P4VXAD3 - Socket 478 mboard - Supports Socket 478 & DDR Memory - AGP 4X- 5PCI ATX with cpu -Pentium 4 2.53GHz 478-Pin,cooling fan & Heatsink, 5PCI/4xAGP

I'm not totally sure what all this means, but this is the motherboard, CPU, CPU fan combo I'm thinking of getting. What do you computer guys think about this setup? what would you suggest?

I'm thinking about either 512mb or 1gb ram, maybe a 80 gig hard drive. What do you guys think about the Geforce4 Ti 4200 128 mb video card and a sound blaster card.
Oh, and what kinda case should I get?

Any suggestions would be awesome! thanks!

Great setup, the question is, "How much are you paying."

Try going to www.pricewatch.com

Or I highly recommend http://www.atacom.com/

The other question would be, "What do you want to use it for?"  Gaming, home office, etc...

Another couple places to find good buys and good service online are [url]www.newegg.com[/url] and [url]www.allstarshop.com[/url].

I'd say general purpose rig. I've been checking pricewatch, thats where I came up with this stuff, I think its about $800 bucks so far, i'm gonna check my priorities and try to cut that down a few hundred bucks. I just hope I can put all this stuff together! Lol

Your going to end up paying alot for this machine.

IMHO, don't buy a P4 unless you plan to go all out and get a 2gig+ 533 mhz RAM/FSB model.

If you want the best bang for the buck, go with an AMD setup.

I actually want a AMD CPU but I couldn't find any above 1.8 Ghz, does amd make a 2.3-.4-.5 ghz rig? alot of them say  AMD ATHLON 3000 or something but don't give the cpu speed.

Keep in mind that AMD rates their processors differently than Intel.  AMD 1800 means that it will run just as fast as an Intel 1800mhz, but it will actually have a lower clock rate (like 1400mhz).  AMD 1800 doesn't mean it runs at 1800mhz.  This usually throws people for a loop and they think they got ripped off when they install it because they see lower clock rate on startup.

Emachines.

OK, so an AMD xp 2200 is only running at 1.8. IT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A P4 2.2.

They are more efficient. More bang for the buck.

[url]http://www.circuitcity.com/frame1.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1872884026.1034817262@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdfadcghkjiejecfngcfkmdffhdffh.0&upper=head.jsp&lower=frame2.jsp&department=Computers&category=Desktops&right=productsearch.jsp&left=leftchildcat.jsp[/url]

If that doesnt work, look up the emachines T2200 on circuit city.com

thanks guys, ya'll rock!

AMD all the way. Pentium is far overpriced for what you get.
Its easy to build a computer. Go for it, but have someone to turn to when you need advice.

a real good place to visit for computer questions:

forum.oc-forums.com

a real good place to buy online (both for price and excellent customer service)

www.newegg.com

I personally would suggest something like this: (prices from newegg.com)

Chieftec full tower case w/ 420w PSU $67
thermal paste: artic silver $6
WD 80GB "special edition" HD (because it comes w/ 3 year warranty instead of 1 year like the rest as of Oct 1st) $109
512MB corsair PC2100 RAM $145
Abit KR7A-Raid mobo $85
AMD XP 1900+ Retail (1600Mhz) $99
MS Win2k professional OS (OEM) $145
SB live $34
ATI Radeon 8500LE $86

Other things to consider...
Floppy
CD, DVD, and/or CD-R
Mouse
KB
Monitor
NIC (network card)
Modem or cable modem

Why:
No point in the avg user needing the absolute top of the line system. Go for the bang-for-the-buck in computers, because they are HORRIBLE investments, and spending twice as much will only prolong it's lifespan by a few months.

AMD's PR rating on processors is due to the fact that they "work" harder than P4's. A Mhz (or Ghz) rating only tells you how many "ticks" (or cycles) per second a computer operates at. Things were easy to compare back in the P3/Tbird days because both companies processors did roughly the same ammount of "work" per clock cycle. So every clock cycle, a P3 or Tbird would do 4 or 5 instruction sets.

