I am upgrading my computer and its not going to make me change my mind by anyone telling me something but I wanted to hear what you guys all thought about the new upgrades. Intel D945GTPLR Intel Socket 775 MicroATX Motherboard and an Intel Pentium 4 519 3.06GHz Processor cant upgrade a processor without a mothernboard that can handle it.... Seagate / 250GB / 7200 / 8MB / ATA-100 / EIDE / OEM / alot more space for me Ultra 1024MB PC3200 DDR 400MHz Memory New RAM defintly the big thing for me. Really bad RAM currently
if you insist on intel, then that is fine, I'd try getting a new socket P4 though for future upgrades. ATA hardrives are dated, Ultra ATA has been out forever, SATA has been too and theres even SATA2 out now, get UATA at the minimum, SATA prefered(SATA2 isn't THAT important) get dual channel ram, it performs far better in terms of speed, you'll notice everything would run about twice as fast... EDIT:my knowlege on intel was wrong, apparently socket 755 is higher than 778, so you should be fine in that aspect
Overall AMD processors are better. I would suggest getting an AMD 3500+ which is equal to a 3.5ghz p4 which will eclipse your intel you have chosen. If you must get the intel, I would recommend you get DDR2 ram, but overal amd would be a better choice.
overall Intel is better, it just lags behind at gaming and also, a 3500+ isn't the equivalent of a 3.5ghz P4, it is more the equivalent of a 3.2GHZ P4, after about 2600, AMDs numbering system got inaccurate, trust me, the FX 57(which would be the 4600+ if under the same numbering) isn' the same as a 4.6GHZ P4, it is more a 4.0 or 4.2GHZ P4 in terms of power. If the guy doesn't do any gaming at all, P4s can offer a bigger bang for the $ if you don't plan on overclocking, ever.
no not true. The fx55 is the 4000+ with an unlocked multiplier. The 3500 is equal to 3.5ghz p4, it loses track of that at 3700+ when it starts alternating between cache sizes. The AMD is better all round in an issue of APC 2 months ago they compared various intels and amds and ruled AMD the winner in ALL departments. It is alot better and they are cheaper.
OK True Statements - AMD better at gaming than mutimedia tasks which Pentiums are better at doing stuff like multiasking - For intel get DDR2 ram - But i supposed DDR ok but go for companies that have a reputation in making memory like Kingston,Corsair or OCZ something like that - True ATA are old - SATA is hat you should go for its not that much of a price difference just depends what size u looking for If you are unsure look at these extensive benchmarks and compare what programs you are most likely to use and choose that one http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=4 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=6 Everything seems fine just some advice above
never bought one of the "Ultra" brand RAM, so cant say anything there weak Intel (i wouldve gone 64-bit unless i am mistaken) i wouldve went with a diff type drive. My fave is teh SCISI
DDR2 is useless ATM, because intel Procs only have 800mhz FSB, you'd be better off getting DDR1 which hass better latency at a lower cost. Also, the 4000(2.4GHZ) is the same as the FX51, then theres then FX53(4200 if same numbering)(2.4GHZ) then FX 55(4400)(2.6GHZ) and the FX 57(4600)(2.8GHZ) EDIT: Athlons have 1000mhz FSB(NOT 2000!) and Pentium 4s and Ds have 800mhz FSB
amds are better, they are cheaper than the intels. so if you bought an amd, and then an intel processor at the same price, the amd would win in performance. also, most athlon 64's have a 2000 FSB, and i recommend 2 x 1 gig ram, or 2 x 512 mb ram. dual channel is much faster, i have run a few test my self. an as said above. ata is old, get sata. btw. for amd get an nforce4 mobo. i have a nforce3 and love it EDITh yea, and yes the amds are clocked at lower speeds than the intels, BUT the preform better becuase of their arcitecture??? meh... btw, get socket 939.
Athlons have 1000mhz FSB, not 2000, 2000 would be rediculous especially when compared to their clock speed, their computers would be so unstable it wouldn't be funny.
arg amds are better. thats why the market is starting to swing in their direction. You are better off getting a 64bit processor (AMD) for Vista next year, Intels 64bit isnt true 64bit FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD (I have no evidence there) and their processors with it are expensive.
but then explain why the AMD 64-bits run better and run better with the 64-bit version of Windows XP easy to say Intel doesnt have a true 64 bit... its like they said with the 32-bit they talked about a long way back (or were they talking about a 64 then?)
