• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Inexpensive MB for web PC

K

KPACOTKA

Senior member
I need to build a web PC capable to run w2k for web browsing. Nothing fancy, just reliable, no hassle and quiet, Intel based preferable. Any suggestions? I have Fry's in my area.
 
Despite your preference for Intel, you might want to consider an AMD 780G board. The Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H seems the most popular implementation of this chipset and costs $85 to 100. The integrated graphics are excellent and can enable smooth HD video playback with a sub-$100 cpu. Speaking of which, the Athlon X2 4600+ (2.4 GHz) costs $66 on Newegg; the Athlon X2 4850e (2.5 GHz, low 45 W power) $90. Otherwise, if you don't want integrated graphics or AMD, I expect most folks will recommend the Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L and perhaps the new Abit IP35P. They're not 100 per cent reliable, though they've got as high a rating as you can expect for a sub-$100 board.

Are you sure about Windows 2000? I mean, I ran Windows 2000 Professional on my now-retiring workstation for five years, but there are a lot of inconveniences running Windows 2000 these days. I did skip XP for Vista x64 on my new Wolfdale, despite the hate, heh. I'm not sure I'd be altogether comfortable running Windows 2000 on a system regularly exposed to the Web.
 
if it just has to browse and be cheap and quiet you could just buy a d201gly2.

its a single core 1.2 ghz fanless motherboard with everything built in and costs about $70. it should be pleny for web surfing and win2k.
 
Does it have to run Windows 2000? A lot of new boards aren't supporting that anymore. You might want to check out Craigslist, or local computer recyclers that will sell you an old Pentium 4 based system for dirt cheap.
 
Use the AMD 690 chipset with a low power Sempron, and you're talking about $100 including the RAM.
 
Why is there such an obsession with low power AMD chips lately? After all, the Celeron 4xx series can be found with 35 watts and HD can be offloaded to a $22.50 Radeon 3450 card that won't use system RAM.

As far as I've seen, AMD's designs don't do as much work per watt, so what's the advantage? Yes, I've heard so much about the vaunted IGP, but that Radeon deal doesn't look bad to me.
 
What people are missing in AMD vs. Intel power comparisons is where the RAM controller is. AMD's CPU wattages appear high for two reasons: The figure includes the RAM controller, and AMD's TDP figures are true maximum. Intel still have the RAM controller in the northbridge, and their TDP figures are actually lower than maximum wattage - kind of like "real life sustained maximum".

Anyhow. AMD's IGP solutions, the 690 and even more so the 780, are superior to Intel's by lightyears. They're cooler and cheaper on top of that ... so if you want a quiet, cheap and smooth surfbox, go with AMD.
 
No, what people are missing is that the OP said nothing about low power, just being quiet, and said that they preferred intel.
 
Again, if you take a 65 nm core chip and compare it to an AMD isn't it going to do more work per watt? So, can't you downclock-undervolt it to match AMD's stuff? The 45nm chips should be especially good for this. Then there's the issue of a card like the 3450 which barely uses any power, doesn't suck up system RAM, and runs cool enough with a passive sink to be just fine in a quiet PC setup.

I just don't see a huge advantage for AMD here, if any.
 
Thank you everybody for the valuable input. I'm moving toward Celeron/Intel G31/Radeon solution. It looks like I can stay close to initial target $100. I have an extra copy of Vista, so you think it can run well? A problem that I need to connect some scsi film scanner which works on win2k only.
 
Asking for help on a system to run windows 2000 and light apps and then much later stating you are putting vista on it makes zero sense and may even be on the virge of trolling.
 
What people are missing in AMD vs. Intel power comparisons is where the RAM controller is. AMD's CPU wattages appear high for two reasons: The figure includes the RAM controller, and AMD's TDP figures are true maximum. Intel still have the RAM controller in the northbridge, and their TDP figures are actually lower than maximum wattage - kind of like "real life sustained maximum".

Anyhow. AMD's IGP solutions, the 690 and even more so the 780, are superior to Intel's by lightyears. They're cooler and cheaper on top of that ... so if you want a quiet, cheap and smooth surfbox, go with AMD.
Click to expand...

Again, if you take a 65 nm core chip and compare it to an AMD isn't it going to do more work per watt? So, can't you downclock-undervolt it to match AMD's stuff? The 45nm chips should be especially good for this. Then there's the issue of a card like the 3450 which barely uses any power, doesn't suck up system RAM, and runs cool enough with a passive sink to be just fine in a quiet PC setup.

I just don't see a huge advantage for AMD here, if any.
Click to expand...

why run the risk associated with downclocking/undervolting the 45nm intel cpu? AMD clearly has a platform advantage for this user, so Peter gave him sound advice. the OP wrote "intel based preferable", not "I won't buy amd even if it is clearly superior". Intel could potentially be more competitive in a couple of months when their new igp comes out, but until then the OP would have to spend more money to get a comparable intel system.

and btw, why are we even talking about 45nm when we're working with such a low budget? what's the cheapest 45nm cpu right now, about $150? the e1200 celeron for $50 will get trounced by the be-2300 brisbane (59.99 shipped at newegg right now) on a clock/clock basis and amd currently has a much better platform. intel has (rightly imho) been focusing on the high end, then the midrange, and now they're finally creeping into amd's last bastion of low-end, but amd hasn't quite given up yet.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top