Between "bang" and "best"?

[Coherence]

I'm in the market to build a new system, but can't justify paying the premiums for the "best" of everything. (I can afford it, just can't justify it. Although, I probably will put the fastest 3d card in, either R300 or NV30, or whatever is available at the time.)

As far as "most bang for the buck", it seems many people put that at what I would consider to be a fairly low-end system. So, my question is, what do you recommend for a system somewhere between "bang" and "best", for a reasonable price? I do a lot of online gaming (EQ, E&B) but would love to run new and future games at highest resolution and graphic settings (1280x1024 on my LCD, FSAA, etc.).

For CPU, do you go with the old "n-1" method (where "n" is the fastest, but you get one step below that)? AMD or Intel? (AMD generally had the better value, but it's a close race now with Intel 2.8Ghz P4 and Athlon XP 2800+ around the same price). Anandtech's benches on games seem to indicate CPU-intensive games (JKII)have higher fps on Intel, whereas Athlons have better fps on non-CPU games (Unreal), so it's kind of a toss-up. However, the respective fps are so high (in the 100's) that the difference would be relatively unnoticeable to the naked eye.

A single 120GB HD, or two 60GB drives in RAID 0? (I would like SATA, Seagate's drives are supposed to be out very soon.)

1GB or 512MB RAM? DDR333? DDR400? (I can't justify Rambus's price, if I do go with Intel over AMD, that is.)

I'm upgrading from:

P-III 733Mhz Coppermine
512MB PC133 RAM
20MB HD (only 3GB remaining, WinXP and Norton SystemWorks are hogs, and I only have 2 full-installed games)
GForce3 ti200 128MB

One other concern, I had considered putting a faster CPU into my current mobo to tide me over, but it turned out I had an early revision that would not support faster chips, even though other revisions could after a ROM flash. So, if you know which mobos are most reliably upgradeable, that's what I'm looking for.

Current considerations:
P4 2.53
Asus P4S8X mobo (SATA and AGP 8x)
Seagate Barracuda V (SATA) 80GB
1GB DDR333
ATi Radeon 9700 Pro or GForce FX

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

is it to build now or later? What is your bodget? Is the machine mainly for gaming as it appears from your post?

 

[wyvrn]

I just wanted to say that Coherence is a cool nic.

 

[Coherence]

I basically told myself I would build my new system as soon as SATA drives become available, using whichever fastest 3d card is out at the time. Since they aren't quite out yet (but soon), I guess that means future.

Yes, it's mainly used for gaming, and for broadband web surfing and composing Flash movies.

 

[kgraeme]

How about taking a 1.8A and running it at 2.4? That's a nice system that is just a step below 2.5 at a fraction of the cost. The rest of your components pretty much are the "best" for a single CPU system right now.

 

[Buk]

I've always found that 'cutting edge' was not economically justifiable for me. After all, 'cutting edge' is only good for tops 6 months if that long (usually 3 months). For my own needs, I've found the most bang for the buck to be about one notch back. Its like buying a new car - the first owner to drive it off the lot pays about 20% just for the pleasure. The second owner gets much more for his money.

If I were building a system today I'd look for a Northwood in the 2.0g range that is a known overclocker and run it at about 2.6-2.7g, 512mb DDR to match fsb, a good mobo, 128mb Radeon 8500, a decent sound card, hard disk to use mobo's capability, good case & name brand PS. I suspect it would tide you over til the next quantum leap. But that's for me.................

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
How about taking a 1.8A and running it at 2.4? That's a nice system that is just a step below 2.5 at a fraction of the cost. The rest of your components pretty much are the "best" for a single CPU system right now.

I had a 1.8 that ran at almost 2.9 on .025 volt increase...

that CPU rocks.

 

[Coherence]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
I just wanted to say that Coherence is a cool nic.

Hehe, thanks, Wyvrn, I've been using that one for years now, but only discovered Anandtech and it's forums fairly recently. For everyone's edification, however, my nick is referring to "being focused" and "sober", not "sticky". hehe

 

[Mule]

All you people are crazy. Unless you're actually doing CPU intensive work like ripping DVD's into DivX all day long, it doesn't matter what CPU you have. If you want a high end gaming system then a 1.5Ghz jump to 2.5Ghz will give you a whopping 5 extra fps. WOW

I hava a 1.1Ghz Thunderbird system with the original Radeon DDR and it works just fine. I may upgrade my video card because it's really the bottleneck of my system. But I usually am wasting 90% of my CPU cycles on average. I feel that 1.1Ghz is plenty of juice for any application or any game out there.

The only reason one should upgrade an already fast CPU is if you want faster ram. If you "need" the fastest DDR or Rambus memory then buying a new motherboard that accepts those may require you replace your CPU.

Of course, that's just my opinon. I could be wrong. (hmmm, where have I heard that before??)

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Mule
All you people are crazy. Unless you're actually doing CPU intensive work like ripping DVD's into DivX all day long, it doesn't matter what CPU you have. If you want a high end gaming system then a 1.5Ghz jump to 2.5Ghz will give you a whopping 5 extra fps. WOW

You are indeed partially correct. It's really a combination of components that makes the difference. For instance, upgrading the CPU in a system with a Radeon you mention won't do much, at least not for games, because no matter how fast the CPU the video card can only handle so much, just as the reverse would be true. An ATI 9700 on a slower CPU is going to be held up by the CPU.

It's really a question of what the system will be doing, what is being upgraded, and when. I'm build systems for people that aren't gaming and doing mostly web surfing. Why do I put a 1.8A, a new DDR motherboard and all in there? Because that's what I can buy today and they're upgrading from a 200MHz PII, or often worse, and they want another system that will last them five years or more.

 

[Coherence]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
How about taking a 1.8A and running it at 2.4? That's a nice system that is just a step below 2.5 at a fraction of the cost. The rest of your components pretty much are the "best" for a single CPU system right now.

I have never OC'd a PC in my life. I guess I'm afraid of frying my mobo and/or CPU. Timings and voltages... I consider myself to be an advanced user with most things computer-related, but when it comes to that stuff, I'm a total noob.

Unfortunately, I've never found a "How to" guide on OC'ing, probably because there are so many CPU, mobo, and ROM combinations that there could never be a definitive guide. In fact, I've always had the impression that my current P-III was not OC'able.

You are indeed partially correct. It's really a combination of components that makes the difference. For instance, upgrading the CPU in a system with a Radeon you mention won't do much, at least not for games, because no matter how fast the CPU the video card can only handle so much, just as the reverse would be true. An ATI 9700 on a slower CPU is going to be held up by the CPU.

It would be nice if nVidia and ATi would give a minimum and recommended CPU (for both AMD and Intel) with the specs of the card, so we'd know when one part could "hold up" the other. (Maybe they do, and I just haven't looked hard enough.)

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Coherence

Originally posted by: kgraeme
How about taking a 1.8A and running it at 2.4? That's a nice system that is just a step below 2.5 at a fraction of the cost. The rest of your components pretty much are the "best" for a single CPU system right now.

I have never OC'd a PC in my life. I guess I'm afraid of frying my mobo and/or CPU. Timings and voltages... I consider myself to be an advanced user with most things computer-related, but when it comes to that stuff, I'm a total noob.

There used to be several really great overclocking how-to's a few years ago. Since then, most of the established hardware sites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware seem to have lost a lot of the verve. They still do good reviews, but they've moved past the excitement. The newer sites may be full of excitement, but they seem to lack the maturity to do an in-depth review/how to rather than just a, "cool dude, this was like a free thing they sent us to play with and it's really fast." You can still find the old articles here and at Tom's and even though the processors are different, they are still excellent base information.

No need to be afraid though. While a lot of people like to really push the overclock, fiddling with voltages and such, you don't have to take it to that extreme. Here's the skinny on the basic and easiest overclock: Take a CPU that runs on a slower bus speed by default and raise that bus speed. The only trick is getting a CPU that will accept it.

The classic overclock was the Celeron 300A overclocked to 450MHz. The new favorite is the 1.6A @ 2.12MHz followed closely by the 1.8A @2.4. The reason these work so well is because they are at the edge of the generation change. In the case of the P4 1.6A and 1.8A, they are the first generation of the Northwood core. Prior to that it was the Willamette core. The names don't really matter though. What matters is the Front Side Bus (FSB).

A 1.6 Willamette P4 ran on a 100Mhz bus. The newer Northwood core was designed for a 133MHz FSB. The fun part comes in when you consider that the Northwood core 1.6 and 1.8 were only sold to run on the slower 100MHz FSB. But they had the new Northwood core, so why not see if they can run at the faster FSB? The speed of a CPU is determined by taking a "multiplier" times the front side bus speed. 16 x 100 = 1600MHz or 1.6 GHz. Pretty simple. The 16 is the multiplier for the 1.6 and 18 for the 1.8. So what happens when you raise the FSB? 16 x 133 = 2128MHz and 18 x 133 = 2394MHz.

