K, guys, Tell me what you think

[felter]

I read a review somewhere that the 9700 had problems with certain games, I.E. when you played dungeon siege it worked ok till you launched the game then it crashed to the desktop, but the drivers could have been sorted out since then. After the fiasco that people I know had with the drivers and game compatibility with the 8500, I would not bother buying a radeon and i would stick with the nvidia cards but then thats me. I know that the 9700 is faster but i like my games to be able to play on my graphics card.

[pjknibbs]

I'm contemplating my new computer. Keep in mind this girl ain't smart enough to build her own. It was Grimm's recommendation that I buy an Alienware computer, but too expensive, really nice gaming computer, but too expensive.

Get XP Pro--you might not need the extra features now, but you never know what's going to happen in future.

[Firebird]

I definitely have to agree on the CPU thingy: do NOT get a P4 if you are not prepared to pay for RDRAM!! The AMD XP eats the P4 for breakfast if it works with DDR RAM! So if you go DDR go AMD!

Eats it for breakfast... Hahh

These are indepentant tests not Intel test.... AMD Suck.. Eat my dust...

[ external image ]

and thier words not mine;-
"The two benchmark suites SiSoft Memory and PC Mark 2002 Memory give clues to the performance of the memory interface. For this, we compared the Pentium 4/2533 with the fastest Athlon XP 2600+ - each on different but comparable platforms equipped with identical peripherals.

The SiSoft test shows that DDR333 memory is marginally slower than 400 MHz RDRAM memory (PC800). The outcome is different with the PC Mark 2002: here, the P4's DDR platform even outstrips the RDRAM system. As before, the RDRAM platform with its 533 MHz memory clock speed is still unmatched, this system winning by a length in every test. Even with the fastest DDR333 memory (CL2), the AMD Athlon XP 2600+ doesn't quite reach the performance of an optimally configured DDR-based P4 system. "

And the 3.6Ghz P4 is out next year.. he he he Whats AMD gonna do then, even they admit the 'Hammer' wont match it...

I was alway taught at school 'copy cats' never prosper... seems to be true...

[Goldo]

this is just me, but:

dont like Pentiums
u can do better than 512 SDRAM
XP pro is what u want
radeon are pants, u want a geforce
ull regret the integrated sound

try one of the sites were u pick and chose what u want in ur computer

whats does $1300 cum to in pounds and then i might be impressed

certainly, an Athlon XP 2.0ghz can save you money and its much better than a pentium

GeForce 4 TI 4200 or above is great (always go for the Titanium *TI* models)

XP Pro is good, i've had no troubles

[X-Warrior B AS]

If you don't buy a new monitor and keep using your current one, it might save lots of money.
The configuration doesn't look bad IMO, but there's the on-board soundcard (they always do that!), and I'd prefer AMD for better game performance and lower price.

[The_Abyss]

Hey - I agree! I don't dispute that P4's are much stronger than AMD - I do have a problem in that to get properly setup P4 with the right memory and motherboard will cost about 3 times as much. And let's face it, no-one really needs performance like that yet.

[pjknibbs]

Eats it for breakfast... Hahh

These are indepentant tests not Intel test.... AMD Suck.. Eat my dust...

Of course, taking the ONE graph from that article which proves your point is a little misleading. As I recall, the 2600+ was a lot closer to the P4/2533 in performance than the memory bandwidth graph alone shows, and the 2600+ system (assuming you can get hold of one!) would cost you a fraction what the P4 system will.

[Firebird]

Well I thought I'd kick off the debate with something other than, 'My mate says AMD are best'

The general statement was that "AMD eats Intel for breakfast", It clearly doesn't.. if you wish caveat that statement, thats fine to, but lets make it clear what it means...

I've done my bit of homework, wheres your?????

Something a little more persasive than, 'I dont like Intel or P4's' is needed I'm affraid.

Over to you.....

[Deleted User]

I hate to get in the middle of your debate here. But is a soundblaster card bad?

Lisa

[Firebird]

SB cards are find, try the 5.1 surround sound one its quite cool, there are later ones, depends on your pocket...

However, I suspect theres others which have on-board processing which sound just as good or better.

you should get them for a good price the Audigy are a lot more expensive and I'm not sure extra you get for your money, I'm sure some Audigy officiando will tell us.

[Deleted User]

Thanks Jerry,

Lisa

[silentWitness]

Well... My advice would be to go to a computer fair you can pick up some VERY good deals...

And now a days most dealers will put componants in for you...

