another "Please suggest hardware for budget build" thread

[E-66]

Ok, here's the sitaution. I was going to start a new thread so it would get more views, but I'll just put it here.

Someone I know who has used Ghost 1000's of times since it first came out told me that he hasn't been able to get Ghost 2003 to work with a Socket 939 motherboard. He told me that the board manufacturers have changed the way IDE is handled on socket 939 boards and Ghost 2003 can't read the drive types through the hard drive controller on the motherboard.

I don't know what that means in technical terms, but the bottom line is that he hasn't been able to get it to work. I don't really care about socket 939 boards because I'll use socket AM2 if I decide to go with AMD for this upcoming build, but if IDE is handled the same way on AM2 as it is on 939 then I assume I'd have problems using Ghost 2003 with AM2 as well, so I was looking for anyone who had successfully used Ghost 2003 with an AM2 board because I don't want to get rid of Ghost 2003, I prefer it to the newer versions.

[puntoMX]

looks more like a Ghost 2003 problem.

That version has problems with SATA, strangely Ghost 9 works fine.

Use other software or get an updated version of Ghost 2003 if it’s out.

EDIT: I never had that problem with ghost 2003, used it on machines from customers who bought the whole load from Norton (there choice ). Googled a bit and I see just a few people who have that problem with all types of chipsets so it’s not AMD related, just a problem with SATA.

Edited November 27, 2006 by puntoMX

[jcarle]

We were talking about future upgrades so why would it be flawed in your eyes?

It's flawed because I'm talking about upgradeability with technology available today. You're talking about upgradeability with technology that doesn't even exist yet.

There you go, so you know were you talking about. Why sell the man an old outdated model of the P4 series?

Did you read the thread at all? First off, take a look at the title and the question... both mention "BUDGET". Second, I already answered that question:

I only suggested that processor to keep the price down. I don't think you understand the concept of what I did. The motherboard is core 2 compatible, but building a core 2 system would blow your budget because core 2 CPUs are several hundred dollars. But having a motherboard that's core 2 ready give you the options to upgrade to it in the future. You can build the same machine with a Pentium D 930 or any other LGA 775 processor since the motherboard takes them all.

You started with your argument of upgrading S775. You know as well that upgrading is just a bad stated story of marketing.

Can you prepare yourself to be able to upgrade to every new technology available in the future? Of course not, but you can research and make decisions to give you the most options in the future.

I don’t think so, S775 is going to stay but the chipset will not be good enough to upgrade in 1 year or so, or you have to buy bottom line CPUs again.

That's simply not true. People are still upgrading Socket 370 and Socket A machines, so you're way off on that one. And simply because they come out with a 1333FSB processor in the future that means that a 1066FSB processor is bottom line? Again simply untrue.

@ E-66, It’s your choice but jcarle is pushing you with his sales talk here.

I resent that. Never have I "pushed" anything and where the hell is the sales talk? So being informative is now sales? You are seriously delusional.

I sell computers too but I never say that people will do best to buy the lowest model and then upgrade later. Upgrades are irrelevant and most of the time not interesting.

So you screw your customers by selling them a $2000 computer of which they will never use it's full potential because it's the "best choice on the market" when they could have saved $1500 and bought something more to the level of what they really use it for?

With this the statement of jcarle breaks and in my humble opinion it would be better to go with AM2 and a Sempron.

You haven't proved anything, and I haven't broken with anything I've said. All you've proved is that you're trying to win a who's got the biggest penis contest when all I did was try to provide information.

But remember that you only can go for an AMD when you don’t run win98 any more.

So you're saying that even AMD's greatest workhorse can't run little old Windows 98, yet Intel's entire range from Budget to Extreme Performance can all run Windows 98. Nice to know. Edited November 28, 2006 by jcarle

[puntoMX]

[puntoMX]

"It's flawed because I'm talking about upgradeability with technology available today. You're talking about upgradeability with technology that doesn't even exist yet."