In the case of these particular chips, it's almost that easy. In fact, it often is exactly that easy. No voltage mods or extra cooling needed. Just make sure that the ram is for the 133MHz bus. PC1600 is for 100MHz and PC2100 is for 133. Notice that most people, including you, are buying faster ram than even that. If you're buying DDR333/PC2700, why not use it?

Really, my personal feeling is that if you are going to build a system, there has to be a reason. Especially when you consider that you can get a damn nice Dell for just as cheap or cheaper than you can build a comparable system yourself. Overclocking is one of the reasons to build. It's an edge that you get over buying a brand-name system. Heck, you've chosen to forego the three year tech support, so why not throw it to the wind?

I'm not really that cavalier about it all. I expect and demand a perfectly stable system. I don't overclock any more than is perfectly stable. And by perfectly, I mean 24/7 for 5 years with no ill effects. That's how long and well my old overclocked Celeron system is still going.

Is it possible to fry a CPU? Sure, anything's possible. But the problems usually come when you get greedy. Overclocking a 100MHz part to 133 that was designed for 133 isn't being particularly greedy. The people that OC to 166 FSB. That's when you're doing it just for the challenge and not for the finished box. Is it always guaranteed that a 1.8A is going to hit 2.4? No. Nothing is guaranteed. But hey, even if you can only hit a 124 MHz FSB and get the 1.8A to run at 2.23GHz why not?

It would be nice if nVidia and ATi would give a minimum and recommended CPU (for both AMD and Intel) with the specs of the card, so we'd know when one part could "hold up" the other. (Maybe they do, and I just haven't looked hard enough.)

Because that would cut their sales? How do you sell a GeForce ti4600 to a person with a 733MHz CPU if you tell them it won't really help?

 

[Mule]

Why do I put a 1.8A, a new DDR motherboard and all in there? Because that's what I can buy today and they're upgrading from a 200MHz PII, or often worse, and they want another system that will last them five years or more.

That's still alot of juice for just web surfing. IMHO anything over 1 Ghz is overkill for the average user. I think we hit a plateau at about 700 Mhz(PIII). Anything greater is going to be insignificant for the average user. Of course most users on this forum aren't your average users. We are reaching speeds of 3 Ghz now and *most applications still don't require more than 500 mhz.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Mule

Why do I put a 1.8A, a new DDR motherboard and all in there? Because that's what I can buy today and they're upgrading from a 200MHz PII, or often worse, and they want another system that will last them five years or more.

That's still alot of juice for just web surfing. IMHO anything over 1 Ghz is overkill for the average user. I think we hit a plateau at about 700 Mhz(PIII). Anything greater is going to be insignificant for the average user. Of course most users on this forum aren't your average users. We are reaching speeds of 3 Ghz now and *most applications still don't require more than 500 mhz.

Yes, but it won't be overkill in three years and they still want their system to be fully functional with whatever version of Windows bloat is out then. That plateau you mention doesn't take into account software upgrades that require more resources.

Besides, the cost for older CPUs isn't worth it. As new parts come out it drives down the price of older parts, but that price decrease slows dramatically when there is little inventory and no demand. A 1GHz PIII runs about $110 right now. Compare that to a P4 1.6 at about $125. Sure I could put in a Celeron 1.7 for $66, but when asked people want to spend the extra for the P4. It's their system after all. And it will help it last a bit longer.

 

[Coherence]

Well, I finally got my December issue of MaximumPC in the mail, and the mobo I had been considering (Asus P4S8X) didn't get a very good review, so I'll have to find another solution if I want SATA and AGP 8X. Many people in here seem to stand by Asus as being a solid solution, so that's why I was going to go with them. I was a little surprised that the review of that mobo only garnered a 5 out of 10.

Perhaps I'll go with an AthlonXP 2400/2600+ setup, instead, since the nForce2 chipset is looking really good. Maybe the Asus A7N8X runs better than its P4 counterpart?

If anyone has a good recommendation for a SATA/AGP 8X mobo, regardless of CPU, I'd appreciate it. I don't need on-board video and I don't need Firewire, but USB 2.0 and on-board Ethernet will be good. (I'm not sure if I care either way about on-board sound; I know it can eat CPU cycles, though.)