new computer

[james.miller]

i have no such kit on my pc. the pc in my sig has no case fans, and only a 2200rpom akasa fan on my slk-800. It runs fine at 2.4ghz and i kid you not, the fans are quieter than my hdd.

 

[Xade]

Admittedly, I spent £1100 on my base. Mind, that includes a S-ATA 7,200rpm 120GB disk , 52X cd writer and dvd drive, not to mention a good nForce2 board etc, etc.

Bear in mind, though, that overclocking the slower chips may enable them to be as speedy as those a few notches up, but... what's to stop the XP 3000+ crew and friends clocking their own, thus maintaining a similar lifespan as that of one of your own, older chips?

An Athlon 3000, or even 3200, running at 2.5 GHz?! Makes for one extremely powerful processor.

I do respect that many people will turn to overclocking and mid-range PCs due to financial constraints, and that's fine. My argument is that those people who do have that little bit extra money shouldn't hold out on getting the high-end PCs.

Think of it this way, too... buying a brilliant motherboard/chip combo from the off at the expense of ram, graphics etc is a better option than spreading the money out. Why? Upgrading one component at a time (say the ram later, then the graphics next month etc) will make for a much better machine, saving the cost of later processor upgrades.

 

[james.miller]

nothing is stopping from people overclocking the top end cpus.

my point is, if you want to overclock *at all*, then there is no point in buying one of thse £200 xp3000's when you can do the same for £40.

It's ludicrus - an xp1700 at 2.5ghz will perform identically to any other t/bred at 2.5ghz (xp2000,2400,2600 ect), and very close to any barton at 2.3ghz (xp2500,3000 or 3200). Honestly, why pay more?

 

[Tagrineth]

james.miller: Actually, overclocked CPU's SOMETIMES don't perform quite at the level of a stock CPU, assuming memory and FSB speeds are the same. Depending on the core, and the degree of OC, a core validated for a lower frequency might generate a few more bit-level math errors and have to recalculate - a minor setback, to be sure, but it does make a small difference.

 

[james.miller]

if the core does that - then it would be unstable. trust me. every test i have seen has show no difference between overclocked cpus and stock cpu's (taking into accuont the margin of error).

Afterall, they all use the same cores. Only the stock multiplier and voltage changes. The only real execption are the 1.5v jiuhb dlt3c's (the xp1700 and 1800's). they ARE different - they use a slightly different type of transistor which runs at a lower voltage, but has a higher current leakage. Even taking that into accout though, they still perform the same.

edit:just for you, Tagrineth
http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showthread.php?p=568013

bottom of the page. zerocopy scored 6077 with his xp2600 at defult speeds (12.5x166.66 = 2083.25)

I scored 6094 with my xp1700 @ 12.5x166.66.

Close enough?

 

[Tagrineth]

if the core does that - then it would be unstable. trust me. every test i have seen has show no difference between overclocked cpus and stock cpu's (taking into accuont the margin of error).

Afterall, they all use the same cores. Only the stock multiplier and voltage changes. The only real execption are the 1.5v jiuhb dlt3c's (the xp1700 and 1800's). they ARE different - they use a slightly different type of transistor which runs at a lower voltage, but has a higher current leakage. Even taking that into accout though, they still perform the same.

edit:just for you, Tagrineth
http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showthread.php?p=568013

bottom of the page. zerocopy scored 6077 with his xp2600 at defult speeds (12.5x166.66 = 2083.25)

I scored 6094 with my xp1700 @ 12.5x166.66.

Close enough?

They're the same core, but they don't all have identical heat tolerance. :flowers: You seem to be an accomplished OC'er, so I'm sure you'd understand that. I said *some*, anyway. It isn't an 'always-must-be' thing. Generally it isn't something to worry about.

And even when it does happen, every error loses maybe ~3-6 clock cycles tops, since the level of problems I'm talking about are caught immediately and repaired with little effort.

 

[mesman00]

ok, im looking for a decent budget graphics card...how are the geforce FX 5200 128 MB? i can probs get one for about 75. is there another card in the price range you would recommend instead?

 

[The Khan Artist]

If you really need the DirectX 9 support, then the answer is no. The FX 5200 is the cheapest DX9 card on the market. If you're just looking for something that supports DX8.1, go for a Radeon 9100.

If you want a much better card than the 5200, and can afford to spend a little bit more, I'd say go with a Radeon 9500.

 

[james.miller]

the fx5200 is a terrible card. the performance is o.k, but not for the money. And yes, it does *support* dx9, but it's dx9 performance is so bad that it renders it practically useless.

Honestly, id recommend a ti4200 over the fx5200. But, ideally, id get a 9500 (actually I did lol)

 

[mesman00]

...im either gonna go with the 9100 or the ti4200. i had the ti in my old computer and was very pleased with it, but i can save 30 dollars by purchasing the 9100, and i'm not big into gaming. however, i did really like the video-in that the ti4200 had.