Announcement

**lowlifecat** · 28 August 2006, 00:01

Originally posted by lecter

P4 2.53 GHz (FSB 533, 512k cache, Northwood core)
768MB DDR266
GeForce 6600GT 128MB
80GB WD JB 7200rpm 8MB cache PATA HDD
320GB WD JB 7200rpm 8MB cache PATA HDD
Enermax 460W PSU
ASUS P4B533 (no SATA, no DDR-2, no PCI-E)

still a nice system, switching to DDR333 would give it a significant speedboost. oh, p4b533 is i845.. DDR266 max, forget i mentioned 333.

Pentium D 3.4 GHz 2x2MB cache
1GB DDR-2 667
ASUS P5LD-VM (i945G, Core 2 Duo support with PCB 2.0, PCI-E, SATA, small form factor so I can put it in a compact case)

Since I don't have the cash to get a new video card, I thought I'd get a mobo with integrated video, which should be enough for my daily video-watching needs until I can upgrade to something better. I also really like SATA's performance, so was considering getting rid of my trusty 80GB WD and purchasing a similar-sized SATA HDD as my OS drive.

My dilemma currently rests with the CPU...I could squeeze out some extra cash for a Core 2 Duo, but it would have to be the very cheapest one (1.86 GHz, 2MB cache)...wouldn't I be better off with the 3.4GHz Pentium D?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions! (including going the AMD route...an Athlon X2 3800+, socket AM2 with 2x512k cache and an nForce 430 board is also within my price range)

option 1) Pentium D 950 (3.4ghz) wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot Pole, or an 11 foot Russian.

option 2) C2D 6300 (1.8ghz) is cheaper than the PD950, difference is made up by the i975 chipset mobo. Rumors going around the interweb seem to suggest the C2Ds overclocking 100% with stock cooling. Don't know how true that is...

option 3) AM2 X2 3800+ cheaper still than the C2D and mobos cheap also. if you go this route i highly recommend the asus M2NPV-VM. cheap, loaded with features and mATX on top of all that.

edit: between the Pentium D and the Core 2 I'd get the Core 2. the e6300 is cheaper than the PD950 and you can overclock the difference in speed. although for the price of a PD950 you can prolly get a C2D e6400 (2.1ghz iirc)

down with Netburst!

AMD would still be your cheapest option.

**TransformX** · 28 August 2006, 00:02

If I was to buy a new computer (and could afford one), I'd go with a Socket 939 AMD X2 3800. More CPU horsepower than most games/applications currently need, unless you're doing specialized stuff or play games at resolutions above 1280x1024.
Besides, by buying AMD, you keep the competition alive

**lecter** · 28 August 2006, 00:18

Yeah, the AMD is starting to look better by the minute

You read my mind, lowlifecat, the M2NPV-VM is precisely the motherboard I'm considering, gotta love the TV-Out from an onboard graphics solution

I haven't got anything against AMD itself, my previous PC history is about 60/40 Intel/AMD...VIA was my main pet peeve (and still is, I hate these motherboards, no matter which manufacturer produces them, they have all sorts of 'issues'), but now that Nvidia is the main chipset provider, I feel much better.

Thanks for the input, by the looks of it, AMD it shall be!

**lowlifecat** · 28 August 2006, 00:35

between AM2 and s939 is a tough choice. I'd go for AM2 as the CPUs and mobos are ~ same price. DDR2 is about the same price now as DDR but should give you a performance advantage.

depending on what CPU you get (and i highly recomend the x2 3800+) you can have something very overclockable. i got my 3700+ up 12.5% from 2.2 to 2.5ghz without modifying voltage or underclocking memory/hyper transport. the zalman keeps it under 49C at full cpu load.

the asus M2NPV-VM is the AM2 version of my current mobo. nforce 430 with video, gbit lan, sound, 4x sata etc... really drop kicks my old A8Ve-deluxe.

**lecter** · 28 August 2006, 00:42

In terms of pricing, things are bit different here than what you guys mention...for example, the Pentium D 950 is 25 USD less than the cheapest C2D.

I don't actually see a point with going S939, what advantage could it possibly have now that AMD has switched to AM2? Also, DDR2 is cheaper here, 5-10$ less for same-size sticks from similar manufacturers.

The X2 3800+ definitely sounds right in terms of price/performance and I think my PSU is solid enough to squeeze a bit more out of it...

**lecter** · 5 September 2006, 10:15

One more quick question before I take the plunge tomorrow: is there any kind of significant performance difference between DDR2-667 and DDR2-800? From what I've read, going to DDR-2 hasn't yielded much performance from the Athlons, so I was wondering if I can save some money and get the 667 bus sticks.

**Evildead666** · 5 September 2006, 12:01

I got some G-SKill DDR2-800 rated at 555-12 and they happily do 333-8 at DDR2-800.
They are also cheap.

Consider, they are 2x512Mb parts. there are two versions, the fast ones (this type) and the cheaper ones, at DDR2-800 at G-Skill.

J

**Evildead666** · 5 September 2006, 12:05

Its always best to look a little into the future and get some faster chips. I think the DDR2-800 is not that much more expensive than the DD2-667... gives some headroom for tightening the clocks also, if reducing to DDR2-667 from DDR2-800 anyway...may as well just go for the 800.

**lowlifecat** · 5 September 2006, 12:45

what the crazy double poster said. DDR2 667 will not show you much advantage over DDR400 with tight timings. DDR2 800 is recommended.

Announcement

Upgrade time...

Upgrade time...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment