New Computer Build

[kleinwl]

I'm upgrading (finally) from my P4 1.7Ghz machine. I expect to keep this one for 4-5 years with minimal (GPU) upgrades. I will definitely be overclocking.

I am planning on:
X2 3800 OR A64 3000 CPU (~$400 OR ~120)
XP-90 w/ Panflow 92L (~$55)
2GB Ocz Value ram (2x1GB) (~200)
Epox 9NDA+ultra MB (~$110)
Sonata II (w/ 450W smartpower 2) (~$130)
Seagate 160GB 7200.8 (~$100)
Nvidia 6800 GPU (~$170)
TV-tuner (Hauppage PVR-150) (~$70)
Basic X-FI (when available) (~$130)

Total: (~$1355 or ~$1070)

Budget $1200 (include sh/ca tax) so the X2 pushs me over the edge. I can squeeze it in by slashing the TV-tuner and X-FI... but I don't know if it is worth it.

I do light gaming (HF2/KOTOR2/GTA) though I'm handicapped by my Dell 1905FP LCD. I want to make this into a TIVO while doing office work and light multitasking (music player/antivirus/etc).

I'm just curious what you guys think. I've got an old copy of XP Home and mouse/kb.

 

[DaveSimmons]

X2 makes sense if trying to record without skipped frames while working, though getting a hardware encoding TV card (Hauppage PVR-150) will help some.

Is the XP-90 for quiet or overclocking?

 

[imported_Bleh]

Id say get the a64 3000+ and then later down the road if you want more mutitasking power, purchase the x2 when its a lot cheaper.

 

[kleinwl]

The XP-90 is intended to help with overclocking while keeping the system noise levels at tolerable levels. With the Venice 3000, I am aiming for an overclock to 2.5GHz... Though I know that some have reached 2.6GHz. With the X2 3800, I would aim for 2.4GHz overclock. The overclock would be secondary to the Db levels, however.

The only reason that I am trying soo hard for the X2 is that I know that this system will not be upgraded for 4 to 5 years.... I can always add sound cards/etc as necessary. I just will not have the big bucks to buy a new processor/mb down the road.

 

[IeraseU]

At this point I recomend dual core for all new system builds, whether they be intel or amd based dual core processors. I mean single core processors are equal in just one area, gaming.....and that is only if you are doing absolutely nothing else in the background, and if your resolution is low enough that your gpu isnt your bottleneck anyway (I'd say below 1280x1024). For encoding, multitasking, dvd authoring, and just about anything else you can think of, dual core will be a big advantage. This is right *now*....you can imagine how much wider that gap will get once multi-threaded software support increases dramatically.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: IeraseU
At this point I recomend dual core for all new system builds, whether they be intel or amd based dual core processors. I mean single core processors are equal in just one area, gaming.....and that is only if you are doing absolutely nothing else in the background, and if your resolution is low enough that your gpu isnt your bottleneck anyway (I'd say below 1280x1024). For encoding, multitasking, dvd authoring, and just about anything else you can think of, dual core will be a big advantage. This is right *now*....you can imagine how much wider that gap will get once multi-threaded software support increases dramatically.

making such a general statement is ignorant. x2 for all system recommendations means the marketing has worked on you...most people don't use their old 1.7GHz machines to their full potential, let alone a dually. and i wouldn't hold my breath for the multi-threaded apps to be out for some time. in theory, the p4 hts should have made developers look more into muli-threaded, but it didn't

to the op - ditch the sound card, get a hauppauge pvr150 and the 3000. you will take a hit in performance for what you are wanting to do, but those dcs are too expensive still, and should be down within a month or two i would think. your multitasking, imo, doesn't require a dc at the prices they want for them currently, since you say office work and music playing, which i am assuming you meanr word, excel, basically the office suite. also, the xp90 can be had for cheaper, search around - or is the full copper one?

 

[IeraseU]

Well that is me, I recomend dual core for all new builds, even budget builds (in this case, I recomend intel dual core). The only time I would recomend single core at this point is for upgrades, to save a person from having to buy a new mainboard (for one example). As for software support, actually a lot of software benefits from dual core right now, even a virus-scan running in the background will make you glad you have that extra core imo. Of course, you are free to disagree.....but I do not think telling a person that is going to keep thier computer for the next 4-5years (as the original poster indicated) to go single core is great advice at this point, to be quite frank.

 

[vailr]

Originally posted by: kleinwl

TV-tuner (ATI all-in-wonder?) (~$50)

An "ATI all-in-wonder" is a combination card, with both: video card and TV tuner card functions.
What you'd really need instead, is a stand-alone TV tuner card, such as an ATI TV Wonder,
or a Hauppauge 150 tuner card.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: IeraseU
Well that is me, I recomend dual core for all new builds, even budget builds (in this case, I recomend intel dual core). The only time I would recomend single core at this point is for upgrades, to save a person from having to buy a new mainboard (for one example). As for software support, actually a lot of software benefits from dual core right now, even a virus-scan running in the background will make you glad you have that extra core imo. Of course, you are free to disagree.....but I do not think telling a person that is going to keep thier computer for the next 4-5years (as the original poster indicated) to go single core is great advice at this point, to be quite frank.

for some reason i overlooked the 4-5 year part, my bad. for a 4-5year i would opt for the dc too, but op, why not get a 3000venice now, then when the dcs come down in price, sell the 3000venice and pick up a dc?

 

[kleinwl]

Swapping out CPUs is something that has occured to me. However, I wonder if the cost savings outweigh the opportunity costs.

If I select a Venice 3000 now, I will definitely pay $120 for it. I will have good single thread performance, but will be missing out on the multi-tasking (which may or may not be needed). To make the swap out reasonable, I would have to wait until the X2 dropped $100 ($120 CPU - $20 net present value of money 1 year later) to break even. That might take a year... or it might take 6 months. In either case, I would have to wait until the X2 dropped signifiantly before a Venice > X2 upgrade made financial sense, vs. a X2 at inital purchase.

Perhaps you are right, the Venice 3000 is a fine chip and I should not upgrade until I have to. I just wonder what I will be missing.

P.S. Thanks to all for the Tuner recomendations...