Which system would perform better?

[WAZ]

System 1:

Athlon 1.0 GHz
768 MB SDRAM (PC133, though on my KT7-RAID, is it only running at PC100?)

or System 2:

Athlon XP 1.6 to 1.8 GHz
256 MB DDRAM (PC2100 or 2700 DDR)


My current system is the top one, only with 256 MB of RAM. I want to upgrade something, and am weighing these two options. For $60-some, I can upgrade my RAM to 768 MB. Or, for a hundred or so $, I can upgrade to system 2, but with only 256 MB of RAM.

Will I get better overall performance (for games and general windows speed) with the faster processor and faster PC2100/2700 (but much less) DDRAM? Or should I beef up my RAM 3X with the slower processor and PC100/133 SDRAM?

Thanks!

 

[Maggotry]

You can get a 1.8GHz XP, 256MB of PR2700, and a new mobo for $100? Where?!?

The 1.8GHz XP with 256MB of DDR333 will run circles around your current system. You do realize you'll need a new mobo, though, right?

 

[WAZ]

Well, for me, personally, it would cost around $100. That's because my friend has an extra 1.6 XP processor (possibly a 1.8), which I would be getting for free. The rest of the stuff I'd need to buy, minus the money I would receive selling my current system (to help pay for the upgrade), would equal around $100-120.

So the new system with 1/3 the RAM will easily run better than my current system with 3x the RAM? That may be worth the extra money to upgrade....

 

[CrazySaint]

Do you mean that he has an extra 1600+ (1.4GHz) or maybe an 1800+ (1.53GHz) or that he has an extra 1.6GHz (1900+) or maybe a 1.8GHz (2200+)?

Also, what operating system you use and what you use it for will make a difference. If you're running some incarnation of Win95 (Win95/98/ME) then 256MB of RAM is fine. If you're running Win2K or XP then 512MB is faster than 256MB, and while 768MB will certainly be faster than 512MB of RAM in Win2K or XP, it won't be nearly as much of a difference as 256MB --> 512MB. I would recommend going for the XP system (ESPECIALLY if it really is 1.6 or 1.8GHz, not 1600 or 1800) with the 256MB of RAM now, then buy another 256MB stick of RAM later when you get more cash. Btw, while PC2700 DDR RAM isn't any faster on XP systems slower than 2700+ than PC2100, I would still recommend getting it so that if you upgrade to a 333FSB TBred or Barton or a 333FSB Hammer, you won't have to ditch your RAM.

 

[MasterHoss]

I'd definately go with system 2. Full SSE support with DDR memory is a much better choice that this point. Don't worry about the aging PC133 SDRAM with the old T-bird.

 

[WAZ]

I do know that it's either a 1.6 GHz or 1.8 GHz (not just 1600 or 1800). And I'm running Windows XP.

Cash right now is kind of tight, so I wouldn't be getting an additional 256 MB of RAM for a new system for quite a long time -- it would be the 1.6/1.8 XP with just 256 MB RAM for a long time. That's why I wanted to compare *only* these two systems -- the older one with 2-3x the RAM, to the new one with only 256.

So, given the fact that an extra 256 MB stick is pretty much out of the question for a long while, that newer system without the extra RAM will still be faster?

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: WAZ
I do know that it's either a 1.6 GHz or 1.8 GHz (not just 1600 or 1800). And I'm running Windows XP.

...

So, given the fact that an extra 256 MB stick is pretty much out of the question for a long while, that newer system without the extra RAM will still be faster?

Yes. A lot faster.

 

[WAZ]

Alright, sounds good then.

I guess I was kind of surprised that having triple the RAM wouldn't be as powerful as a new system..... but I guess a new system with the faster processor and faster RAM (even if there will be much less of it) will still have a big advantage.

Thanks for the advice guys -- time to build a computer.

 

[Maggotry]

So do you need mobo suggestions now or do you have something in mind?

