Yet Another What Do You Think of This PC....

[Abix]

Im going to be putting together a system here in a bit, and I just wanted your thoughts on the system Im going to build. Also, this system will not be overclocked at all, hence the value RAM and not some OCZ RAM.

Antec P150 with Neo HE 430Watt PSU
DFI Ultra-D
AMD X2 4200+
2GB of Mushkin Value RAM
Seagate 7200.8 250GB HD
eVGA 7800GT PCI-E
LG GSA-4167 Dual layer DVD burner
2 x 92mm Panaflo L1BXs for front intake

The total, including shipping, comes to some $1231.29 presently.

Good, bad, why?

Note: Ive currently got 1GB(2x512MB) of the Mushkin Value RAM, so that total price only includes the price of an additional GB. So, if you actually spent the time to add that up, and found that the price is off by $75, now you know why.

 

[xanis]

Good setup, I wouldn't change a thing.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

good case choice....if i had the money id actually seriously consider getting a P150 and selling my P160.

thats nice price for a very nice system


good selection

 

[Tangerines]

Upgrade to an X2 4400+. The 1 MB cache will make it better for future applications, and it can be easily OC'd to a 4800+.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Tangerines
Upgrade to an X2 4400+. The 1 MB cache will make it better for future applications, and it can be easily OC'd to a 4800+.

While that's your opinion, if the OP is on a budget, which it seems he is, then your advice makes no sense.

IMO, when OCing, the X2 3800+ is the best value, certainly not the 4400+.

And to the OP, value RAM is no excuse for not OCing :evil:

Fire up a 166 RAM divder, & you'll be at 2.5 or 2.6 GHz easily 😉

 

[Abix]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Tangerines
Upgrade to an X2 4400+. The 1 MB cache will make it better for future applications, and it can be easily OC'd to a 4800+.

While that's your opinion, if the OP is on a budget, which it seems he is, then your advice makes no sense.

IMO, when OCing, the X2 3800+ is the best value, certainly not the 4400+.

And to the OP, value RAM is no excuse for not OCing :evil:

Fire up a 166 RAM divder, & you'll be at 2.5 or 2.6 GHz easily 😉

Tangerines:
Ive often thought about going to a 1MB cache, but from all reviews that Ive seen, theres very little performance increase in anything short of business level applications(which wont be run on this machine) from going to 1MB of L2 cache. Quite simply, the additional $100 or so doesnt seem to be worth it to me for the small performance.

If you could point me to something that shows there are significant gains between 512kb and 1MB of cache other than the size of my e-penis, then Id be glad to switch on up.


n7:
Yes, the machine is a budge, roughly $1200, but I would be able to acquire some more for a sufficiently good cause given good reason.

Also, about the OCing. Somebody else is going to be using this machine, and they quite simply dont want to overclock it at all for reasons that I dont understand. However, I will keep in mind what you said on the off-chance that the user will change his mind.


Thanks for the replies.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Xanis
Good setup, I wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Abix]

Does anyone else have anything to say about the 4200+/4400+ differences that might justify the $100 price increase?

 

[Some1ne]

I personally don't get the decision to go with the 4200+ either. It's really not superior enough to the 3800+ at stock settings to warrant the price increase, especially when the 3800+ will overclock just as well as the 4200+. The benefit that you get by going for the 4400+ is double the amount of cache per core, which can improve performance quite a bit under the right circumstances. I'd say if the system is going to see heavy multitasking use, or use doing video/audio/image processing, then it's worth getting the larger cache, otherwise you probably won't notice much of a difference.

You might also want to consider going the dual-core Opteron route, although those are getting harder and harder to find at good prices.

 

[Abix]

Originally posted by: Some1ne
I personally don't get the decision to go with the 4200+ either. It's really not superior enough to the 3800+ at stock settings to warrant the price increase, especially when the 3800+ will overclock just as well as the 4200+. The benefit that you get by going for the 4400+ is double the amount of cache per core, which can improve performance quite a bit under the right circumstances. I'd say if the system is going to see heavy multitasking use, or use doing video/audio/image processing, then it's worth getting the larger cache, otherwise you probably won't notice much of a difference.

You might also want to consider going the dual-core Opteron route, although those are getting harder and harder to find at good prices.

The thing is that this machine will not be overclocked at all, so the performance increase between the 3800+ and the 4200+ would be wanted and would be sufficient to justify the cost increase.

I realize that I would get double the amount of cache, but under which 'right circumstances' would that extra 512kb of cache actually make any performance difference? Will it help under gaming, which this machine will mainly do? Or would it only help under video/audio/image processing, which this machine would do very little of?

Additionally, do you have links to any reviews that would show the comparison between the 512kb and 1MB cache where the review actually shows a performance increase of more than just a few percentages? Ive looked for a bit, and I was unable to find anything that might show that.

 

[Some1ne]

The thing is that this machine will not be overclocked at all, so the performance increase between the 3800+ and the 4200+ would be wanted and would be sufficient to justify the cost increase.

Even with no overclocking, it's still not really justified. The only difference between the 3800+ and the 4200+ is that the 4200+ is clocked at 2.2 GHz, while the 3800+ runs at 2.0 GHz. So the 4200+ is at best 10% faster than the 3800+, but prices indicate that it costs roughly 25% more than the 3800+ (according to newegg, a 3800+ is $322, a 4200+ is $400, so the 4200+ is 24% more expensive for only 10% more performance).

I realize that I would get double the amount of cache, but under which 'right circumstances' would that extra 512kb of cache actually make any performance difference? Will it help under gaming, which this machine will mainly do? Or would it only help under video/audio/image processing, which this machine would do very little of?

For gaming your CPU really isn't going to make any difference. Essentially any Athlon64 CPU will be adequate, as the limiting factor is the video card (and to a lesser extent, the amount of system RAM), not the CPU. All other things being equal, the 3800+ and 4200+ will offer essentially identical gaming performance. The extra cache of the 4400+ probably won't help too much here either, it mostly helps with heavy multitasking, and encoding and other similar CPU intensive tasks.

 

[caz67]

If your not overclocking then why get the DFI board??

 

[GamerExpress]

Wow, why come here for help, great setup.

 

[Abix]

Some1ne:
Ill definently look into the possibility of saving some cash by moving down to the 3800+ without losing very much performance. Thanks for the advice.

Originally posted by: caz67
If your not overclocking then why get the DFI board??

The while the DFI board does have great overclocking abilities, it is also a solid, reliable board. I chose the DFI board so that the user *can* overclock if they want to, and if they dont want to then they still get a solid board...all for the low price of $119.99 on ZZF.

Originally posted by: GamerExpress
Wow, why come here for help, great setup.

I trusted my judgment in picking out the parts for the machine, but I just wanted a second/third/fourth opinion on it. Thanks for your opinion.