Intel capitalized on this when it reduced the ammount of "work" per cycle that it's P4 processor does. They made up for the less work per cycle (sometimes referred to as instructions per cycle/IPC) by raising the frequency (Mhz). So... that blazingly fast 2.53Ghz P4 is roughly the speed of a 2Ghz AMD or P3 processor in most things.

The above listed setup will easily run any program/game currently at large (or any of those soon to be released). For the average user, you wont actually notice much (if any) difference between a 1.5Ghz machine and a 2.5Ghz machine, unless you're into 3D or other highly intensive apps.

In fact, a 1900+ (or 2.53Ghz P4 if you go that way) is in fact probably quite the overkill. I only listed the 1900+ because it's at the price break (bang-for-buck syndrome kicking in).

good luck!

I'm just about ready to build up a P4 of my own.  However, after reading the computer forums, I am waiting a couple of weeks for the new motherboard chipset that Intel is due to release in the next week.  It is called "granite bay" and is Dual channel DDR.  The benchmarks show it to be comparable in bandwith to the expensive RDRAM while using standard DDR in pairs.

AMD is a waste of money.  I'm guessing all these PRO AMD's in this thread aren't going to direct you to any benchmarks, because they get spanked in all of them.

They also probably bought AMD stock a few months ago when it was $20+ dollars, and are worried that AMD is down in the single digits.

A P4 with RDRAM will spank anything on the market.

I bought my Asus P4T533 mobo, which has ATA133 Raid, 32 bit RDRAM support, USB 2.0, etc...
A P4 2.53 GHZ Proc with 533 FSB
and 512 meg of 32 bit RDRAM (Rimm 4200)
for $600.
[url=http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4455354]Here's my 3dMark Score: 14306[/url]
...and...
[url=http://service.madonion.com/compare?pcm=655520]Here's my PCMark Score: CPU/6221 Mem/7462 HDD/668[/url]

Do yourself a favor, and don't sell yourself short.

What brand of motherboard is that?  Dont make a mistake and get a cheap board.  You will end up with all kinds of mistery problems down the road.  Asus is a great mainboard manufacturer.

I'm not so sure about that right now.  You can get a AMD XP2400 for $199 and a Intel P4 2.53 for $234.  For $34 more you get a faster chip that uses faster memory.

Dont get me wrong, for the past 6 years I have used nothing but AMD processors.  But I can feel the dark side of the force trying to charge my credit card for a Intel chip.

oh no.. stay the hell away from Emachines. a friend of mine got one.. SHODDY! crappy! sub-substandard componets beyond substandard!

thats onlt due to the recent P4 chips, previously the AMDs ran quicker did better for most. however Intels still had their own nitch where they beat out AMDs. its always been a "we're better here" type war between the two.

uses faster memory? rambus is being killed off. their going to DDR. DDR has been used in AMD lines for quite some time.

Yes faster memory.  RDRAM is now running at 1066mhz and the new(not yet released) DDR will run at 400mhz.  The are other advantages to the RDRAM but I will have to find my list again.

I've had bad luck with AMD chips.  They have always ran hot, and to me feel like they are sold to me overclocked, where-as a P4 is sold underclocked.

Not to long ago AMD had a huge edge in performance, and price.  But to me, the stabilty wasn't there, and I did buy a few AMD boards for cheap test boxes, and have problems with them all.  My personal gaming box has always ran intel.

Well, now the months have passed, and AMD users can no longer boast performance or price, because they don't really have an edge in either case.

And RDRAM is only available for the P4, and it puts a serious hurt on DDR and SDRAM.

The numbers are out there.  The P4 vs AMD, P4 comes out on top.

DDR vs RDRAM, RDRAM comes out on top.  Slap those 2 things together in a box, and you have the fastest box on the market these days.

Any serious computer reviewing site will show this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/
http://www.hardocp.com/
This list could go on.

