Upgrading my pc

[revl8er]

I've finally come into a good enough job to get the money needed to upgrade my pc a little. I need to know what would be the best upgrade for my system right now. Here are my specs

Amd Athlon Xp 3200+
Asus Motherboard, can't remember exact specs though.
1gb pc3200 kingston ram
52x24x52 cd-rw
16x dvd-rom drive
120gb maxtor hd
40 gb maxtor hd
Floppy drive
Sb Audigy Xp Gamer
128mb GeForce 6800
Viewsonic G90fb 19' monitor

So far all I can really think about doing was upgrading my dvd-rom drive to a dvd burner and probably replacing my 40gb hd with a 200gb or more hard drive.

 

[dmac2003]

Although it may seem pointless, maybe you could look into getting a new case if you don't have a nice one already? Or if you wanted to, you could buy a tv tuner card, it would go nicely with adequate hard drive space

 

[ScottJC]

Only thing *maybe* worth upgrading is your processor, go for an Intel P4 3.20ghz or an AMD64 3000 (or more). Personally i'd choose the intel, others would choose the amd... But I can tell you this, i've never had a faster computer than this.

You'll need a socket 478 motherboard if you want to go with Intel, and a socket 754/939 for an AMD64. AMD will probably be cheaper but you get what you pay for. 64 bit processors aren't really worth it right now, almost all software is still 32bit and Windows XP 64bit edition has severe lack of driver support - i've heard.

Bet you anything someone will post something with the opposite opinion, but I don't know much about amd64's anyway.

Edit: All of the above is opinion, which may not represent fact

 

[Eagle]

AMD will probably be cheaper but you get what you pay for. 64 bit processors aren't really worth it right now, almost all software is still 32bit and Windows XP 64bit edition has severe lack of driver support - i've heard.

Not true, AMD is just as fast if not faster, and its cheaper. AMD is not a generic brand, buying an AMD processor gets you just as much as an Intel processor. This is not a case of "you get what you pay for". For your specs, Windows 64 has all the drivers you need. Mostly video and sound is what you need, and Nvidia and Creative have those drivers. The optical drives, floppy drive, and hard drives should just work. The monitor may not have a driver for Windows 64 but monitor drivers are so simple, they usually only need 1 for all the windows versions.

You didnt mention other external devices, if you have a gamepad, it may or may not be compatible with Windows 64. Windows 64 should work with most 32 bit drivers but there is always a possibility it won't. I can tell you Gravis and Thrustmaster do not have 64 bit drivers, I can let you know in a week if the 32 bit ones work or not.

 

[ScottJC]

I am well aware that AMD is not generic, I had one in my old system, and I loved it... up to the point i put in my intel p4 that is. This thing is at least 2 times faster and even 3 times faster at some tasks than my AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (2ghz), this system is 3.2ghz and to get a 100% speed increase would mean either: my p4 is 800mhz faster than it says it is or the amd was performing slower than it should be.

If I thought AMD was a generic brand I wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. That and my past experiences with an AMD machine have all been crapper than I've wanted, my intel machine is the first one that really feels "perfect". That's what I meant by you get what you pay for.

Plus, it seems AMD is only good at a few tasks, my Intel is good at _Everything_ equally; also said from experience.

Besides when it comes right down to it, its all just a matter of choice and I don't feel as though I have to be loyal to either AMD or Intel anymore, when the time comes to upgrade... and I think AMD is better I will go for them; just that time it was Intel.

 

[Clements]

Yeah, Athlon XP was in general a bit slower than P4C, but Athlon64 is in general much faster, especally in gaming, has 64-bit, cheaper and run much cooler. Any hardware benching site will state this. Couldn't recommend any Pentium 4 over an S939 Athlon64 right now.

An Athlon64 3200+ Vs. P4E 3.2GHz, Doom 3:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=13&model2=69&chart=26

Farcry:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=13&model2=69&chart=25

From Overclockers.com:
Athlon64 3200+ Venice ~£129.19
Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott ~£152.69

This is an old chart, now the Venice and San Diego cores are released and can be overclocked past 2.6GHz on air and have SSE3 instructions.

 

[Eagle]

I'm concerned that your going to make the same mistake I did if you just upgrade your HD, I bought a 250 GB PATA drive half a year ago and now I'm building a new computer with SATA so it was kind of a waste. I am going to use the other drive for a small web server and storage, but still it seems a bit of a waste. Your processor isnt bad though, your best bet would be DVD-Writer and Hard drive as you said. Its really up to you.

Oh, if your motherboard already has SATA then definately go for the HD first if you need the room, then the DVD-burner would be nice. You can update your processor later as its not that bad.

 

[ScottJC]

I don't really care if the AMD 64 can perform 20fps faster at low settings in far cry, especially if its going past 150, who the heck cares? this is fairly trivial. I've gotten 150fps in half life 2 on high settings before.

I have no regrets

AMD 64 does sound like a good deal though; go with it.

 

[revl8er]

Ok, thank's for the info I guess the upgrades can wait

 

[Stezo2k]

I don't really care if the AMD 64 can perform 20fps faster at low settings in far cry, especially if its going past 150, who the heck cares? this is fairly trivial. I've gotten 150fps in half life 2 on high settings before.

