Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:30:43 PM EDT
my home computer is dying.

I've been putting off building a new one, but this is the second time I haven't been able to get it to boot up.. (MB is not recognizing the IDE devices)

It's about time I guess, i'm running a AMD 1.3 gig Athlon that I build oh, about 4 years ago.


any suggestions?

I'm wanting to run a S939 AMD and most likely an ASUS MB

any one got any insight to share as embark on this journey?

thanks.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:34:14 PM EDT
But the best you can afford.

I just built a system on AMD's Athlon 64 3700+
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:38:40 PM EDT
my suggestion. don't use cheap parts. if your not going to build it yourself, don't get a Dell especially. find a local computer store, have them build it for you.

this is what i do all day long
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:40:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:41:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc6969:

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:
But the best you can afford.

I just built a system on AMD's Athlon 64 3700+



What are you using for an OS?

I am looking at building one myself.



Xp Pro all the way.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:41:39 PM EDT
Just about a year ago I built up my current system with my tax refund. I went with an Athlon 64 3200 (90Nm) on a DFI motherboard and a gig of ram. Still runs great, just loaded the Windows XP pro X64 bit edition and it is still running like a champ. If I get a refund this year I may go dual core and add another gig of ram.

If you decide to go dual core make sure you get an OS that can handle it, Win XP home and the like only recognize one CPU. You will need Pro, or Pro X64, or another multi core compatible OS.

The motherboard and chipset you go with will depend on what you already have that you want to include, ie Video card. Mine is PCI Express with an Nforce 4 pro chipset. If you still want to use the AGP vid card make sure whatever board has AGP (it's one or the other). Since you are going to get a 939 pin chip (and you should), make sure the Mother board has a current BIOS that supports Dual Core if you go with a single. Get a power supply that will dish out enough power for later when you upgrade.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:44:50 PM EDT
Here is your setup.

AMD opteron 165 dual core CPU
2 GB Geil Ram
geforce 7800GT/Evga mobo combo
whatever HDD you want
whatever DVD RW drive
and then a Fortron source PSU good and resonably cheap
about 1200 dollars in all for a kickass overclockable PC


if you have questions PM me
Jeff
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:45:03 PM EDT
btw, get your stuff, especially the OS, from a place like mwave.com. Not a local shop or a big box store. You WILL save a bunch of money buying from a reputable dealer online.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:47:54 PM EDT
www.newegg.com
Is a nice place to shop by the way. Low prices and a rock solid return/RMA policy.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:49:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wassup61:
Here is your setup.

AMD opteron 165 dual core CPU
2 GB Geil Ram
geforce 7800GT/Evga mobo combo
whatever HDD you want
whatever DVD RW drive
and then a Fortron source PSU good and resonably cheap
about 1200 dollars in all for a kickass overclockable PC


if you have questions PM me
Jeff



I wont ever touch Geil RAM again....
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:51:27 PM EDT
currently running XPpro

looking at Xppro x64

(I have contacts at M$ and we'll see what else I can get)


definetly building myself.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:54:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:55:18 PM EDT
I too, am in the process of researching what system I wish to assemble. Thus far, I have it narrowed down to the following:

AMD Athlon 64 FX57 or a FX60 dual core,
DFI Lanparty UT RDX200 CF-DR CrossFire Mobo,
4 gigs of DDR400
2x Radeon X850xt

YMMV.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:56:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc6969:

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:

Xp Pro all the way.



XP x64 ?



Normal XP Pro..... I wont go to a 64bit OS till it gets more main stream.. Drivers, apps, games and so on.....
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:57:22 PM EDT
1st of all ... is there a reason you are against geil. also, AILapua, Why get so much Ram with such low end vid cards (2 gens back) and why not get an opteron 175 which is much more overclockable than the A64 FX60s
Jeff
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:00:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wassup61:
1st of all ... is there a reason you are against geil. also,
Jeff



Tried it once in a PC. RMA'd twice, 3rd time I told em to keep the Geil and I went Corsair. Best move I have made.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:02:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc6969:

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:

Xp Pro all the way.



XP x64 ?