So upgrade with today’s technology, which will be old(er) tomorrow.

"You can prepare yourself to be able to upgrade to every new technology available in the future, of course not. But you can research and make decisions to give you the most options in the future."

What options are you talking about?

Look 2 years into the future; there will still be DDR2, but faster. For example, 667MHz in a 1333MHz FSB clocked motherboard.

Months (not years) from now, the CPUs will have a DIE-shrink to 65nm or 45nm which needs updated voltage regulators. Soon most Intel CPUs will have 1333FSB.

Why buy an expensive but non-upgradeable motherboard? Why buy the worst CPU you can find?

"That's simply not true. People are still upgrading Socket 370 and Socket A machines, so you're way off on that one. And simply because they come out with a 1333FSB processor in the future that means that a 1066FSB processor is bottom line? Again simply untrue."

Read my statements above.

"So you screw your customers by selling them a $2000 computer of which they will never use it's full potential because it's the "best choice on the market" when they could have saved $1500 and bought something more to the level of what they really use it for?"

I don’t sell them a computer of $2000 when a $1500 PC is fine. I discuss current and future intentions and base a good sales decision from that conversation.

"You haven't proved anything, and I haven't broken with anything I've said. All you've proved is that you're trying to win a who's got the biggest penis contest when all I did was try to provide information."

You seem hypocritical by saying one thing then another. Read over the posts again because I’m not going to quote you again. And about that penis; Size doesn’t matter, its how you use it and how much time you used it. Go with your trophy, I don’t need it.

"So you're saying that even AMD's greatest workhorse can't run little old Windows 98, yet Intel's entire range from Budget to Extreme Performance can all run Windows 98. Nice to know."

What can I say; removing 16bit instructions gives you more space on the DIE for 64bit instructions.

jcarle, dude, keep it cool, it was not suppose to be a cock fight .

Edited November 28, 2006 by puntoMX

[jcarle]

You can't say things like "It’s your choice but jcarle is pushing you with his sales talk here." and not expect me to put up a fight. I'm well versed in computer hardware and I see no fault in any suggestions, advice, or information I have put forth.

The motherboard I suggested is nor expensive nor unupgradeable. Simply because you can't upgrade to EVERY technology that is about to come out doesn't mean you can't upgrade for years with it. You can never keep up with technology, it's impossible. So you go with what is the best choice available NOW and you go from there.

[puntoMX]

It’s okay; just don’t agree on motherboard type and CPU and the upgrade part. You know that most people will change the CPU / Motherboard / RAM (with DDR2 less important) all together any way.

Any way, why so much love for iNTEL? I sell them too, but also AMD. My CPU lists looks like this:

- AMD Sempron AM2 (till 1.8GHz)

- AMD Athlon AM2 (2.0GHz and up)

- iNTEL Core2Duo

- AMD Athlon X2 AM2 (2.0GHz and up)

iNTEL, for me, left a big hole in the budget market. This is why I would recommend AMD for budget systems with integrated VGA e.g. nVidia 6100/6150 chipset.

EDIT: I take "It’s your choice but jcarle is pushing you with his sales talk here." back, but I got a little p***ed there .

Edited November 28, 2006 by puntoMX

[jcarle]

I agree to disagree. But you know, that's the whole point of these threads. To discuss what everyone's opinion is. There no way that everyone can agree, if we all did, we'd all have the same computers. The plethora of hardware configurations that everyone has is simple proof of how much difference there is between what people chose.

I say Intel, you say AMD. It's a bloody war that's left many casulties along the way and it's a never ending debate. I like Intel for it's stability and workstation performance. You like AMD because of it's low cost and (I'm guessing) gaming performance. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses.

Although I will say I don't quite understand how you can say Intel has left a hole in the budget market considering the cpu I suggested was $51. Hardly an amount that would break people's wallets.

