What processor for system build?

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:10:30 +1200, "~misfit~"
<> wrote:

>Dave C. wrote:
>
>> Please don't overclock your
>> processor. You won't notice a significant difference in performance,
>> and you will shorten the expected lifespan of your entire system. If
>> you need a faster system, buy it. -Dave
>
>LOL. I have an XP1800+ (Original clock 1.53Ghz) that I am running at 2.1Ghz
>(200 x 10.5). Do I notice a significant difference in performance? Hell
>yes!! It performs and benchmarks like an XP2800+. Will it shorten the
>expected lifespan of my 'entire system'? Not before it's *waaay* obsolete,
>if then. I've just 'de-commisioned' a Celeron 600 that has been running at
>900Mhz for over four years because I wanted the case/PSU for another
>machine. It ran flawlessly the whole time, as did all the peripherals.
>
>If you know what you're doing then there is nothing wrong with overclocking
>with very little, if any, risk involved.

I've been overclocking AMD chips since the K5 and have always gained
some amount of performance and have never had one fail. I don't buy big
expensive heatsink/fans or put lots of fans in the cases either. I use
the CPUs for 2-3 years then donate them, those people get another 2-3
years out of them and then throw them away because their just too slow.

Ed

Ed wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:10:30 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <> wrote:
>
>> Dave C. wrote:
>>
>>> Please don't overclock your
>>> processor. You won't notice a significant difference in performance,
>>> and you will shorten the expected lifespan of your entire system.
>>> If you need a faster system, buy it. -Dave
>>
>> LOL. I have an XP1800+ (Original clock 1.53Ghz) that I am running at
>> 2.1Ghz (200 x 10.5). Do I notice a significant difference in
>> performance? Hell yes!! It performs and benchmarks like an XP2800+.
>> Will it shorten the expected lifespan of my 'entire system'? Not
>> before it's *waaay* obsolete, if then. I've just 'de-commisioned' a
>> Celeron 600 that has been running at 900Mhz for over four years
>> because I wanted the case/PSU for another machine. It ran flawlessly
>> the whole time, as did all the peripherals.
>>
>> If you know what you're doing then there is nothing wrong with
>> overclocking with very little, if any, risk involved.
>
> I've been overclocking AMD chips since the K5 and have always gained
> some amount of performance and have never had one fail. I don't buy
> big expensive heatsink/fans or put lots of fans in the cases either.
> I use the CPUs for 2-3 years then donate them, those people get
> another 2-3 years out of them and then throw them away because their
> just too slow.

Same here Ed, I've never spent big money on a HSF either, just about always
use the standard one or have one sitting around that will do the job. I'm
yet to have an overclocked CPU fail. The only failures I've had are from
mobo caps bulging/leaking and I've had no more problems with that than my
non-OCing friends have had.
--
~misfit~

>AMD Athlon64 3000 Socket 754 ($175) + MSi K8T Neo FSR ($83) = 285 (Get
FS2R if you need FireWire (digial video)$30 more)Prices taken from
newegg.com Who said A64 board are expansive? Socket 939 maybe, because if
you buy one of them 939 boards/cpus rightnow, you're paying for AMDs R&D.
That is what I would choose from your list. But ofcourse if you have the
money for Socket939, go right ahead.





"MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
news:4107BBE3.1020407@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net...
> Hi,
>
> Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
> actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
> narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
>
> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
> AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
> Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
> Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
> Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
>
> I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
> be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
> memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
> overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
> will involve using video software.
>
> It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
> not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same
price:
>
> AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
> Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
>
> Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
> Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
> architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
>
> Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> MS