comp parts

[brightdark]

as I said before
athlon64 3000+ is not overpriced
it has a good price/ performance ratio if you take it in consideration that it is highend

it is above pentium4 3.2ghz in performance
it is cheaper than p4 3.0ghz

and it is lots cheaper than p4 3.2 and its own socket 940 version
that is why it is not overpriced!


as for celeron
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Celeron is fine if you&#39;re not into gaming/encoding/rendering.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
how come it is fine?
a 1.6 ghz duron owns a 2.6 ghz celeron i all situations
the celeron costs twice as much as the duron
why is that &#39;fine&#39;?

[MemnochTheCaT]

Argh, you&#39;re clearly not listening.

&quot;as I said before
athlon64 3000+ is not overpriced
it has a good price/ performance ratio if you take it in consideration that it is highend

it is above pentium4 3.2ghz in performance
it is cheaper than p4 3.0ghz

and it is lots cheaper than p4 3.2 and its own socket 940 version
that is why it is not overpriced&#33;&quot;

Athlon 64 is overpriced PERIOD, just like high-end P4 is overpriced. Comparing one overly expensive processor to another does NOT justify something costing TOO MUCH to make sense. Athlon XP whips the crap out of anything else in terms of price/performance. I&#39;ll gladly save about &#036;200 on the cpu and put it someplace that really matters, like RAM, HARD DRIVE, DVD BURNER. With Socket 754 AMD64, you get the added insult of purchasing a dead-end platform that will only be used for value processors. Ouch&#33;

&quot;how come it is fine?
a 1.6 ghz duron owns a 2.6 ghz celeron i all situations
the celeron costs twice as much as the duron
why is that &#39;fine&#39;?&quot;

Again, you&#39;re NOT listening. I already said the Celeron wasn&#39;t a cutting-edge performer. That being said, some people insist on going Intel, and for &#036;69, you get a 2.4Ghz chip that runs more like a 1.5Ghz in terms of performance. Pretty sad, yes, but MOST PC users don&#39;t do things with them that require more than around 1Ghz for decent speed. A 1Ghz Athlon with 256MB of ram will run Web Browser/Email Software/Word-Excel/Play DVD/Music/Video just as good as a &#036;5000 Dual Opteron system for most people&#39;s uses. So yeah, the Celeron is &quot;fine&quot; for most general PC users. It&#39;s reliable, cheap, and performs decently. Does that mean I recommend them? Not really, I try to steer people towards something that offers a great deal more performance at the same price, the Athlon XP series. For &#036;58, a Athlon XP 2200+ can be had. &#036;1 less than the Celeron. But, once again .. some people just want something with the Intel brand name. It&#39;s a shame, but its TRUE.

[brightdark]

well
I think I am listening to you at least as much as you listen to me


YOU are definitely not listening

I was talking about celeron vs duron
celeron is not &#39;&#39;fine&#39;&#39; when you can get a duron at HALF its price
the duron does everything the celeron does at least as fast in everything
and costs half as much
that does not sound like &#39;fine&#39; to me

you say that the athlon64 3000+ is overpriced
when the celeron is not

....is there not something wrong with this logic?

celeron is the one overpriced

athlon64 3000+ is the one &#39;&#39;fine&#39;&#39;


and just to step on this.....
the duron which is better than celeron
is UNDER half the price&#33;
and I am talking about the 40% area

[MemnochTheCaT]

Yes the Duron is fine, but there are many people who look for the Intel brand name. Athlon XP is much better than either of them. Duron 1.6ghz is &#036;41, Athlon XP 2000+ is &#036;52. Which would you pick? The 2000+ runs circles around the Duron, it has 4x the cache, and a higher FSB.

You just don&#39;t get the point at all. The kind of person who would be buying either a Duron or Celeron obviously does NOT care at all about performance, they just need a basic PC. Both processors do their job just fine, and the choice is up to how educated the consumer is. The smarter buyers will buy the Duron (or better yet, Athlon XP), but there are many who just want to play it safe and get the Intel brand name. Just because their PC has a Celeron, does that mean they can&#39;t get on the internet, type letters, do spreadsheets, etc? Of course not. I guarantee you that you take 100 ordinary people, have them take turns using common apps on 5 totally differently configured systems, and 90% of them wouldn&#39;t know which PCs were faster. We&#39;ve arrived at a point in the PC industry where even the cheapest processors are more than enough for almost everyone. The only things pushing fast PCs are development apps and gaming.