[puntoMX]

I’m comparing the Celeron with a Sempron CPU, both have the same price but the

AMD Sempron AM2 offers:

- Better 64bit compatibility (Not used by all users but it’s starting with Vista)

- 3Dnow Multimedia Instructions

- Lower noise in general

I know that AMD still has 90nm technology vs. 65nm from iNTEL, but that will change in the next month(s).

Any thing I’m not seeing here?

[jcarle]

If you compare strictly budget CPU to budget CPU, the Sempron is a better performer then the Celeron. And just a note, the Celeron is also built on 90nm. It's only Intel's newer, more powerful processors which have moved to a 65nm process.

But here's the upgradeability snag. Budget for budget CPU, the Sempron is the better performer, move to the high end, and it's no secret that the better performer right now is the Core 2 line up at Intel. Unless AMD releases a radical new design for their next generation processors, it's a clear concensus that they have a large margin to make up. So why would I suggest a Celeron instead of a Sempron? Because the Celeron can be upgraded to a Core 2 (the current champ to be for a while) whilst the Sempron cannot. It's simply that.

[puntoMX]

jcarle, there is a new stepping of the Celeron, check it out here. I could already order them here and that in a country like Mexico;

Intel Celeron D 347 (S775, 3.06GHz, 533MHz FSB, 512KB, 65W, Boxed)

Intel Celeron D 360 (S775, 3.46GHz, 533MHz FSB, 512KB, 65W, Boxed)

Not bad, they dropped from 84 to 65 Watts.

Talking about Watts, AMD Sempron uses less, so needs less cooling thus quiet operation;

SDA3000CNBOX, AMD Sempron™, 3000+ / 1600Mhz, Socket AM2, 256KB, 62W

SDD3000CNBOX, AMD Sempron™, 3000+ / 1600Mhz, Socket AM2, 256KB, 35W

SDA2800CNBOX, AMD Sempron™, 2800+ / 1600Mhz, Socket AM2, 128KB, 62W

PS: The AMD X2s are not that much slower the the iNTEL Core2Duos .

Edited November 29, 2006 by puntoMX

[jcarle]

PS: The AMD X2s are not that much slower the the iNTEL Core2Duos .

It really depends on the benchmark. Things that weight more on memory bandwidth in relation to CPU usage, such as gaming, AMD follows up closely. The difference is really large when it comes to things that are directly depend on the CPU and CPU only, like video encoding.

Tom's CPU Charts really illustrates that. A full minute and fifteen seconds difference in encoding time for the first 5 minutes of Terminator 2.

Figure that Terminator 2 has a run-time of 137 minutes, then you're looking at the difference of 2 hours 8 minutes to encode the full movie on the Athlon 64 FX-62 vs only 1 hour 33 minutes on the Core 2 EX6800. That's pretty significant.

[Zxian]

Tom's CPU Charts really illustrates that. A full minute and fifteen seconds difference in encoding time for the first 5 minutes of Terminator 2.

Not to mention that you can get the same CPU-only performance off the E6400 (cost: ~$300 CAD) that you can for the FX-62 (cost: ~$975 CAD).

Price/performance ratio wins for the Core2Duos. Even with AMD's price drops, the market is shifting really really fast.

[puntoMX]

But start to use VMware or Microsofts Virtual Machine and you will see that the Core2duo will not perform that well compared with AMDs X2.

AMDs FX series are so expensive indeed, and for what?

Just for the cache, AMD missed the spot there.

Any way, I don’t think it’s in E-66 budget any way to buy a Core2Duo .

@ E-66,

I think you got a lot of info here, I hope you can make a choice now.

[jcarle]

I ran across an interesting read today which illustrates how much of a margin there is using the Core 2 Extreme at the moment. There's nothing stopping AMD from taking back the crown with their next generation processors but it made for an interesting read none the less.

Tom's Hardware: GeForce 8800 Needs The Fastest CPU