It is a full native 64 bit OS built off the Server 2003 kernel. It was actually released about 6 months ago, but driver support sucked bad. I got it from work and now the sriver support is close to regular XP, but not perfect. Some things you need to consider before jumping into the 64 bit arena: Do I have any use for Native 64 bit programs yet? So far a couple of games have come out with 64 bit coding as a free upgrade, Half Life 2 is one of them. I have am anti virus that is 64 bit and is free for individual private use as well. The OS will run just about anything 32 bit just fine as well so no worries, but drivers and Anti-virus need to be 64 bit. No networking issues with my regular XP Pro PC in the other room. I really wouldn't advise buying it for home use, Later versions of Windows (Vista) will do the same. I got mine for free so that is why I have it.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:06:30 PM EDT
Start with this advice from Daniel Bernstein.

From there, upgrade the individual components to suit your needs. I like to upgrade the video card significantly from what DJB specs, and I like to bump up the hard drive capacity a bit, preferably with a RAID setup.

ZipZoomFly, Newegg, and Tigerdirect have all proven to be good sources in the past. I'm tired of the "Rebate Shuffle", so Tigerdirect is falling off of my list rapidly.

Jim
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:25:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:

Originally Posted By wassup61:
1st of all ... is there a reason you are against geil. also,
Jeff



Tried it once in a PC. RMA'd twice, 3rd time I told em to keep the Geil and I went Corsair. Best move I have made.



Really? My GeIL (2x1gb DDR400 PC3200 w/ heatspreaders) works wonderfully... ran Memtest86, no problems... I'll be buying GeIL again soon, 2 more sticks to upgrade to 4gb.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:04:28 PM EDT
Driver Support for XP Pro x64 still sucks balls. I have had XP Pro x64 for almost 5 months, and I still have no drivers for printers, and I am using modified XP x32 drivers for other hardware.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:12:56 PM EDT
xp 64bit sucks ass.
2 sets of binary's is sooooo nt 3.51 and its friggin annoying
driver support sucks.
the os is buggy, M$ is firesaleing it because its crap, its cheaper than normal xp because its a substandard products.
Just use XP pro, chances are you'll never have more than 4gb or ram, let alone need to address it in windows.

If you want a 64bit desktop os, try Suse10 x64.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:23:43 PM EDT
I got this all for less than 1400 (not counting monitor, hard drives, or optical drives) -

Mostly built it as a budget machine to take to LAN parties, since my main machine is watercooled, and I dont like packing it up and taking it anywhere.



Asus A8N-SLi Premium
Athlon64 4000+ San Diego
eVGA 7800GTX
2gb Crucial (got it cheap at work)
500w PSU
Thermaltake Armor case
Thermalright XP-120 heatsink, and Panaflo 120mm fan


If your budget is less than that, there are a lot of ways to cut costs.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:24:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BaNo:


If you want a 64bit desktop os, try Suse10Ubuntu 5.10 x64.




Fixed
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:43:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stove_Pipe:

Originally Posted By tc6969:

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:

Xp Pro all the way.



XP x64 ?



It is a full native 64 bit OS built off the Server 2003 kernel. It was actually released about 6 months ago, but driver support sucked bad. I got it from work and now the sriver support is close to regular XP, but not perfect. Some things you need to consider before jumping into the 64 bit arena: Do I have any use for Native 64 bit programs yet? So far a couple of games have come out with 64 bit coding as a free upgrade, Half Life 2 is one of them. I have am anti virus that is 64 bit and is free for individual private use as well. The OS will run just about anything 32 bit just fine as well so no worries, but drivers and Anti-virus need to be 64 bit. No networking issues with my regular XP Pro PC in the other room. I really wouldn't advise buying it for home use, Later versions of Windows (Vista) will do the same. I got mine for free so that is why I have it.



+1

Windows XP x64 is rock solid but driver support is just not there yet, the average user is better off sticking with regular XP Pro.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:45:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 9:18:02 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By BaNo:
xp 64bit sucks ass.
2 sets of binary's is sooooo nt 3.51 and its friggin annoying
driver support sucks.
the os is buggy, M$ is firesaleing it because its crap, its cheaper than normal xp because its a substandard products.
Just use XP pro, chances are you'll never have more than 4gb or ram, let alone need to address it in windows.

If you want a 64bit desktop os, try Suse10 x64.




BULLSHIT...

Windows x64 is rock solid... the only thing lacking is drivers support for all products and that will come.

