[Limbo]

Looking to buy a computer thats not too expensive, jus wondering if anyone has any recommendation on places to consider or not to consider eg. futureshop, bestbuy, compusmart, mdg computers, dell.ca...

Hoping it would be a decent gaming computer.
Preferable price range 600-1000$
3Ghz+ processor( rather AMD but intel will do), 512-1024 mb ddr ram, dvd player, would rather a decent graphics card, but i guess i can get that seprate (GeForce 7600 i think), 80gb hdd
I think that would prolly add up to nearly a 1000.

Any recommendations?

[capty99]

to go cheap , build it.

places like newegg.com offer barebone systems so if you dont want to build it from scratch you can get that and then add your good stuff in.


dells are a debatable company,
i like their laptops, desktops not so much mainly because to upgrade them you have to spend an arm and a leg. memory costs 4x as much and stuff like that.

other than that i dont have alot of experience but would definitely put best buy at the bottom due to reputation, maybe a frys or something.

[Limbo]

tks for the advice.
Yea dells laptops are pretty decent...

Jus been going through online computer sites to get some info on new stuff on the market and price and this one site offered
AMD Athlon 64 w/HT Technology or AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core
I've read little on HT and even less on Dual Cores so I'm not sure which is better/ cost effective. I know Dual > HT, but what's the difference?

[Thorian]

the number of physical cores

cause the X2's support everything the HT do

At least that is my understanding of the whitepapers.

[Antiokus]

HT is Hyper Transport, is the memory controller that AMD uses. Not to be confused with Hyper-Threading that Intel uses instead of multiple cores.

HT simply just refers to that bus speed on the CPU. They are advertised as 2000mhz HT. In actuality its only 1000mhz, but the HT (and Im not sure how) doubles the speed of it. So like Semprons run on an 800mhz FSB, but with HT its 1600 mhz.

X2's if I remember right have a true 2000 mhz FSB hence no need for HT.

Now I could be completely wrong, but that's what I remember and have heard about them.

As for the computer, it is easier (as long as you can assemble it) to make a custom PC. You dont have to worry about all the extra crappy software that pre-made PC's come with. Newegg.com has good deals on barebones or just for the parts to do it yourself. Also, TigerDirect.com I find usually has some good deals on barebones, both AMD and Intel based.

If you arent comfortable with building it yourself, go for a pre-made. Dell is now offering AMD computers. Really the only thing you need to look for are the things that you want in a computer. With a budget of 600-1000 you can get a pretty nice one. Acer (on newegg.com) makes some really nice laptops if thats more your style.

[Vextor]

I'm totally gonna attempt to hijack this thread.

So, my original plan was to build me a new computer this month because I was going to have some extra cash laying around. It turns out i'm gonna have to wait a couple more months , but this gives me an opportunity to try some of the new technologies coming out.

I've built my 2 previous computers and they have run great. The one I have now is dated and quickly turning gray on it's edges. It can't walk by iteslf and I have to help it to the bathroom. I'm ready to dump it.

So here's my question...

Should I dump the extra money and try out these new 'quad' core systems soon after they're released or save some money and use a dual core setup? I can't decide.



BTW Limbo newegg will rock your shopping experience socks' off. I swear by them for all of my computer and other hardware purchases.

[capty99]

i would quad it just so i could say i had a quad core. then again, the first generation sometimes has a few problems, but if you have the time wait till you see some reviews or benchmarks.....

[Antiokus]

having a quad as soon as it comes out probably wont give you a lot more system performance. Nothing will be written to use the four line on the CPU, just like how games werent made for dual cores when they came out.

IMO it would be better to spend less and get a nice dual core instead and wait for the quad cores to come out and drop in price after the initial release. Your choice though.

This post has been edited by Antiokus: 05 October 2006 - 02:28 PM

[Vextor]

Yeah. I still have awhile to decide so it may be stable by the time im ready to drop the cash on it. I'll have to decide then I suppose. The way technology is these days they may release an octal-core before we know it. who knows.

[Antiokus]

I wouldn't doubt it Vextor. There was an article in the Hardware forum about Intel claiming to have a prototype for an 80 core CPU.

Really it's gonna be easier to look at the technology available to you at the time that you plan to upgrade, rather than looking at the technology today while planning on upgrading tomorrow, because there will be a huge lag time between the two in which time new standards for hardware will be established.

[Limbo]

AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ 2.0GHz Computer - that means..??

I have an Intel that's 2.6Ghz motherboard.

Which one is better?

... i think i found out. but jus wanna be sure. this intel > that amd

...but then I don't understand why AMD is better than Intel.
All I know is, AMD is better for high-def gaming, whereas Intel is better at multitasking. But if Intel is faster, then it should be > than AMd... gonna look more into this

This post has been edited by Limbo: 07 October 2006 - 11:55 AM

[Thorian]

Limbo, on 7 Oct, 2006 - 12:41 PM, said:

AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ 2.0GHz Computer - that means..??

I have an Intel that's 2.6Ghz motherboard.

Which one is better?

... i think i found out. but jus wanna be sure. this intel > that amd

...but then I don't understand why AMD is better than Intel.
All I know is, AMD is better for high-def gaming, whereas Intel is better at multitasking. But if Intel is faster, then it should be > than AMd... gonna look more into this

The AMD is a 2.0GHZ that performs at the same level as a 3.2ghz p4 they are slower in MHZ but they are more efficant in what they do with their power.

[Antiokus]

Intel has faster cycles, but push less than half the data that AMD's do per-cycle. thorian is right about a 2 ghz AMD being about the same as a 3.2 intel.

AMD sends 2 ghz worth of info per cycle where Intel send between 533-800 mhz of data.

I would go AMD in that situation. The AMD 3800+ isn't that much more than the 3200+, you may look into that. I think they are 2.2 or 2.4, cant remember. They overclock quite well also, if you do those types of things.

[Limbo]

Hmm, I've only heard of people overclocking. Never really seen someone do it.
How much could I overclock it to?
I guess I'd like to do it, but I don't wanna screw somethin up

[Antiokus]

some mothterboards come with overclocking firmware (LanParty 4's do). For the most part you step up the speed slowly, little by little till either the computer cant take it, or you dont feel comfortable. Athlons can usually go a little ways, maybe .25-.5 ghz or ever higher if you have good cooling. There are plenty of guides on how to do it using your specific hardware online. You may want to search around for it or post your hardware specs here and see if anyone can find it for you.

Its not a very complicated process, you can ever get software to up the clock and sometimes the multiplier on the CPU. Its not something to be completely scared of, if it isnt going to work, then just change it back. Just nothing extreme (5ghz off of a socket A sempron 2600 for instance).