A few months ago, AMD had an arguement.  But as I'm typing this, there isn't a single reason to buy an AMD processor.

Maybe there next chip will close the gap, but right now, they are crap.

RDRAM is not going away. And even if Intel chose not to include RDRAM on future boards, how does that effect today's decision?

As a matter of fact, they just came out with 32-bit RDRAM, which does not have to be used in pairs.  Only available on the Asus P4T533 at the moment, but I can attest to the pure speed of a RIMM 4200 chip!

Good review here: http://www.amd3d.com/CPU3D/review/p4t533/

Boy, you are really grasping at straws with that zinger.

im of the school that benchmarks dont mean shit cuz there [B]ALL BIASED[/b] to make one chip look better then the other. but in personal use go AMD

Detonate, I didnt say that RDRAM was going away Nova5 did.  Here is a good review of RDRAM Vs DDR.
[url]http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1096&page=1[/url]

This is a review of the older slower RDRAM and it still comes out in front.  There would be a ever bigger advantage when you step up to the 533mhz intel chips that require more bandwidth.

Well it's the only reason I could fathom where someone would recommend an AMD chip*.


* - Meaning today.

I'm not sure how you can call 3rd party websites bias'd when they flip flop all the time.

Both HardOCP and Tom's were hardcore pro AMD, back when they where cheap and fast.  Things have since changed, and so have their views.

The same has happened with GeForce 4 vs ATI.  Clearly ATI Radeon Pro is stomping the GF4 these days.

Why don't you call them flatout liers while your at it?

No offense, but you really ought to get computer info off of a site other than a gunsite. I'm sure out of the tons of members here, there are plenty of well educated people, but you gotta weed out people who either dont have a clue, or are only partially filled in.



For someone who obviously is new to building computers, DO NOT purchase a new technology setup. The past few years, people buying the "bleeding edge" technology have become nothing more than PAYING BETA TESTERS. You want something tried and true, ESPECIALLY if you are new to computers, and aren't familiar with in depth tinkering/tweaking.



Wow, a whole 2.53Ghz and 512MB of ram for ONLY $600? You miss the point. You have just BLOWN $350 MORE than you needed to (on just those 2 parts), and the sad thing is... the ONLY difference the average user (read...YOU) will notice is in benchmarks/bragging rights. Congratulations.



Another partially informed answer... Wow, RDRAM runs at a higher MHZ... IT MUST BE FASTER!!! Actually, RDRAM transmits LESS data FASTER than current DDR. It doesn't equate to: 1066Mhz is 250% faster than 400Mhz. It is closer to a 5%-10% difference. For the price (and the fact that you wont notice the difference anyhow) it's not worth it (at least to most people who use a computer, not benchmark it).

Please, do yourself a favor and visit an actual computer site (preferrably a non-biased one, NOT THG).

Regardless of what you purchase today, early next year your stuff will be completely outdated, and will be worth a fraction of what you paid for it. Why spend 2x as much on a top of the line system?

You sure wont notice the web run any faster...

Your email isn't going to be effected...

You wont notice the difference between 110fps and 125fps in your games.

And most importantly... You'll have money left over to put toward a REAL investment.

FWIW: I build and maintain computer networks/cash register systems, as well as build PC's for friends in my spare time. My advice to cleints, friends, and family is the same as what I posted in this thread.

Good Luck!

and do your homework first!

www.overclockers.com
forum.oc-forums.com

Check again.  That's the Motherboard, Processor, HS/Fan, and Memory.  That's essentially is all the most expensive parts in your computer.  Sound card is cheap, even for a top of the line one.  A video card can become expensive, but I didn't recommend one, because I have no idea what he'll be doing with his system.  $600 for that setup is a steal.  And this was before the 2.7 and 2.8 GHZ boxes came out, prices may have dropped.
Wow, you managed to go from partially correct, to being completely wrong.

