Too many questions before building a new computer....

[Haze]

I had a lot of parts picked out, but then I heard some negative things about them. I also already had questions about the new technologies, and so now I'm just totally confused.

What I want in a new computer is to be able to capture video from internal and external sources, to be able to run multiple programs at once, to transcode and edit video, and to play games online with less lag (possibly even while capturing video from said games). Less important, but still something I value is being able to play the newest games if I should desire, and with high graphics settings.

I have many questions about computer parts and technologies, so I would appreciate any help. Please consider the things I mentioned above as well as the cost of the items.

CPU
I had been considering Intel's Pentium D 820 or one slightly better, but recently have heard and read some discouraging things.

On the positive side, my current computer runs an Intel Pentium 4 chip, and I have been quite happy with its stability. My computer has hardly ever caused me problems. I just want more speed and power.

As well, when comparing the clock speed and cache of Intel's Pentium D line to that of AMD's X2 chips, those that "match" end up favouring Intel as far as cost goes. For a AMD chip with the same numbers as a Pentium D chip, it would cost from $60 to $150 more for the AMD over the Intel chip.

That said, I have heard that AMD actually outpreforms Intel's chips quite a bit.

Also, there are issues in what OSes, hardware, and programs will actually make use of a dual core processor.

As well, I have been told that dual core may not be something very useful to me...

Graphics Card
I have been leaning towards ATI's All-In-Wonder line, and have considered getting one of their newish cards. But then I started hearing how NViDIA greatly outpreforms ATI. While I don't greatly care for performance in games, and I prefer the out-of-the-box video capture capabilities of the All-In-Wonder, I now have some doubts.

Also, do I have to take Graphics Card into consideration when thinking about using multiple monitors? I just got interested because of another post on this forum.

Oh, and I don't care about SLI or Crossfire.

Memory
SDRAM is obsolete, so that leaves pretty much DDR and DDR2. I hear DDR2 has issues with latency, and am thinking that DDR is what suits my needs best. Is that right?

What kinds should I be looking for, and what is the better of Corsair, Kingston, and Micron?

Is it preferable to get one stick of 1GB, or spend a little more and get two sticks of 512MB?

PCI
Okay, so PCI E is the sucessor to PCI, and all graphics cards are moving over to PCI E set up. I get that motherboards are coming with different slots now, so that you can run a PCI E graphic card in the x16 slot, and some expansion cards in the regular PCI slots, but what is with the x1 slot? What is that for? I heard that PCI E doesn't make much of an improvement until x4, so what is the point in this x1 slot? Is there any products that make use of it yet?

Hard Drives
So theres ATA, SATA, and SATAII... well, I found out that SATAII is just a misleading name and that not all of the SATAII products are actually better than SATA products, but that there are indeed some that are better. So I could get a SATA 3.0 Gb/s (SATAII) hard drive and compatible mother board. I know the advantages of SATA over ATA, but wonder if SATA is really something I need? I also heard that SATA can be slower than ATA.

Is it worth it to get a HDD that runs at 10,000 RPM over one that runs at 7,200 RPM?

Case / Power Supply / Fans
I've been looking at the rather nice Antec Case, but I have no idea if it is enough. 400W power supply, and I think it comes with 3 to 4 fans.

Windows XP Home or Professional?
I heard that Professional is needed for dual core systems. I have been doing fine with my current computer running Home. Also, what is service pack 2 all about? Is that necessary?

------------------------------------------

Ugh, I'm just really lost when it comes to this. I did a bunch of research, but it just gave me more questions. I figured the best way to find answers would be to figure out what I want my computer to do, and then ask the people who are already doing what I want to be doing.

I hope I didn't miss anything. When I first tried posting this, the board said I wasn't logged in and deleted my whole post. So this is version two, from scratch (this time, I'm saving it to Notepad first).

If anyone knows another forum where I could get better answers, let me know. I don't really know of any techie forums and just came here for the reason above.

[Scintilla]

As well, when comparing the clock speed and cache of Intel's Pentium D line to that of AMD's X2 chips, those that "match" end up favouring Intel as far as cost goes. For a AMD chip with the same numbers as a Pentium D chip, it would cost from $60 to $150 more for the AMD over the Intel chip.