64 bit Linux works fine but there is even less than you can do with it than Windows x64
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:52:45 PM EDT
Wierd timing. I've spent a better part of the day looking at building one.
I'm leaning to dual core x64.
Built to my wants, looks like about $1100 from here
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 9:19:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By otar:
Wierd timing. I've spent a better part of the day looking at building one.
I'm leaning to dual core x64.
Built to my wants, looks like about $1100 from here



If you can billd your own... more bang for the buck.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 9:26:27 PM EDT
Tag.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 9:33:48 PM EDT
I reccomend Corsair RAM, it has worked great in all the systems I have put it in.

My current system (for the last 2 years or so) is a duel Opteron with a gig of Kingston ECC. It's been time to upgrade for a while but I can't stop spending money on guns and ammo.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:27:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
BULLSHIT...

Windows x64 is rock solid... the only thing lacking is drivers support for all products and that will come.

64 bit Linux works fine but there is even less than you can do with it than Windows x64



Maybe things have changed since I tried XP64 almost a year ago, but it was a steaming pile of crap, and was soon replaced by regular XP. Everyone I have ever spoken to that has tried XP64 has agreed with me. Even hardcore windows zelots.
I'm not going to start an os holywar, but dont feed me that "you cant do anything in linux bullshit"
Linux is just as equil as desktop os as Windows, if you think otherwise you have never really used linux as a desktop os.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:02:57 AM EDT
i run 64bit fedora core 4 on my amd 3000+ system. no virus's no spyware. no homepage hijacks. no wallpaper hijacks. works good for internet, email, wordprocessing. only disadvantges. is movies, and audio doesn't always work. depends on system config
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:05:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
Mostly built it as a budget machine to take to LAN parties, since my main machine is watercooled, and I dont like packing it up and taking it anywhere.

Asus A8N-SLi Premium
Athlon64 4000+ San Diego
eVGA 7800GTX
2gb Crucial (got it cheap at work)
500w PSU
Thermaltake Armor case
Thermalright XP-120 heatsink, and Panaflo 120mm fan



That's a BUDGET PC??? Very nice!
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:07:13 AM EDT
when i build my new one, it will definately be a dual core 64bit chip. Though if you get a 64bit chip you might as well fork over the money for the 64bit OS
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:27:16 AM EDT
If what you want is reliability from a ROCK SOLID OS in 64 bit then the only solution is to go down to the Apple store and buy a Mac. A 64bit OS is nothing new there.

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:00:52 AM EDT
Yes,,, but new Macs are switching to Intel, and the OS on them is not 64-bit. (-I think....)
------
As far as Windows/Linux/PC goes--the better CPU's (AMD) are all 64-bit, but there's still not much advantage to paying for or running 64-bit Windows. Very few programs benefit from it at the moment, and many 64-bit drivers still aren't working as well as the 32-bit drivers do.

I have no idea what (if any) Linux programs benefit under 64-bit operation. Linux programs in general tend to be rather lightweight anyway.

But anyway--"64 bits" is really mostly salesmanship anyway, no matter if you get Apple, Windows or Linux. It will not privide any great speed increase and most software does not need anywhere near the RAM addressing that 64 bits provides.
~
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 12:45:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Floppy_833:
Yes,,, but new Macs are switching to Intel, and the OS on them is not 64-bit. (-I think....)
------
As far as Windows/Linux/PC goes--the better CPU's (AMD) are all 64-bit, but there's still not much advantage to paying for or running 64-bit Windows. Very few programs benefit from it at the moment, and many 64-bit drivers still aren't working as well as the 32-bit drivers do.

I have no idea what (if any) Linux programs benefit under 64-bit operation. Linux programs in general tend to be rather lightweight anyway.

But anyway--"64 bits" is really mostly salesmanship anyway, no matter if you get Apple, Windows or Linux. It will not privide any great speed increase and most software does not need anywhere near the RAM addressing that 64 bits provides.
~



You are correct on all fronts.
The new intel macs are 32bit, but the g5's are infact 64bit, and will be arround for a while, nomatter what Apple marketing thinks.

The whole thing is 98% of desktop users won't be addressing more than 64bits of memory, unless ofcouse they are doing some massive video or raw image editing, then I guess you would call those power users are they arent going to be building their own desktops either.

There are plenty of linux apps that make use of large memory foot prints, but they are unarguably not desktop applications.