It's not just the MHZ that gives RDRAM an edge, it's the bandwidth.  A RIMM 4200 will push 4.2 gigabytes per second, which is essential to the architecture of the P4.  This is why when the P4 originally aired, it had trouble in the benchmarks.  The P4 was designed for the higher clock speeds with more memory bandwidth.  A P4 at 1.4 GHZ with PC600 RDRAM will never show it's true potential.  Only the > 1.8GHZ with > PC800 RDRAM test, and push the architecture to where it was designed to run.
Now is actually a preferable time to purchase top end.

How long has USB 1.0 been out?  Well, now there are top end boards with USB 2.0, certainly no reason to buy old technology, new peripherals will surely be supporting USB 2.0.

Next up ATA133, the only thing around that may top it, is Serial ATA.

32-Bit RDRAM is now available on the Asus P4T533.  Seems like 16 bit has been around for years.  I'm sure the 32 bit will stand the test of time as well.

A 2.53 GHZ processor certainly has the power to push you through the years.  My old box, an 866MHZ, lasted me quite sometime, and it's only now that I was forced to upgrade to catch up to what I'm doing.

However you will notice:
Significant speed in loading applications, and computer boot time.
The amount of simultaneous applications that you can run with out a performance hit.
The ability to play the latest games at all.
The speed of encoding digital video.
The speed of encoding digital audio.
etc, etc, etc...

FWIW: I work for EDS, a 100,000 employee wold wide consulting firm.  I build enterprise internet/intranet solutions for fortune 500 companies daily.

I have 8 computers running in my house, not including other network appliances.

I have a 2GHZ wireless network shared between my neighbors, and VPN tunnel connecting me to the rest of my friends.

Not only do I build PCs in my spare time, I build servers daily.

(In case you aren't getting it, his little quote has nothing to do with anything, much like this doesn't either)


If you want to take anything from this thread, you need to study the [b]Price Performance Arch[/b], while at the same time considering [b]Stability[/b] and [b]Longevity[/b] of the products you are purchasing.

The products I've recommended to you, completely fit the bill, and you will certainly have a fast computer able of meeting today and tomorrow's needs.  The above poster says why spend money on something that will be obsolete by next year, and yet he recommends you buy products that [b]already are obsolete[/b].

To demonstrate the price performance arch, look at these numbers:
$468  -  Pentium 4 2.8GHz
$366  -  Pentium 4 2.6GHz
$234  -  Pentium 4 2.53GHz
$198  -  Athlon XP 2400
[b]$184  -  Pentium 4 2.4GHz 533MHz (Best Value)[/b]
$188  -  Pentium 4 2.4GHz 400MHz
$184  -  Pentium 4 2.2GHz 400MHz
$184  -  Pentium 4 2.26GHz 533MHz
$184  -  Pentium 4 2.26GHz
$143  -  Athlon XP 2200
$118  -  Athlon XP 2100

You aren't getting a complete high end p4 system for $600. Unless you use plenty of old parts out of your last computer. And the same thing with an xp2000 setup is only $330. So forgive me... only $300 wasted, not the $350 I originally stated.

I didn't say RDRAM has less total bandwidth, I pointed out that when someone compares "1066mhz RDRAM to 400mhz DDR" that it's not a 250% difference you think it is. YES, RDRAM moves LESS bits of information FASTER. once you add it up, it's a higher total bandwidth (end result of how much data is being moved per second), but not a huge difference.

And I'm sorry, but if you were in charge of buying computers for your "100K employee company", you would be out of a job telling them to get a top of the line setup for everything.

98% of all computer users wont come CLOSE to ever using the potential of a top of the line setup. Why would you have the receptionist who uses a WP program and spreadsheet with a $2000 computer? Why would you have someone spend more money on top of the line stuff for opening email, browsing the web, or having their MS Word open .00033025 seconds faster?

The guy said it was general purpose, not to layout poster sized photos in photoshop, or to create the next "toy story" movie with 3ds4.

And there is NO game out (or soon to be released) that a low end northwood or Athlon XP cant handle. Unless you worship your benchmarks... which you obviously do... you wont care. I have a friend who buys all the new games and is still managing with an Athlon450 w/ 128MB of RAM and a vodoo3 (I'll admit it's about toast).