That said, I have heard that AMD actually outpreforms Intel's chips quite a bit.

I didn't realize there were any Intel dual-core chips that "matched" with any of AMD's. In general, Intel's dual-core offerings are cheaper, but mainly because, as you said, AMD's perform better; AMD doesn't have any budget dual-core chips (they don't seem to want to release a dual-core any slower than the Athlon X2 3800+).

Also, do I have to take Graphics Card into consideration when thinking about using multiple monitors? I just got interested because of another post on this forum.

Well, you need a graphics card that has outputs your monitors can take. If you've got two CRTs, then you need a card with two D-SUB (VGA 15-pin) outputs.

Memory
SDRAM is obsolete, so that leaves pretty much DDR and DDR2. I hear DDR2 has issues with latency, and am thinking that DDR is what suits my needs best. Is that right?

What memory you get will be determined by your motherboard. If you get an LGA775 motherboard for a Pentium 4/D, then you'll need to get DDR2 RAM. If you get a Socket 939 motherboard for an Athlon 64/X2, then you'll need to get DDR RAM.

(Socket AM2 isn't out yet, right?)

PCI
Okay, so PCI E is the sucessor to PCI, and all graphics cards are moving over to PCI E set up. I get that motherboards are coming with different slots now, so that you can run a PCI E graphic card in the x16 slot, and some expansion cards in the regular PCI slots, but what is with the x1 slot? What is that for? I heard that PCI E doesn't make much of an improvement until x4, so what is the point in this x1 slot? Is there any products that make use of it yet?

Don't know, but if you want a PCI-Express graphics card, then you're stuck with the x1 slots. Eventually people will start making cards for it, I'm sure.

Is it worth it to get a HDD that runs at 10,000 RPM over one that runs at 7,200 RPM?

Unless you're running a server or something, the difference in performance shouldn't be worth the extra cost.

Windows XP Home or Professional?
I heard that Professional is needed for dual core systems.

If you want Windows to recognize both cores, then yes, you need Professional. (Same goes for the virtual cores of a P4 with HyperThreading.)

Or you could get a version of Linux that supports dual-core processors (or dual-processor systems), I suppose.

[oldwrench]

The AMD procs outperform the Intel units, easily, on a dollar for dollar basis. I would suggest getting a fast AMD 64 single core, most new motherboards can be upgraded to a dual core later, when os's and programs need them.

The ATI all in wonder cards support dual monitors, you would need a DVI-VGA adapter plug for the dvi output if you have two vga monitors. If you get an SLI motherboard you can run two video cards separately and run four monitors. The 1800X AIW by ati should be fast enough for almost any gaming.

That being said, the pci-e slots for video cards are 16x slots. When used in sli mode they work as 8x slots. Gigabyte just came out with a board that runs both sli slots at 16x. The 1x slots are for pci cards like modems and sound cards.

DDr memory is the way to go for amd boards, you need to run two sticks to utilize the dual channel feature of the amd onboard memory controler. The onboard controler is why the amd can make such fast use of the memory. Most of the motherboard manufacturers have recomended memory brands, most of the good name brands work fine but some boards are fussy.

10,000rpm drives aren't worth the extra money at this time. SATAII is nice but right now not enough of a gain to make it a needed item. Make sure the motherboard supports it because better drives are coming. I got a SATA II drive 300gb for less than $100 so prices aren't really that different from ATA. SATA is a bit harder to set up on a new computer since you have to put the drivers on a floppy to get windows to install on the new drive.

I just built my new computer using an Antec Sonota case and ps. The power supply seems to work very well and this thing is spooky quiet. I never knew my track ball made a klink sound when you click the buttons. I used the oem fan for the amd proc and the 120mm fan in the case, I don't have any cooling issues. Their plastic ductwork didn't fit the gigabyte board but I don't see any need for it.

Check newegg.com for some deals and plenty of coustomer feedback on the products you are interested in.

[Keeper of Hellfire]

Windows XP Home or Professional?
I heard that Professional is needed for dual core systems.

If you want Windows to recognize both cores, then yes, you need Professional. (Same goes for the virtual cores of a P4 with HyperThreading.)