Which (to brag) is why I have twin GeForce 440 cards, and the Creative EAX pack... and My great investment a Terrorbyte HD cost me more than all the other components because I borght it new... and amungst the high tech equipment sits a pathetic AMD 1.5GHZ prcessor... My bane... It's gone wrong more times than I care to mention...

unfortunately my 'office' sounds like and air conditioning seminar... but then it is for editing... not really for gaming... but works well all the same!

[pjknibbs]

I've done my bit of homework, wheres your?????

Something a little more persasive than, 'I dont like Intel or P4's' is needed I'm affraid.

I thought my point WAS researched and persuasive--i.e. that if you compare all the performance indicators, the Athlon didn't come out as anything like as slow as you stated by showing that one graph. (Those of you who are interested can read a review with full benchmark comparisons here: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020826/index.html). Sure, Intel unquestionably has the speed crown, but you have to pay through the nose for that extra speed--anyone on a budget would be better off going AMD, because they could improve the quality of the other components in the system with the money they save on the CPU.

I haven't yet seen you refute the price/performance advantage the Athlon has...

[Firebird]

I haven't yet seen you refute the price/performance advantage the Athlon has...

I wasn't going to say anymore on this issue, because quite frankly I don't care.

But, the 'price/performance' advantage wasn't the issue that kicked of my devils advocate stance. I stated quite clearly in the '3Gh Intel' thread, that there were reasonable arguements for AMD based on a price/perfomance ratio, having said that, as a comparison:

I can get a P4 2GHz/400FSB with fan and cooling for £125
I can get an AMD XP2200(1.8Ghz)/266FSB with fan and cooling for £120

Is £5 that much of a price advantage???? with no particular obvious performance advantage. Although not to hand I suspect the XP2400 more expensive than the Intel.

You show me the performance difference for £5

It looks to me like a very muddy pool to me on price/performance and uncontestable in performance aspects alone. It stikes me that some will advocate a specific CPU no matter what the evidence to the contrary and defend it to the death, as were seeing in these threads.

I was try to show there are other reasonable arguments and that things are not as B&W as some folk on here claim, and as you so eloquently pointed out.

Buy what you like for yourself, but offer reasoned, not partisan advice to those asking for help.

Just my thoughts

[Deleted User]

This is an article bout Alienware computer and diy computer the diy machine is more powerful than the alienware and for about half the cost



http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,7062,00.asp

[pjknibbs]

Buy what you like for yourself, but offer reasoned, not partisan advice to those asking for help.

That's why I posted the link to the article--it allows people to make up their own minds.

[akrules!]

the PC im getting (for christmas because ill save myself over £700) is just under £1300..

AMD Athlon XP 2.4ghz
GeForce 4 Ti 4600 128mb
1024mb
120gb HDD
19inch SVGA monitor
CDRW
Winblowz XP home
errrr and more.....

Pointer. Degrade your processor to amd 2100+ and upgrade your graphics card to ati radeon 9700 pro. Trust me, it will be much more upgradeable and it will provide much better overall performance.

With a radeon 9700 pro and the specs on that new machine, you'll be able to play unreal tournament 2003 at 1024x768x32 with 2x anti aliasing at over 40FPS. With a Ti4600 you'll be able to play it at 15fps if you are lucky. Not exaggerating on anything.

[Firebird]

Buy what you like for yourself, but offer reasoned, not partisan advice to those asking for help.

That's why I posted the link to the article--it allows people to make up their own minds.

I'm torn in two directions here.
1) I could just give up becasue I dont give a damn (but then you might think you've scored points)
And
2) Wondering why you perpetuating this thread (when you obviously can't win it, you admitted AMD lost on raw speed, and your price/performace issue is muddy at best)


Somehow I think its because your a moderator and got involved with something you cant lose face on... Ummmm

Well whatever, I dont see the point of wasting anymore time on this thread. (have your points and save face, I have broad and old shoulders to take the strain)

Enjoy yourself......

[pjknibbs]

2) Wondering why you perpetuating this thread (when you obviously can't win it, you admitted AMD lost on raw speed, and your price/performace issue is muddy at best)

When did this become a personal battle between me and you? I'm trying to give ALL the facts which would lead to a good choice, whereas you're trying to get people to buy a P4 purely on the basis of a single benchmark graph which means very little in real-world applications. Disagreeing with you does not mean I'm trying to score points, or that I'm trying to keep face as a moderator--I would be having this exact same discussion whether or not I was a moderator on these forums.

Oh, and I'm 32, so I'm not sure what the crack about you having "old shoulders" is meant to imply...