 

[WAZ]

I was looking at the ASUS A7V333 or the Gigabyte GA-7VRXP. (Those at least fall into my "cheaper" price range, and I wasn't sure about the jump from 333 to 400).

Thoughts?

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: WAZ
I was looking at the ASUS A7V333 or the Gigabyte GA-7VRXP. (Those at least fall into my "cheaper" price range, and I wasn't sure about the jump from 333 to 400).

Thoughts?

Nay. Since your budget is tight (actually, even if your budget WASN'T tight), check into the EPOX 8K5A[2|3]/+ boards. They're top notch in quality, performance, price, and features.

 

[Duvie]

Did I miss where you stated a video card??? cause this will have a significant factor in whether the cpu boost will have much of an effect in games....In overall windows environment, and lets say word and some internet not to likely to see much definite increase.

Vid card could be bottleneck now and therefore will do liittle...If you have anything gf2 pro or better you should be fine....

 

[Maggotry]

MSI - AMD Certified

I just upgraded from an ASUS A7M266 to a KT3 Ultra2 and have been very pleased with it. The prices/performance/features are top-notch.

 

[Maggotry]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Did I miss where you stated a video card??? cause this will have a significant factor in whether the cpu boost will have much of an effect in games....In overall windows environment, and lets say word and some internet not to likely to see much definite increase.

Vid card could be bottleneck now and therefore will do liittle...If you have anything gf2 pro or better you should be fine....

Good point. I kind of overlooked that since he was just asking about the cpu/mobo/ram combo.

 

[WAZ]

By upgrading, I'm looking for faster overall performance, mostly in gaming. I have a lot of games that are very power-hungry (from the 3D-heavy Battlefield 1942 and Mafia to the system-heavy Medieval Total War). I have a GeForce 3 Ti200 -- obviously not the best out there, but I think it's more than adequate.

Re: the mobo... after much research, the ASUS looked like one of the best options for me personally. Is the Epox notably better? ASUS and Gigabyte seemed to rule the day in most of the mobo roundups I found online.

 

[Duvie]

With the gf3 ti200 I would get the cpu upgrade as well as the ddr upgrade...The ddr can increase performance 10 percent and the newer xp chip can offer all sorts of added features like sse, branch prediction, and hardware prefetch besides scale well just by percentage of mhz increase.

 

[CrazySaint]

Most of the mobo roundups reviewed the 8K3A/+ version, but the 8K5A series is very much improved and is an excellent board. Its so much "better" than the A7V333 as it is "about as good, but quite a bit cheaper".

 

[AmdEmAll]

I personally wouldn't go with an asus board. The last one I used (A7V-266E) was crappy. I will problebly only use Epox from now on since I have no problems at all with any of their boards and they have so many nice overclocking features, not to mention they overclock far more then other boards. I use an Epox 8KHA+ in my main system and an Epox 8K7A+ in my 2nd system. Both rock solid, never had a problem.

 

[WAZ]

Wow, I've always read that ASUS is one of the most reliable, high quality motherboards out there....

 

[AmdEmAll]

They have changed...

 

[dszd0g]

I don't think you would be disappointed with the A7V333, but the Epox 8K5A2(+) is one of the best KT333 boards out there. Epox makes some good boards and some crappy boards, they just seemed to have done a really good job on that one. If you plan on overclocking, the Epox is definitely the way to go. If you don't plan on overclocking, I would say choose the one you are more comfortable with. Asus is the #1 motherboard manufacturer (in quantity) and I generally go with them and have had few problems. If the Asus A7V8X had hit the shelves a week later I would have gone with the Epox 8K5A2. I just wanted all the cool stuff on the A7V8X for the toy factor.

 

[Maggotry]

Originally posted by: AmdEmAll
They have changed...

I don't think they've changed for the worse, I just think that other mobo makers have just gotten a lot better.

ASUS, MSI, Abit, Gigabyte, Epox...all fine choices.