That's a rumour running around in the internet which isn't true (I was propagating it a long time too ). For dual processors you need XP pro, for dual core/hyperthreading not.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,783 ... 64,00.html
and
http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... -us;810231
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944/en-us

[Haze]

Thanks a lot for the responces. Given that I just paid an unexpectedly large VISA bill, I'm liking the idea of looking at buying a single-core chip along with a motherboard that will support the new technologies including dual core. Hmm... there is a possibility that when I do go to dual core, I could use the new processor for something else.

didn't realize there were any Intel dual-core chips that "matched" with any of AMD's. In general, Intel's dual-core offerings are cheaper, but mainly because, as you said, AMD's perform better; AMD doesn't have any budget dual-core chips (they don't seem to want to release a dual-core any slower than the Athlon X2 3800+).

Not exactly matched. I think it was looking at the "AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+" and the "Intel Pentium D Processor 820". The AMD says 2.2 GHz, the Intel says 2.8 GHz. Both say 2x1MB Cache. Other stats I didn't really look at or understand. Given that example, the AMD chip was $250 CDN more expensive than the Intel chip.

The AMD procs outperform the Intel units, easily, on a dollar for dollar basis. I would suggest getting a fast AMD 64 single core, most new motherboards can be upgraded to a dual core later, when os's and programs need them.

A very interesting idea. Are OS's tied to processors? Like, will there be a lot of trouble when I switch it out? And would such a processor be likely to work in my current computer's motherboard (unknown brand) that is fairly old and running Intel's Pentium 4? I'm now thinking about the Athlon 64 3200+ (2 GHz), which would save me about $100 over the Intel Pentium D 820 I was looking at before. But even as a temporary processor to hold me off until dual core gets more useful (and cheaper), will it be worth the purchase considering my current system's 2GHz Pentium 4?

The ATI all in wonder cards support dual monitors, you would need a DVI-VGA adapter plug for the dvi output if you have two vga monitors. If you get an SLI motherboard you can run two video cards separately and run four monitors. The 1800X AIW by ati should be fast enough for almost any gaming.

Hahaha, sounds like some setup you'd see in a sci-fi or anime! Imagine the demands on the processor when actually making use of those monitors connected to one computer. Very interesting to learn, though.

The 1x slots are for pci cards like modems and sound cards.

I thought so, it's just that the x1 slots are physically very small (regular PCI cards are much longer), and I haven't seen any PCI x1 cards yet. But I haven't really been looking, and probably honestly don't care much.

DDr memory is the way to go for amd boards, you need to run two sticks to utilize the dual channel feature of the amd onboard memory controler.

So if going with an AMD processor, and wanting 1GB DDR ram, it is better to use two 512 MB sticks than to just use one 1GB stick?

Check newegg.com for some deals and plenty of coustomer feedback on the products you are interested in.

Haven't too much time right now, but checked it out. It does seem quite good for reviews, but the organizations is a bit odd; it's hard to just browse and best if you know exactly what you're looking for. Also, as I live in Canada, I wonder if there is much money to be saved shopping with them. A very local company, Memory Express, has a wonderful website and seemingly very good prices (Candian Dollars). I espescially like the site's organization and the very useful "Online Quote". Note I will not have to pay for shipping as I can just pick it all up from the closest location.

That's a rumour running around in the internet which isn't true; for dual processors you need XP pro, for dual core/hyperthreading not.

Thanks for clearing that up.

And so...
I'm now wondering about dual processors. Ha. But more realistically, I'm wondering if it's worth it to go to a single core AMD proc. Most of them won't actually save me much money over, say, a Pentium D. And with an Intel dual core chip with a core speed of 2.8 GHz I can be guaranteed a noticable increase over my 2GHz Pentium 4. If I go to an AMD single core proc, core speed 2.0 or 2.2 GHz, it just doesn't *sound* like it's going to be a big improvement. No offense, but those numbers keep trying to persuade me that Intel's chips are faster despite all that I've been reading on this board. Of course actually having a few sticks of ram will make the improvement, but if I'm getting a new processor I want to be certain that it's going to be better than my current one. For now I'm just thinking... "if I am going to wait before getting a dual core, maybe I should just get everything but the proc and use my current unsatisfactory one in the new computer".

I'm starting to think I won't be leaving this happily.