If a computer kept its value for 5 or 10 years, it would be a completely different story. But something that will be worth 40% of it's purchase price within a year... Buying for the future with computers is a bad idea. Because by the time you actually NEED it, it's cheaper to just upgrade/replace 3 years down the road.

What Video card?

The rest of your post is quite humorous, but I'll play along....

My AMD XP1700+ clocks out just ahead of a P4 2.0GHz in MIPS and just behind it in MFLOPS. Not too bad for a 'waste of money'

My 3D mark score is just under 10000 (GeForce 4 ti 4200 non-overclocked). I could over clock the board and top 10000 easily and if I were willing to spend $400 for a video card (yeah, right!), I could easily top 14000 with an ATI Radon 9700 Pro. I'm also not a big fan of ATI, but you have to give that board props, it kicks some serious ass.

I could also double my memory (currently @ 256MB of DDR2100) and geta little more out of that, but why? I already can run anything I want to at full resolution and detail with no problem.

You aren't wasting anything.  Because when you go out to buy your next computer, I'll simply be upgrading my processor and nothing else.
It's faster in each and every bit that's moved.  Considering how memory intensive everything, that "not a huge diffirence" becomes an enormous difference.  And since you don't gain any benefit from using something other than RDRAM, why would you?
I'm not talking top of the line.  I'm pointing out where the price/performance break is, while still allowing for scalability.  It's the same thing I do for companies like Sabre, etc...  Total Cost of ownership is down 20% since I took lead.
Again!  It goes back to price/performance.  We live in a time where a 40 gig HD costs $50, and an 80 gig costs $60, and a 120 gig costs $200.  Which one do you buy?  And let's say you only plan on using 15 gigs.  Do you get the 40 gig drive, save yourself $10 bucks, and then just "buy a new one" when you finally need more space.  I don't think so.

And I've never said anything about a $2,000 system, or ever mentioned that he should buy top of the line.

That's all good, but you have to other items as well. [rolleyes]

The Mboard is going to be AT LEAST $50 more, and the ram is AT LEAST $100 more.

So you end up paying around $200 more for P4.

Computers are so ahead of the software right now anyways.

Unless you want an godlike gaming machine or need Mpeg2 decoding or programming compiling, the extra is a waste.

In other words, at home, buy AMD, at work, buy Intel.

Um, it's senseless to debate... you obviously care less about price and more about the extra 2 months your computer will last w/o needing to be upgraded. I doubt most people feel the same way.

That's why I suggest he check out a website with a forum full of actual computer tecchies (as opposed to a site full of gun users).

Talk to people in the computer forums, dont go by the "stats", "benchmarks", or "reviews". You want real world performance and feedback. And (most) people want what they need at a lower cost.

If you NEED something bigger and badder... by all means go for it. If you NEED bragging rights, go for it... you'll be able to brag for about a month before you're not the top dog anymore.

Personally I feel blowing an extra $200 or more for an average computer setup isn't necessary for most users. Especially when that difference equates to NO NOTICEABLE difference in useability/longevity (face it... in 3-4 years when it's outdated, a few hundred mhz wont make a difference).

To be honest, I think I'm building the best computers right now for friends and family.

I build a 1.4 athlon with KT333 MSI board and 256 DDR 333, 40 gig maxter ata133 and G4 MX 64 meg video cards.

All this can be had for $400!!

In a year or 2, they can spend $100 and buy more 333mhz ram and buy an Althon XP 2200+ and basically have a new computer that will last them another year or two.

IMHO, this setup is the best for normal users for the price.

I wouldn't think about trying to sell a $1000+ P4 setup to friends and family, it would be such a waste.

Like I said, AMD @ Home, Intel @ work.

I've thrown away far too many obsolete PC components to advocate spending major money on a PC ever again (recall the $3000 386/SX 20's, anyone?).

