newbie asking for advices

old wrote:

Hi there,

Sorry to you experts to bother you with maybe some silly questions,
but I at the point:


Ask away, that is what these groups are here for.
Not that I am a expert.


1. I have to uprade my computer (now I use a P1 MMX@166MHz w 32M RAM
and mobo ASUS SP97V w on board video)

I remember those days, when computers was a bit more reliable.


2. I don't know too many about computers
3. I need some advises
4. I want to build it myself even if it is for the first time and I
may look a bit old for this kind of job. Anyway, never is to late -)))

It is certainly not, my brother is 50 years old and last year decided to
learn to play the saxophone and use the computer for mixing music, so
never too late.


I am mostly will use my computer for internet browsing, some old
arcade games / free cell/ solitaires, DVD or DivX playback, and to
play some music.
I therefore don't need that much computing power, however my old P1 at
133mHz is getting very slow and quite annoying from time to time and
cannot do all of these jobs. The machine will work on Windows98 but I
will try a version of Linux (most likelly Mandrake) as well.

I have chosen 2 confiurations:
1. AMD based:
CPU: XP Barton 2500+ /w512M cache
MoBo: ASUS A7V8X-X VIA KT400 w/ audio
CPU fan: maybe a more powerful one will be required.

2. Intel Based:
CPU P4 1.8A Hz (which most likelly will work at 2.4B GHz (18*133MHz)
MoBo ASUS P4S533-X SDR+DDR USB 2.0

Besides these I will add:
-256Mb RAM DDR 2100 ( I have it already)
-30Gb HDD 7200rpm (I already have it)
-video: MSI GF4 64M DDR TV-out
-300W case w/power supply.

Regarding to price, the AMD seems a bit cheaper. However I've heard
some AMD cpu's have overheating problems. My questions a
1. Does anyone had/heard about any heat issue with AMD XP2500+? Is it
this cpu based on 0.13 microns? (if not I expect it to be quite hot)
2. Which configuration is more recommended to someone who doesn't
spend time in searching the right driver / patch , the AMD or the
Intel one?
3. I've heard from a friend that AMD based configurations may not work
well and require more knowledge to make it work fine. It may also
require some extra expenses to deal with overheating problems (that
was the case with some 1.2Gz and 1.33Hz TB; some XP are not that hot).
What about XP 2500+?
4. Is it any advantage to use a 128Mb video card instead of 64?
5. My old 14" Dell ultrascan monitor will be replaced by a 19" cheaper
Samsung SyncMaster 950B or by a 17". I expect the 17" monitor that
comes at the same price as the 19" one, to be of better quality. Which
way to go: a very cheap 19" or a 17" one, which for the same money
should be of better quality?
6. Any other suggestion regarding to the choice of CPU/Motherboard?
7. Is it of any advantage to use a motherboard with GigaByte LAN (I
have a cable internet connection of probably 300Kb/s maximum speed)?



Ok, I would go for the AMD based system, because it is cheaper and will
offer much more than what you require.
I will no doubt be flamed on here for this, but here goes.
You can get a cheap ECS K7S5A-L motherboard in the U.K it is around 30
UKpounds, and a Duron 1.3 would do you fine. I have built two conmputers
using this motherboard for people and it offers good value for money and
is expandable.
Ok, so it only got a 266 Front side bus, so you can not go higher than
the Athlon 2400, but do you really need to? The Duron is a speedy little
CPu for the price and if you want to go higher you can.
You can use Dimms or DDR memory, it got five PCI slots, so plenty of
space to put upgrades. 2 USB ports, and room for more.
There was a time when I would not touch the budget boards, like PC
chips, but ECS have done a good job with this board.

AMd do not have over heating problems, if you get a decent heatsink or
use the one supplied.

As for monitors, look at the dot pitch and also the refresh rate, a
128MB video card is not going to be used to it maximun by you. Get a
cheaper card, even something like the Geforce 3 if you can stil get
them.

I never knew you could get gigabit lans, btu I could be wrong, I thought
the highest they went to is 100MBs


As i said, have a look at the ECS board, good value for money.

Ben Pope wrote:



You've been able to get Gigabit LANs for ages.

I had a feeling they was around for comrparations, but not sure if they
are around for the home user or small business, I bet they are expensive.


And 100MBs is unclear. To me that says "One hundred megabyte seconds". It
is of course "One hundred megabits per second".

Of cause, it should not have the S, my mistake, I do know that it is
megabit and not megebyte.

Ben Pope wrote:



Where I get my stuff you can get a 3com 10/100 for 5 quid and a gigabit is
double that.

Cheapo ones are a tenner and 25 quid respectively.

So not that bad really.

Very nice, but then you need a hub to cope with that speed, unless you
are only linking two machines together. I think i will stay with what I
got, it is fast enough.

As you said, cheap enough