It's getting to be something psychological. I've gotta rid myself of the brainwashing caused by all the manufacturer-provided system specs and propaganda. Learn to trust reviews and other people.

[Willen]

CPU
...That said, I have heard that AMD actually outpreforms Intel's chips quite a bit.

Also, there are issues in what OSes, hardware, and programs will actually make use of a dual core processor.

As well, I have been told that dual core may not be something very useful to me...

For general tasks and gaming, AMD is usually the winner in head-to-head comparisons. BUT, for media encoding, if the software is P4-enhanced, the Intel chip will most likely be the champ. Also unless your software is dual CPU/dual core CPU aware, you will not see any performance improvement over a single core CPU on a single application. Where dual core procs WILL give you an improvement is on multitasking -- stuff like...

...to be able to run multiple programs at once, to transcode and edit video, and to play games online with less lag (possibly even while capturing video from said games).

Graphics Card
I have been leaning towards ATI's All-In-Wonder line, and have considered getting one of their newish cards. But then I started hearing how NViDIA greatly outpreforms ATI. While I don't greatly care for performance in games, and I prefer the out-of-the-box video capture capabilities of the All-In-Wonder, I now have some doubts.

For video cards that will do good VIVO (video-in/video-out) almost everyone will recommend ATI. Especially if you want a high-end card that can do both well. The only problem is that the All-In-Wonder cards are updated somewhat later than the plain-jane models so the AIWs usually aren't available right away when a new VPU arrives, plus the cards will cost you a $100 premium over the regular version.

For games, whether ATI or NVIDIA is faster is pretty much dependent on how the game is coded/optimized for one or the other graphics architecture. Generally, it's a wash.

Memory
SDRAM is obsolete, so that leaves pretty much DDR and DDR2. I hear DDR2 has issues with latency, and am thinking that DDR is what suits my needs best. Is that right?

What kinds should I be looking for, and what is the better of Corsair, Kingston, and Micron?

Is it preferable to get one stick of 1GB, or spend a little more and get two sticks of 512MB?

Well, the type of memory will depend on what CPU you decide on like Scintilla mentioned. DDR2's latency was more of an issue at the lower clock speeds, but once speeds go beyond a certain point, the latency issues will have less of an effect on performance. And as for brand, as long you are not overclocking, they all are the same.

Personally, I would go for 2GB of memory (2x 1GB sticks, dual-channel) if you have the funds. Especially if you are multi-tasking with encoding/transcoding and doing other tasks like photo editing. And with current memory chips, the added latency of denser memory is lessened. Most will run well at 3-3-3 timings and some can go even faster. Also, if down the road you need more memory, you still have 2 slots you can fill without throwing out your old memory.

PCI
Okay, so PCI E is the sucessor to PCI, and all graphics cards are moving over to PCI E set up. I get that motherboards are coming with different slots now, so that you can run a PCI E graphic card in the x16 slot, and some expansion cards in the regular PCI slots, but what is with the x1 slot? What is that for? I heard that PCI E doesn't make much of an improvement until x4, so what is the point in this x1 slot? Is there any products that make use of it yet?

oldwrench is correct, PCI-E 1x slots are for modems, NICs, sound cards, etc. although I have yet to see a 1x device in person yet. And there is a PCI-E 1x compatible graphics card, the Matrox Millennium G550 PCIe. In fact, there is also a low-profile version too.

Hard Drives
So theres ATA, SATA, and SATAII... well, I found out that SATAII is just a misleading name and that not all of the SATAII products are actually better than SATA products, but that there are indeed some that are better. So I could get a SATA 3.0 Gb/s (SATAII) hard drive and compatible mother board. I know the advantages of SATA over ATA, but wonder if SATA is really something I need? I also heard that SATA can be slower than ATA.

Is it worth it to get a HDD that runs at 10,000 RPM over one that runs at 7,200 RPM?

I believe since most 1st-gen SATA drives were based on or were just bridged PATA drives the performance was the same, if not worse in the case of the bridged drives. Today, SATA is somewhat faster than the equivalent PATA drive although hard drive tech still has a tough time saturating the PATA-100/133 interface, let alone the SATA-150 interface. And NO, 10,000 RPM drives aren't worth it. Especially since you can get 500GB 7200 RPM, worth of storage for the same price as a 150GB 10,000 RPM drive ($300).