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:01:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 5:02:23 PM EDT by adair_usmc]

Originally Posted By jthuang:

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
Mostly built it as a budget machine to take to LAN parties, since my main machine is watercooled, and I dont like packing it up and taking it anywhere.

Asus A8N-SLi Premium
Athlon64 4000+ San Diego
eVGA 7800GTX
2gb Crucial (got it cheap at work)
500w PSU
Thermaltake Armor case
Thermalright XP-120 heatsink, and Panaflo 120mm fan



That's a BUDGET PC??? Very nice!



Compared to my home rig, that one is very much a budget machine
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:09:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By otar:
Wierd timing. I've spent a better part of the day looking at building one.
I'm leaning to dual core x64.
Built to my wants, looks like about $1100 from here



If you can billd your own... more bang for the buck.


That was spec out with the parts I want. I'm still looking though.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:11:49 PM EDT
www.fieroloki.com/mypc.html

Thats about $1400 or so right there.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:19:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 5:20:07 PM EDT by dolanp]
64-bit is kind of premature right now unless you run Linux. XP64 will be good when they put out drivers and apps, but for most people with an x86-64 processor they will find that they are hindered by it now. However that doesn't mean you shouldn't get one because soon enough it will get more support.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:21:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
64-bit is kind of premature right now unless you run Linux. XP64 will be good when they put out drivers and apps, but for most people with an x86-64 processor they will find that they are hindered by it now. However that doesn't mean you shouldn't get one because soon enough it will get more support.



64bit CPU is faster than 32bit CPU's hands down.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:22:57 PM EDT
Interesting theory but it goes into 32-bit mode when it's processing 32-bit code (such as XP Pro).
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:27:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Interesting theory but it goes into 32-bit mode when it's processing 32-bit code (such as XP Pro).



Yes, but 64bit CPU's ARE faster then 32-bit CPU's... Benchmarks and tests have proven it.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:30:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Interesting theory but it goes into 32-bit mode when it's processing 32-bit code (such as XP Pro).



Yes, but 64bit CPU's ARE faster then 32-bit CPU's... Benchmarks and tests have proven it.



+1
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:49:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Interesting theory but it goes into 32-bit mode when it's processing 32-bit code (such as XP Pro).



Yes, but 64bit CPU's ARE faster then 32-bit CPU's... Benchmarks and tests have proven it.



Find and post a reputable source for this information, I expect that such a source will be comparing 32bit and 64bit of the same clockspeed, fsb, caches, etc...
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:51:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BaNo:

Originally Posted By FieroLoki:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Interesting theory but it goes into 32-bit mode when it's processing 32-bit code (such as XP Pro).



Yes, but 64bit CPU's ARE faster then 32-bit CPU's... Benchmarks and tests have proven it.



Find and post a reputable source for this information, I expect that such a source will be comparing 32bit and 64bit of the same clockspeed, fsb, caches, etc...



I dont need to. I know there faster first hand. (I went from a 32bit to a 64bit). Also, go look online anyplace. 64bit wins in beanchmarks period.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:55:03 PM EDT
fine don't provide proof that your flawed theory is right.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:11:31 PM EDT
I think what he meant was that back when the two companies (AMD and Intel) were both producing 32 and 64-bit chips that ran at the same speeds--the 64's were faster... but the 64's had various other improvements as well.

And now, all the faster CPU's from both companies are 64-bit anyway.
Matter of fact, at my favorite online supplier (Mwave) they have five different families of AMD and Intel chips--and only the cheapest/slowest family of each is still 32-bit....
~
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:14:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BaNo:
fine don't provide proof that your flawed theory is right.



As I said, I dont need to. I have seen it first hand. But since it seems ill have to do it for you, give me a bit.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:17:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BaNo:
fine don't provide proof that your flawed theory is right.



Do yourself a favor and stop before you look even more poorly informed… if that is possible.

If you actually understood what you were talking about you would know clock speed became irrelevant the day AMD released the Athlon 64 chips… Athlon 64 bit chips run faster than Intel chips that are clocked faster… It is not even arguable at this point.

There is no need for him to go back and dig up 2 year old benchmarks because you live in a 2 year old time warp.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:18:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BaNo:
fine don't provide proof that your flawed theory is right.



Just because you cant afford to upgrade, doesnt mean you should hate on a superior technology

www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd64-4000/

www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1665

www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112603,00.asp
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top