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

[Haze]

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

Coupled with what Keeper of Hellfire just mentioned, it sounds like such a thing is a non-issue. There is always other software. Definitely sounds like AMD is the choice.

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, but where dual core procs WILL give you an improvement is on multitasking -- stuff like [etc.]

Wonderful! I was thinking that would be the case and had been hoping to hear a corroboration on that. Thanks also for backing up my 'choice' of ATI card, and supporting what had been said by others about DDR(2).

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.

Huh, so there is something that can go in there

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).

Ah, that sounds like what one of my friends was trying to tell me. That HDDs just aren't fast enough to effectively make use of the interface technologies and processors. And since most mobos with SATA have the older PATA-100/133 interfaces as well, I think it would be a good idea to save some cash and get a fair-sized 7200 RPM PATA drive.

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.

Hmm... reviews on newegg seem to say it's quiet. Then again, they also say things like "dust factory" and "not optimized for an AMD setup", so perhaps I should be looking for another case. As for the sound; really, as long as it isn't out right making noise, I don't mind. My current system gives off a gentle, but quite audible, hum. Actually, when the house is quiet, I can hear it from a good three rooms distance away. If the doors are open and I wake up in my bedroom, I can hear if the computer is on in the office.

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

Okay; I didn't even know I had it on this computer until just today when I happened to notice it while looking in the system control panel.

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).

Hey, I remember reading something like that in a recent Maximum PC that a friend lent to me. The only reason I originally discarded AMD was because Intel was familar and cheaper. Stupid me.

If you're using an old P4 motherboard, you WILL need a new mobo.

Yeah, this was apparant to me when a friend of mine gave me some DDR ram for a gift and I found out my mobo only supports SDRAM. Then I found out that the two sticks of 512MB DDR could buy me one stick of 512MB SDRAM... yeah, I took the money instead. Since it seems like AMD will be my choice of processor, I can say goodbye to the idea of sticking it in my current system.

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.

Memory Express' Online Quote actually helps to do that part for me, negating the boards that do not work with the processor you choose. But I'll be sure to double check everything when I make my mobo choice. Thanks.

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.

Outperformance in the areas that interest me, plus less power consumption, plus less heat. Sounds great to me.

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

Thanks again, everyone. I am now convinced of AMD's superiority, and am glad to have had my many questions answered. I will be taking the suggestion of starting with a single core and later upgrading to dual core into strong consideration. Although, since I still feel like I really WANT dual core, I think I'll just see if I can jump right into it.

Correct me if any of the below are just misconceptions, but I'd like to go back to my first post and fill in the answers to my questions;
CPU AMD does indeed outperform Intel's chips. It does so with both single and dual core variations. And it has greater value. And it runs cooler.
Graphics Card ATI's All-In-Wonder line of cards holds strong. Oh, and with the proper setup you can use four monitors OwO;;
Memory Mostly dependant on what motherboard and processor you use. Soon DDR2 will be truely outpreforming DDR, but DDR is nothing to sneeze at either. For AMD chips, it is preferable to get two sticks of ram to run in dual-channel mode than to just get one big stick of ram. For AMD compatible motherboards, I'm practically stuck with DDR as very few currently support DDR2 (not that I mind, really).
PCI There actually is a use for the PCI x1 slot... not that I think I'll ever need it, but it was something I had been curious about.
Hard Drives Stick with a good sized 7200 RPM drive, and don't worry about S-ATA. Just stick with the fastest PATA if you can as it will save some money and save some trouble when it comes to installing a driver.
Case According to reviews, I may need to look for a better case. As far as power supply goes, I'd be fine with the 400W Antec one so long as I don't intend to run dual-GPUs or many hard drives. Plus, AMD chips use less power than Intel chips.
OS Although it isn't a requirement of dual core systems as I previously thought, XP Professional is the more stable of the two. And adding Service Pack 2 is a must.

[oldwrench]

Sounds like you're getting it together. Check out Maximum PC online, their magazine is great and it is one of the cheepest out there.

[sysKin]

For CPUs, this: http://www.behardware.com/articles/607- ... ssors.html is a very recent CPU comparison.

[Haze]

oldwrench, I have now read two of Maximum PC's recent magazines, and I found it to be quite a good read.

sysKin, thanks for the comparison. It meant a lot more to me that the recent comparisons I have seen on cnet and in Maximum PC. Those others focused too much on the high end, I felt, and the one you linked me to gave a very comprehensive comparison of both companies' line-ups.

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

I do have a new question though. Regarding RAM. There are some with CAS 3, some with ECC, and some without either. Prices tend to rise going from none to CAS3 to ECC.

Also, I've seen somewhere something like "2-2-2" or "3-3-3" to describe memory. What exactly is that? The site I'm shopping in doesn't mention these at all.

Looking at newegg.com, I see that they list more detailed product specifications for their memory. This will help me a bit.

I now understand that CAS3 refers to a CAS latency of 3, that ECC might be "Error-correcting Code", and that the 2-2-2 and 3-3-3 deal with "timing". I still don't have a clue about what any of these mean.

Do these things affect compatibility with motherboards? Are they something that I should really be thinking so much about?

[sysKin]

I now understand that CAS3 refers to a CAS latency of 3, that ECC might be "Error-correcting Code", and that the 2-2-2 and 3-3-3 deal with "timing". I still don't have a clue about what any of these mean.

These numbers are called "timings" like you said, and they describe the speed at which a RAM can accept instructions. The smaller the numbers, the better.
The most important timing is CAS ("Column Address Strobe", the number of clock cycles the address must be present on the bus before memory can understand it). If you see 3-4-4 numbers, the first of them is CAS.

CAS of 3 is reasonably slow and many "value" RAMs have it. CAS of 2.5 is better, while CAS of 2 is quite high-end. The difference in overal computer speed is measurable, but nothing huge.

The other two (or sometimes three) numbers are other timings, and they also affect speed (smaller is better) but they are less important.

As for ECC, they are special memory type, usually used in industrial-quality servers which must not fail. It's expensive and runs slower, so don't bother.

[Haze]

Thanks alot! That really clears up things. I didn't realize it was the smaller the better for those numbers, and I thought the higher CAS would have been better. Good to know that I can easily avoid ECC too.

Thanks!