Com-Central.net

My windoze is hosed again, having all sorts of problems with it and the final straw is that Jops won't play online after I had to do a roll back, even after a re-install of the game...Grrrr

Anyways, I ain't gonna re-install windoze again without an upgrade, so this is what I'm thinking of...

Vista (possible spit) won't be out till next year and it'll take about 6 month after that before I would commit myself to it anyway, so I'm looking at a year out of the new computer before thinking about upgrading again.

Since DDR2 is no clear winner over DDR at the moment and dual core processors don't have the support from software yet, I'm thinking of a two stage upgrade...

Being an AMD and Nvidia fan...

Asus mobo A8N-SLI SE or Premium (Can take single core and dual core cpu's)
2Gig, Corsair or Kinston ram (PC3200)
Nvidia 7900GT SLI graphics card

Already have the Sata drives etc

Initially an AMD 64 bit single core cpu (4800 possibly) later a dual core cpu

This set up will allow me to upgrade later to a dual core cpu and add another graphics card later to keep the performance up

comments are invited

While I'm not a big AMD fan, only due to the VIA chipset I might add, I've heard good things about the Nvidia mainboard chipset and would consider this combo ...

I'm a big ASUS and Nvidia fan and like the above set up. Let us know what you decide.

Sounds like a plan Kit !



fled

Conroe will be taking some money from amd, certainly for the immediate future kit.
They're worth considering.
I think (though I haven't checked up as I'm a little tied up at the moment) they'll run Vista too.
Heard someone mention around $300.00 for them in the U.S.A.

-S-

Howdy Kit..nice rig in mind..if you can afford it, I would take a look at the NVidea 7900 dual card, 2 x 7900,s at 512 meg each giving you 1 gig in a single card solution...all the reviews I have read, most from consumers, rave about this card..havent herd anythig on a SLI cofig yet...I would go with the AMD FX-60...if you can afford it..price dropped down to below $1,000.00 here in Canada and the cpu was over $1,600.00 not too long ago..all the reviews are good and it is used for benchmarking games by the pros to boot...may get even cheaper with the new Intell cpu,s about to come out and quad core chips next year..try to stay away from VIA chipsets...soundblaster cards have an issue with them, remember my com problems not so long ago..turned out it was the VIA chipset in my mobo conflicting with my expensive Soundblaster card that I loved, problems with farcry can happen too..hope the advice helps....

Hammer

www.anandtech.com/trad...spx?i=2713
Much as I respect the FX60, it's yesterday's chip since Conroe.
AMD have already begun to slash prices.

Slash prices? Now you're talkin' Shades!!

Not yet down to Bushy's favourite price levels, but they're heading in the right direction.
Skinny is that amd won't be able to compete on performance for a little while yet and that Intel have really stolen a march on 'em.
You always get this kind of sentiment around this kind of release though and personally I reckon it's just their marketing people spreading 'it' around.

www.anandtech.com/cpuc...i=2795&p=1
Just saw this performance comparison between Conroe and AMD 64's.
Page 17's what you're after.

The last couple of days all I've done is read about mobo's cpu and graphic cards...My head is about busted and I still can't make my mind up.

I've narrowed the field to about 20-30 products...LOL


The Conroe looks a very strong chip, I've read a few reviews about it and looked at all sorts of benchmarks, but it's todays flavour, what will be on the shelf tomorrow?

At some point a decision has to be made and a system built with what one feels comfortable with, maybe not the best or fastest, (financial constraints). If one keeps waiting then the wait will be forever as new hardware is either available or coming.

A couple of quotes from the link in shades post about the conroe...

In terms of sheer ability to process physics and AI as well as feed a hungry graphics subsystem, Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 is anywhere between 22 and 55% faster than AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62.

While this doesn't mean much for real world gaming, it does cement the fact that Intel's Core 2 processor is significantly faster at the type of code current 3D games will throw at it. The very same benchmarks that Intel used to complain about favoring AMD, now favor Intel just as much; oh how times have changed.