Case / Power Supply / Fans
I've been looking at the rather nice Antec Case, but I have no idea if it is enough. 400W power supply, and I think it comes with 3 to 4 fans.

400 watt PS is decent power unless you are doing SLI or are running numerous HDDs, which you are not. The only concern I have is that it may be kinda noisy unless the 3 or 4 fans are quiet, temperature-controlled speed types.

Windows XP Home or Professional?
I heard that Professional is needed for dual core systems. I have been doing fine with my current computer running Home. Also, what is service pack 2 all about? Is that necessary?

SP2 is absolutely necessary for keeping up with security and usability of Windows, IMO. Plus, you get WMM2.1 pre-installed.

[Willen]

Damn, that previous post took too long.

I'm now wondering about dual processors. Ha. But more realistically, I'm wondering if it's worth it to go to a single core AMD proc. Most of them won't actually save me much money over, say, a Pentium D. And with an Intel dual core chip with a core speed of 2.8 GHz I can be guaranteed a noticable increase over my 2GHz Pentium 4. If I go to an AMD single core proc, core speed 2.0 or 2.2 GHz, it just doesn't *sound* like it's going to be a big improvement. No offense, but those numbers keep trying to persuade me that Intel's chips are faster despite all that I've been reading on this board. Of course actually having a few sticks of ram will make the improvement, but if I'm getting a new processor I want to be certain that it's going to be better than my current one. For now I'm just thinking... "if I am going to wait before getting a dual core, maybe I should just get everything but the proc and use my current unsatisfactory one in the new computer".

Sounds like you are stuck in the "Megahertz Myth" (or Gigahertz, in this case). Clock-for-clock, an AMD Athlon will absolutely demolish an Intel P4/PD. Because of this, AMD created "Performance Ratings" for their chips so they can market them against the closest performing Intel P4 chips, even though AMD says the PR numbers are calculated in regards to a reference AMD chip of old.

So an AMD Athlon64 3800+ running at 2.4GHz (~$300) should perform the same as or better than an Intel Pentium 4 running at 3.8GHz (~$600).

Never underestimate the power of efficient design.

[Kai Stromler]

Are OS's tied to processors? Like, will there be a lot of trouble when I switch it out? And would such a processor be likely to work in my current computer's motherboard (unknown brand) that is fairly old and running Intel's Pentium 4?

Processors are not tied to OS installations (yet....watch out when we get "trusted computing".....), but they ARE concretely tied to the slot used by the motherboard. If you're using an old P4 motherboard, you WILL need a new mobo, and chances are that you'll need a new board even if you upgrade to a newer P4. You're probably on Socket 478, and you'll need to make sure that, if the price of the mobo is a consideration, you don't accidentally buy a LGA775 chip.

You should also check the specs on your current board if you're planning on upgrading/replacing your RAM and not buying a new one; it doesn't matter if, like on some machines we've got at work, you've got DDR333 if your motherboard can only support DDR266. Apologies for the obsolete example, but if you want to actually get the performance you're paying for, you need to make sure of such things.

hth,

--K

[Kai Stromler]

f you're currently using an old P4 motherboard and switch to an AMD chip, you WILL need a new mobo, and chances are that you'll need a new board even if you upgrade to a newer P4.

Damnit.

To add on, processor sockets drive people crazy. Intel has both 478 and LGA775 current, and there is still a lot of socket 754 available for AMD even though most of their product line has switched over to 939. If you for some reason want an Opteron or Xeon, well, there are different sockets for those server chips too.

Pick your proc, know your socket. Know your socket, pick your mobo. Pick your mobo, know your max RAM speed. Know your max speed, pick your RAM.



--K

[Keeper of Hellfire]

BUT, for media encoding, if the software is P4-enhanced, the Intel chip will most likely be the champ.

This is valid for single core CPU's, but not necessarily for dual cores. If the encoder profits from hyperthreading (like the windows media encoder), the AMD X2's outperform the same priced Intel D's even in this task. In addition, the AMD's have less power consumption than the Intels, which means less heat. That's good for stability if the CPU has to run many hours at full load.