The Athlon 3000+ is overpriced, because for the price of that processor alone, I can get a Athlon XP 2500+, Nforce2 Mobo, and 512MB DDR. The 3000+ is overpriced, because after spending all of that money on a Socket 754 cpu, there&#39;s nothing to upgrade to, future Socket 754 processors are going to be low-end 32-Bit. Socket 754 is just a waste of &#036;&#036;&#036; to hold people over until Socket 939 hits. Socket 754 is a total disgrace to AMD at this point, getting people to spend high-end prices on a dead-end upgrade path.

In fact, most new interfaces/chipsets die prematurely.

Slot-1 (440FX/LX) 66Mhz FSB, used only for 233-333Mhz P2s, and then relegated to Celerons .. replaced by Socket 370, which made much more sense ..

Slot-A (AMD750/Various Via trash) Horribly slow external L2 cache, horrible chipsets with various USB/AGP/Sound problems.. replaced with Socket 462, which made much more sense..

Socket 423 (Intel 850) Incredibly expensive, weak 100/400FSB speed, limited upgrade path. Replaced with Socket 478, which made much more sense..

Get the picture? Socket 754 is analagous to any of those ill-fated stepping stone interfaces. Short-lived, and overpriced.

[DB_Hunter]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kurenai @ Dec 17 2003, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> i think i almost have the most crappiest machine here... but... it&#39;s stable like hell.
PIII 700MHz
300something memory
a 40 and a 20 gig HDD
geforce 2 mx 400
old soundcard
asus cd player and cd rewrigter

I tried to use maya, 3ds Max (both are heavy 3d programs) and photoshop and it got really slow but it didn&#39;t crash..... i&#39;m so proud of my own homemade comp </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Refer to my earlier post on page 1 please, I have the crappiest comp here.

[brightdark]

oh but I do see your point

it just does not scratch the fact that the celeron is overpriced
which is why I so stubbornly argue against your &#39;&#39;celeron is fine&#39;&#39;
at my place the duron 1.6 is 41&#036;( surprisingly close to your place)
and the celeron 2.6 is at 94&#036;
xp 2000+ is at 70&#036;
xp 2500+ is at 97&#036;
hopefully you see why I think celeron is far from fine...



by the end of the day we probably still have not convinced each other
gee I wonder why
you are comparing athlon64 3000+ with xp 2500+
and claiming that it is overpriced

while I was comparing with p4 3.0c
and claiming not overpriced
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Comparing one overly expensive processor to another does NOT justify something costing TOO MUCH to make sense</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
well okay
it is just that one of these overpriced processors are much more overpriced than the other
and I compared them because it was like this


and just to end this
I agree that xp 2500+ is overall the best cpu for the money

but that celeron......*shakes head* even if we are talking about the lowest and lowest of needs........<u></u>...it is still not fine

[MemnochTheCaT]

When I was talking about the celeron being fine, I was talking about the &#036;59 2.4 .. in the case where you have a customer who INSISTS on Intel only. I never said it wasn&#39;t overpriced compared to the AXP/Durons, which are a much better deal. Athlon 1333Mhz is about the same performance as the 2.4 Celeron, and I still say that for 95+% of the users out there, 1Ghz is plenty. Much more important is ram/hard drive/internet connection performance. Any decent Cpu can get the job done, unless you demand more for gaming/content creation.

Looking back on this, we agree pretty much except in terms of perspective. We both know the Celeron is no great performer, and we both know the AXP/Duron line owns the price/performance market. It&#39;s just that avg joe consumer often has no idea what he&#39;s doing, and tries to stay with the top-tier brand. Show most people a Dell with a celeron cpu in it vs a clone with an AMD, and most people will want the Dell, just because they trust/recognize the name. And because the Dell w/Celeron does just fine for most apps, people have no reason to care/learn/upgrade.