Yep, AMD are on the back foot with Intels current offering but after saying that anything over 30 fps make a game very playable, the benchmarks are impressive but a bit meaningless for me, from both Intel and AMD

If Intel's availability statements are true or even worse, overly optimistic, then don't expect to be upgrading to a Core 2 system anytime soon.

Gotta be sooner please, then AMD will drop their prices and I'll go straight for a dual core AMD.

My preferred weapons of on-line gaming are Asus/AMD/Nvidia.

Interesting article though Shades...For those who've turned or about to turn to the 'Dark Side'



(Just to avoid any misinterpretation of the above rant…I welcome other peoples views and respect them, my command of the written word may not reflect the humour or interest that is intended.)

-S-

try going to newegg.com and reading the reviews for your chosen products......lots of info from people who have bought the component and their pros and cons...usefull info...may help a bit...about that video card I mentioned...it is a 9x card and 10x will be apon us soon..something to consider....

Hammer

fps measured in a benchmark is an average.
Your eyes need 22 fps for smooth animation (used as a regulated standard by movie animators).

So, if you see "30 fps" as a game measurement, it means the fps will be above [and] below this figure, and it can be by quite a lot depending on the redraw requirements of the image.

The higher the figure the system can cope with, and the quicker its card's redraw rate, the more chance you will get a figure which is constantly above the minimum required.

This is why games run in lower settings run smoother. You sacrifice the graphic content in order to reduce the drain on your card.

While this doesn't mean much for real world gaming

Real world gaming doesn't require a computer, and the tests speak for themselves. The main target for computers and components is the virtual gaming market and AMD wouldn't be slashing their top spec. prices if Conroe wasn't a significant threat to them.

it's todays flavour, what will be on the shelf tomorrow?

I have no doubt that AMD will be back on top soon. Then Intel. Then AMD. Then Intel.... etc etc. Normally you get to hear whispers of the "Next big thing" from the marketing dept to persuade potential buyers to hold off. At the moment there is no whisper about anything that could bring them back up to speed from AMD.

The current AMD's will provide you with a great machine which many people will be jealous of. I mention Conroe purely because, at the moment, it will provide you with a better one and is a competetive price.

==============

Benchmark testing is in itself rather innacurate. They are only to provide an idea. Intel and AMD both complained about test measurements but both chips were made differently and no test would have been perfectly fair to both.
Disregarding their manufacture, programmes are written on machines using different processors so, if an Intel based machine is tested with a programme written on an Intel machine, it will receive better results than if it was designed on an AMD machine.
This is also true of graphic cards and some benchmarks/games will run better on nVidia machines than ATi machines because the game was written using a different card.

ASUS/Intel/Nvidia... I'm still a fan of that combo...

As far as worrying about what tomorrows computer parts, you'll never get ahead of the 'game' and especially in this time frame. Core speeds for CPU has been hoving about the same for a couple of years with no significant breakthrough until now. With the release of the dual core CPU's, the game manufactuers will utilize that potential and alas, we'll all be forced to upgrade at some point in the future.

So what does that mean? IMO go Dual Core now (if you're wallet can support it that is...lol)

Benchmarking are just guidelines for us. IMO who cares if the system produces 100 fps or 99. It's just a way for us to get a general idea on performance while comparing different hard parts or combinations there of.

Let us know what you decide Kit...

It's looking like this at the moment...

Asus A8N32-SLI-Deluxe mobo
2Gig matched ram (corsair or kingston)
2x XFX GeForce 7900GT Xtreme Graphics cards (SLI mode)

CPU...Still undecided, probably an AMD 64bit 3800 single core to start with. Wanna see what the prices do before getting a dual core.
(The lad can have the single core chip when I change to a dual one.)

Then just the usual stuff, fast SataII drive, 500W ATX12 2.1 psu...

May change yet...:) Man am I tired of reading reviews...LOL

The biggest problem is getting it in the house without the wife seeing.

Do you use it for anything other than gaming?