Hello,
I suddenly need to build a new machine and don't have much to spend. The last one was several years ago and I guess I didn't know too much then either. So I'll apologize in advance if I ask dopey questions.
I've been trying to read and understand what's here and am looking at the ASUS M2A-VM with Athlon 64 (LE-1640 Orleans 2.6GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 45W Single-Core Processor) and probably 2x1GB RAM.
My heaviest use will be for 3D CAD, photo editing, and DV so I'm looking to get the best I can for that without spending too much.
I have a low-end FireGL PCI Express card coming (ATI Fire GL V3100 PCI x16 DDR DVI VGA 128MB) so don't really need onboard video - or at least I hope the card will be better. If not I'm out $25.
I'll probably add a SATA HD but may try to salvage my old one first. I have a pretty recent 500W power supply that seems to have the correct newer cables.
My understanding of dual core is that it's for running two things at once. Assuming that's true my reasoning is that I'm better off with one at 1000 vs 2x512. Is that more or less correct?
I could spend a bit more on any or all pieces but really would prefer to spend less and get just what I need. OS will either be my existing Win2K or new XP home. I'd rather save money now so prefer to stick with what I have unless it's a really bad idea.
I know my system won't be state of the art but it should be a lot faster than what I had (KR7A & 1100mhz AMD). I saw the board recommended here for a basic system - but I could get by without onboard audio and video and don't need a huge number of USB ports and can add Firewire later. On the other hand, I don't want to get stuck with a crappy board either.
Anyway, I'd appreciate some comments and guidance. I've tried to gather as much information first as possible but it gets confusing very quickly.
One question would be, is it better to spend say $20 less on the motherboard and $20 more on the CPU, or vice versa?
Thank you,
Gary Fuchs
I suddenly need to build a new machine and don't have much to spend. The last one was several years ago and I guess I didn't know too much then either. So I'll apologize in advance if I ask dopey questions.
I've been trying to read and understand what's here and am looking at the ASUS M2A-VM with Athlon 64 (LE-1640 Orleans 2.6GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 45W Single-Core Processor) and probably 2x1GB RAM.
My heaviest use will be for 3D CAD, photo editing, and DV so I'm looking to get the best I can for that without spending too much.
I have a low-end FireGL PCI Express card coming (ATI Fire GL V3100 PCI x16 DDR DVI VGA 128MB) so don't really need onboard video - or at least I hope the card will be better. If not I'm out $25.
I'll probably add a SATA HD but may try to salvage my old one first. I have a pretty recent 500W power supply that seems to have the correct newer cables.
My understanding of dual core is that it's for running two things at once. Assuming that's true my reasoning is that I'm better off with one at 1000 vs 2x512. Is that more or less correct?
I could spend a bit more on any or all pieces but really would prefer to spend less and get just what I need. OS will either be my existing Win2K or new XP home. I'd rather save money now so prefer to stick with what I have unless it's a really bad idea.
I know my system won't be state of the art but it should be a lot faster than what I had (KR7A & 1100mhz AMD). I saw the board recommended here for a basic system - but I could get by without onboard audio and video and don't need a huge number of USB ports and can add Firewire later. On the other hand, I don't want to get stuck with a crappy board either.
Anyway, I'd appreciate some comments and guidance. I've tried to gather as much information first as possible but it gets confusing very quickly.
One question would be, is it better to spend say $20 less on the motherboard and $20 more on the CPU, or vice versa?
Thank you,
Gary Fuchs