It&#39;s realism vs. idealism

[hiroshi]

My spec:

Athlon XP 3000+ Barton
400GBs of HD (2 * 200GB Maxtor Diamond 9 Ultra +8mb Cache each)
GeForce FX 5600 Ultra (256DDR Ram) - Wanted the 5900 but advised against.
512DDR
ThermalTake Xaser III Case (Black, +6 Fans, Glass Side Panel)
TV Card,
DVD-ReWriter +/-
DVD-ROM (NIC - 40x Speed)
19&quot; CRT
Asus A7N8X Deluxe (Oh hell yeah&#33; I love this motherboard ^^ )
CoolerMaster XP Dream Heatsink (Mega Chilling, Mega Huge, but Mega loud =.= )
Special IDE Cables (Those silver rounded ones from CoolerMaster?)
5.1 Surround Sound Subwoofer + Speakers (1,000 watts of raw power)
Nvidia SoundStorm (In Motherboard)
Nvidia 10/100 Ethernet (For LAN Gaming - In Motherboard)
3Com 10/100 Ethernet (For Internet &amp; Connection Sharing - In Motherboard)
USB Hub (Gives +4 Extra 2.0 USB ports. Total 2.0 USB: +10)
LinkSys Wireless-G Braodband Router (54mbps)
LinkSys Wireless-G Ethernet Card (PCI, 54mbps)
D-Link 10/100 Network Switch (+5 Network Ports)
Black Floppy Drive (To Match Case)

Total Cost: between £1,200 and £1,400

[hiroshi]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>second a 19 inch LCD is worthless if you plan to do gaming it can not keep up with a high end videocard the refresh rates are simply to slow. They are only worth it if you don&#39;t have the space but as your talking about &#036;350-500 extra its usually just not worth it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

*ahem*
actually it depends on the resolution you pay for. you want one with a high pixel per inch ratio. for instance, you can buy a standard LCD for like 300 or whatever if you wanted, but if you wanted one for gaming you would instead have to buy one which would cost 4,000. I&#39;ve checked out the high end 4,000 one LCD, and it more than copes with games perfectly. I was so impressed, i damn near well tried to buy it on the spot, but i would of maxed out my credit and would of been in quite some serious financial problem if i had.

It&#39;s true that most arn&#39;t good at games though, you have to be rich to afford a good one for gaming reason.

[DDBen]

Your compairing LCD and Plasma which are 2 quite differn&#39;t things. The topic refered to buying a new computer on a budget not the best parts around for any of you who STILL missed the point. There is no way in hell its worth &#036;4000 for a picture that is basically no better then a &#036;250 CRT and plasma STILL do not have the better resolutions anyway they have a GREAT picture don&#39;t get me wrong there is a Plasma TV in my living room but as a monitor you would have to be insane to drop the &#036;3000-4000 dollars for one (which of course is also the wrong price short of a 40 inch plasma but I&#39;m just going with your number).

[Kurenai]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DB_Hunter @ Dec 18 2003, 01:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kurenai &#064; Dec 17 2003, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> i think i almost have the most crappiest machine here... but... it&#39;s stable like hell.
PIII 700MHz
300something memory
a 40 and a 20 gig HDD
geforce 2 mx 400
old soundcard
asus cd player and cd rewrigter

I tried to use maya, 3ds Max (both are heavy 3d programs) and photoshop and it got really slow but it didn&#39;t crash..... i&#39;m so proud of my own homemade comp </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Refer to my earlier post on page 1 please, I have the crappiest comp here. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ok you win.

[brightdark]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DDBen &#064; Dec 18 2003, 04:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your compairing LCD and Plasma which are 2 quite differn&#39;t things. The topic refered to buying a new computer on a budget not the best parts around for any of you who STILL missed the point. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
okay?

how about reading the first post then?
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>blegh, i want to know, how much it cost to build a comp ..a decent one, like
2.20 ghz, stick of 512, 80 gigs..geforce 19 flat</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

[Elite Hentai]

Actually my comp is the worst: 95% of the times I want to watch anime and 100% of the times I want to play a game it crashes. This is a ultimate nightmare for an otaku . When my new comp arrives I&#39;ll back up my beloved anime and reinstall that demon called Windows.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Looking back on this, we agree pretty much except in terms of perspective. We both know the Celeron is no great performer, and we both know the AXP/Duron line owns the price/performance market. It&#39;s just that avg joe consumer often has no idea what he&#39;s doing, and tries to stay with the top-tier brand. Show most people a Dell with a celeron cpu in it vs a clone with an AMD, and most people will want the Dell, just because they trust/recognize the name. And because the Dell w/Celeron does just fine for most apps, people have no reason to care/learn/upgrade. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Look at my new pc: a Dell pc... (of course you can customize it)

