is still bogus. Socket 939 is the only thing that's going to have any longevity if you really want to have the same motherboard in 4 years. My point is that it's completely ridiculous to be building such a mediocre system with $900.
Originally posted by: nny
um, i've seen the HD reviews. i wouldnt call 1% performance difference noticable between the brands, would you? I would also check out the reviews of A64 at anandtech, THW, etc and see what the benchmarks say about xp vs. 64. my brother was going to spend 1500$ on a dell P4, so i'm just trying to build him something powerful that lasts a long time and is a whole lot cheaper, not a system based around a PSU thats getting phased out.
methinks someone is bitter about having an xp system.
What's it matter if it's 1% or not? Why do you want to pay more for a slower, louder, less reliable hard drive? I was pointing out your utter lack of flexability. You only want to use the WD drive because you own a WD drive, even though it's marginally worse in every aspect than the competition by Samsung/Seagate/Hitachi.
I'm sorry for sounding like an ass here. It's good that you're building him something nicer than a $1500 Dell. You are mistaken, though, if you think a Socket-754 motherboard is going to have amazing longevity.
You haven't pointed to any benchmarks. Check it out:
Tom's End-of-Year CPU Buyer's Guide
The Mobile Athlon XP easily overclocks to 2400 MHz with a plain heatsink. Every test I've seen shows it being stable at 2500 MHz at 1.8V with a good heatsink. Luckily, Tom has benchmarks of an Athlon XP at 2475 MHz, which is a good approximation of what any Mobile Athlon can do:
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz loses to A64 3200+ by 10% in Quake 3 Demo001
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 1% in Quake 3 Demo THG3
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 20% in Wofenstein - Enemy Territory
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz loses to A64 3200+ by 3% in Unreal Tournament 2003
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz loses to A64 3200+ by 1% in Warcraft III
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 7% in 3D Mark 2003
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 7% in AquaMark3
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 3% in Main Concept MPEG-Encoder
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 7% in Xmpeg & Divx 5.1
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 24% in Lame MP3 Encoder
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz loses to A64 3200+ by 9% in Winrar 3.2
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 9% in 3D Studio Max 5.1
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 13% in PC Mark 2002 CPU - Bench
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz loses to A64 3200+ by 20% in PC Mark 2002 Memory - Bench
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 19% in Sandra CPU
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 14% in Sandra Memory
Athlon XP @ 2475 MHz beats the A64 3200+ by 11% in Sandra Multimedia
Now, let's consider the fact that the A64 2800+ is clocked 22% slower than the A64 3200+, and you'll see that a Mobile Athlon system would just blow away this A64 2800+ system you're talking about.
The Mobile Athlon system would not only be $300 cheaper. It would be faster.
Regardless of the CPU, the bottom line is that it's totally unreasonable to spend that much on a system with 512MB of slow CL3 RAM and a Radeon 9600.
, and i even have a burnt out 1600+!! heh, but i'm going to be upgrading! 1500 bucks down on a computer! yeehaaaa
Facebook
Twitter