Buying the fastest system available is never a good idea for most PC users.  My rule of thumb that has worked well for me for the past 6 or 7 years has been to spend about $150 for a decent brand of motherboard (don't bother with the "on-board" VGA/sound/etc, you will end up replacing that stuff anyway), and about $150 for a CPU.  Find out which chips available for $150 have the best benchmarks and go with them.

Buy DDR RAM, RDRAM is the VESA local bus of the day (dead end).  If you're going to be gaming, get a video card that is at least one tier below the latest and greatest, and don't buy the cheapest brand you can find.  ATI is good but I have had unresolvable problems with all their products I've bought in the past and ended up swapping them for something else.  I recently picked up an AOpen GF4200ti 128 for about $130, and this is a pretty good card at  the moment.

Don't bother spending serious bucks on a state of the art sound card.  Every one I ever bought (admittedly not too many) had compatibility problems with something, or didn't work right.  Get a older, stable card from a good maker.  I had a SB Live and it sounded like crap, so I paid about $30 for an Ensoniq that works much better.

Others may have more specific advice, but I have become cynical and ultraconservative after 15 years in the PC business, and cannot stand to waste money on technology.

Sounds like someone doesnt have the funds for the latest and greatest? [:)]  My AMD K6-2 400 worked just fine for everything but games.  But thats not what its all about.  Its about being on the bleeding edge of technology.  Its a thrill.  All through out highschool I was taking out bank loans to buy the fastest there was.  I remember paying close to $500 for 16mb or ram.  Its like buying a tricked 1911 except it only holds its value for a month.

Which is all well and good except the guy was asking for advice about building a GENERAL system, not the fastest possible machine he could. Big difference. For such a system, there is no need for a a P4 2.53 and Rambus. A P4 DDR Mobo with a P4 2.0 or a sub-$100 Athalon XP with a ~$100 mobo and DDR will do just fine for quite a long time in this role. In this role, there is not going to be enough difference between a bleeding-edge system and a more budget-minded system to justify the extra $1000-1500 you could spend on the 'latest and greatest'. Its overkill. Hell, my Athalon XP 1700+ runs UT 2003 @ 1280 x 1024 (monitor limited) at full detail and 32bit color at frame rates that far exceedes what the eye can distinguish between. A friend of mine has a simular setup to mine, but with a P4 2.2 (DDR) and runs UT 2003 @ 1600 x1200 with no noticable difference in framerate.

I just do not see the need for anything more at this time. The money I didn't spend on the latest and greatest bought me a lot of other toys I wanted.

How you run UT is more graphics card specfic, than processor.  I can easily run UT @ 1600x1200 with full detail AND turn on 4x FSAA, AND 16x Antroshpic Filtering (turned on by the graphics card, not a UT setting)

However, my wife with an identical system as mine, can NOT run at even close to these settings with her GF2MX.  And she can forget about bumping the details up on Asheron's Call 2.

The point I'm making, is gaming can't be used as an example, because they aren't as dependent on the graphics card.

Processor intensive task are GENERAL in nature.
Things that are processor intensive are things like:
Multi-Tasking
Playing DVDs without a hardware decoder
Buring digital music.
Ripping digital video from a camcorder
Encoding digital video to a compressed MP2 format for burning VCD's or DVD's

Personally I enjoy being able to work on digital video in Studio 7, while a DVD is burning, and still being able to play my MP3 music files, without worring about the DVD getting a write error, and pissing a $4 DVD-R down the drain.

Also keep in mind that saying he is going to use it for GENERAL purposes, is not specific.  To me, general means anything, and everything.  For all I know, he browses the web, his wife does music, his son/daughter is a gamer or uses it for other multimedia purposes.  There is no telling.  I haven't quoted a "bleeding edge" box.  I've simply quoted where the bang for the buck is.  The point where you get the most MHZ per dollar, and technologies that will last.

So basically I'm done with this thread.  I've stated my case quite well, and those who don't agree, never will.  I'm a firm believer that nobody has ever changed their mind over a forum post.