[brightdark]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DDBen @ Dec 19 2003, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Now to compair to a 19 inch CRT
19 inch CRT

Now lets look at the supported resolution
Resolutions Supported
720 x 400 @ 70 to 160 Hz
640 x 480 @ 60 to 160 Hz
800 x 600 @ 50 to 146 Hz
832 x 624 @ 50 to 141 Hz
1024 x 768 @ 50 to 116 Hz
1152 x 870 @ 50 to 103 Hz
1280 x 1024 @ 50 to 89 Hz
1600 x 1200 @ 50 to 76 Hz
1792 x 1344 @ 50 to 68 Hz
NOTE: Some systems may not support all modes listed. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
that frequency range is not too impressive
for a 19 inch
I would not accept anything that can&#39;t take 30-110kHz horizontal

samsung syncmaster 959nf &lt;---(thing I want this christmas )

1600x1200 85 hz &lt;--wicked
2048x1536 75 hz

[DB_Hunter]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hiroshi @ Dec 19 2003, 08:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Oh as far as crappy comps. My old one is:

Pentium 133mhz
16mb of EDO RAM.
ISA to PCI Expander (3 unusually large PCI Slots)
Internal Graphics Card (2mb)
AST SVGA Monitor (Can only display 800*600 and even then it&#39;s off the screen a little)
PCI SoundBlaster 16 (Yes the old one. NOT Pro, and won&#39;t fit modern PCI)
ISA MicroModem.
IBM Desktop Case (Horizontal)
MSI Motherboard.... can&#39;t remember the number though. Damn old.

Do i win? =P </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
OK here we go then

My old PC before I had this one:

Intel 486 DX2 50MHz
24x CD-ROM upgrade we did
Original HDD - about 525MB, upgraded to 1.2GB
Graphics Card... huh? I dont even recall it having one
Originally 4MB RAM, upgraded to 8MB then 16MB
33.6K Modem
I think sound card was put in to it later... might have benn Soundblaster
15&quot; Monitor, can&#39;t remember resolution
Was a Packard Bell

[.EcHo.]

thanks for the replies =D

[p3psi]

If you want to save money, go with athlon. I&#39;ve had it for about 2 years now, and not a single problem. If you get a really good heat sink and fan, athlonxps kick ass.

if you dont get a good heat sink and fan, then athlonxps burst into flames, no joke.

[brightdark]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (p3psi @ Dec 20 2003, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you want to save money, go with athlon. I&#39;ve had it for about 2 years now, and not a single problem. If you get a really good heat sink and fan, athlonxps kick ass.

if you dont get a good heat sink and fan, then athlonxps burst into flames, no joke. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
they run fine at their standard speed on stock cooler
no need for overclock-&gt;no need for extra cooler

I have had 3 athlon xps
2 of them has almost always been at standard speed on their box cooler
the third clocked really tight when I put on the big alpha 8045

[MemnochTheCaT]

If you get a Barton-core Athlon XP, I heavily recommend getting an 80mm heatsink/fan for it, the larger die size creates quite a lot of heat, I&#39;ve seen 2500+ with stock cooler running in the mid-50 degree area. The processor generally runs ok at that temp, but it&#39;s better to keep it mid-40s or less.

[hiroshi]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your compairing LCD and Plasma which are 2 quite differn&#39;t things.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually, i wasn&#39;t talking about a Plasma screen. It was definitly an LCD screen, and if you haven&#39;t seen that screen you can&#39;t really talk. Because it was definitly better than your average CRT. It had the crispness of a Plasma (But it wasn&#39;t Plasma&#33;&#33;&#33, and it kept up with the motions and everything.

Look at your CRT. Can you think it could be improved anymore? it&#39;s a little hard, but looking at a Plasma screen proves that it can be improved. This LCD screen i&#39;m talking about did cost that much, and it was of a much higher quality than either the CRT, your lower LCD and *touch wood* better than a lot of Plasma Screens.

Yeah you&#39;re right about the costs and everything. The majority of us can&#39;t afford that kind of cost. But you obviously missed the point. I had already stated that, you&#39;d have to be rich to afford one for gaming.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It&#39;s true that most arn&#39;t good at games though, you have to be rich to afford a good one for gaming reason.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The resolution was way above any CRT i could find, which was why it cost so much by the way. Don&#39;t argue, i know what i saw. You didn&#39;t see it.