I have no regrets

AMD 64 does sound like a good deal though; go with it.

it does matter if you bump up the settings though, the FPS will be greatly effected, 20fps can make a big difference if you want to run it full speed in a high resolution

The Athlon 64s are a great choice, they are also very futureproof too being x64 compatible, Intel's are more more expensive, especially the x64 compatible ones, why pay extra for worse performance?

 

[ScottJC]

Yeah... in reality the differences at higher settings+resolutions becomes smaller, if you'll notice the Doom 3 difference at high is only 6 fps. In any case my cpu is more than fast enough to handle any games now and the next few years.

*OH my god, 6fps, I reaaally need to upgrade!*

Check the benchmarks for video encoding and decoding, my intel defeats the AMD64, that's one of the reasons why I chose it. I didn't choose my new machine to be just a Gaming machine, I want it to be able to do whatever I want it to do. Intel seems better at handling everything equally whereas amd seems to concentrate on specific things like gaming.

I know this will change when the 64bit ones arrive, which at the time didn't seem to be when I bought the intel.

As for the future-proof thing, heh.. right, in 2 years time 2ghz 64bit processors will be considered pathetic I assure you, I don't think 64 bit processing will really take off next year but the one after that. If you haven't noticed most if not all software is still 32bit.

My PC will last a few years to come yet, I promise you that. I am not going to change now over 6fps.

Also, I was being quite fair mentioning both AMD64 and Intel as possible choices, I was edging towards the intel because I own one and am very happy with it and you edge towards the AMD64 because you own one, co-incidence? i think not.

Intel's faster fsb surely makes a difference somewhere, and I have no doubt both these processors have their upsides.

*Plus* when I bought this thing that athlon 64 wasn't much cheaper;

 

[Doomulation]

You are overreacting. I'm sure there are people who could say the exact opposite. In the end, it all boils down to personal preference So, because you like intel, go for it. Use it. And those who like amd, go for amd's processors. It's that simple.
Myself, I've never had a sluggish system with amd, so I'm quite happy.

 

[Stezo2k]

my intel defeats the AMD64, that's one of the reasons why I chose it. I didn't choose my new machine to be just a Gaming machine, I want it to be able to do whatever I want it to do. Intel seems better at handling everything equally whereas amd seems to concentrate on specific things like gaming.

Intel's faster fsb surely makes a difference somewhere, and I have no doubt both these processors have their upsides.

*Plus* when I bought this thing that athlon 64 wasn't much cheaper;

Intel fanboy eh? It's only a processor, no need to act so childish over it.

Intel only lead (past tence) in video encoding performance, but with the new Athlon 64 X2s, AMD lead in all factors with their newer processors. Not just aimed for gaming.

And faster FSB? Where did you get that from? AMD's go up to 2Ghz using hypertransport

Anyway, this forum is a Gaming/Emulation forum, of course we are going to favor gaming systems over systems aimed for media/general use

 

[ScottJC]

Ah so we're making this personal now are we.

Here is a nicer more formal conversion of my last post, you call it childish but you can't even disprove what I said, heh;

1: Smaller differences at higher settings
2: Faster at video encoding which explains why I bought it at the time. (Past Tense)
--And AMD's newer X2 is about 4 times the price of my processor or probably more so your comments on this is irrelevant.
3: Same Price at the time, overall.
4: 64bit software still hasn't taken off yet. just the processors have. which make them moot imo.
5: Future-Proof is meaningless - most people will replace their processors within 2 years. Most peoples computers remain acceptable for a long time if they are high spec.
6: The FSB on my pc is 800mhz, but I now see 800mhz ones for amd too, so you were right on this one.

Personally, If I was a total zealot I wouldn't even have mentioned the AMD in the first place and I even recommended it because of its price so get your facts straight first before you call me a Fanboy.

You have to admit you are acting like a Fanboy yourself because you won't even mention Intel as an alternative when people ask about pc upgrades.

The difference between these processors is relatively small, actually so it boils down to personal choice.

But since i'm outnumbered by AMD freaks I think i'll leave this discussion for a later time and stay out of them.

 

[flow``]

personally i'd consider any upgrade a waste of money at this time.. your pc really isnt all that bad. you'd end up spending a lot of money on a few extra hundred mhz which wont make that big of a difference

i'd save the money for later or spend it on something else

btw.. about the whole intel/amd ranting.. its 2005. mhz dont matter much anymore intel has always had higher clocks speeds, but amd managed to beat them in most benchmarks or at worst tie

and not to lean toward amd.. but i'd consider 10 fps more important in games then 10 seconds less time encoding a file. i cant say i sit at the edge of my seat waiting for my pc to finish encoding a movie

just my 2¢

 

[flow``]

btw.. if you switch up proc brands.. that requires a new cpu, mobo, ram, heatsink.. etc..

quite an investment

 

[Stezo2k]

Ah so we're making this personal now are we.

But since i'm outnumbered by AMD freaks I think i'll leave this discussion for a later time and stay out of them.

Where did I start to make this personal? Its only about Processors for God's sake, no need to start such an arguement about it.

Like I said before, this is a gaming/emulation forum, of course we are going to favour setups which run games faster.

 

[Eagle]

Guys, I think we've gotten sidetracked from the original topic of this thread.