Pricewatch help...

[dwchang]

Hey hey, the stages still do stuff >_> <_<. The problem is getting enough instructions in to use them :\ Sorta >_> <_< something like that.

I *believe* some pipeline stages in the P4 architecture literally just move instructions to the next pipeline stage. I don't think you need a degree in Computer Architecture to realize this is a waste. All it does is let you increase you clock speed per pipeline stage (assuming you reduce flops on previous stages).

A P4 w/ 1066RDRAM & Hyperthreading is a pretty sweet deal. Cost effective - not really.

Also Intel does have SpeedStep technology in their processors, that in the VERY RARE case your cpu fan/heatsink die, the cpu slows itself down enough so it won't burn up. AMD still has the price performance crown tho :\

Oh trust me, I know Hyperthreading is pretty good. It's in its infancy, but I think it can be done well. Hell there are tons of research papers I've read on it so (shrug).

As for heat, you can always just download the hardware monitor for your respective motherboard. If you're MB company is worth anything, they'll provide a monitor where you can set things like an audible beep if there is overheating or even have it shutdown. I know my Tyan board does this and I'm sure MSI, VIA and nVidia have something as well.

I don't wanna quote that whole thing Klinky, but your suggestions are definitely good as well. I guess when it comes down to it, there are TONS of way you can build a computer under $800.00. People are usually surprised by this since Dell and Gateway computers are a lot more (for crap IMO).

A couple of things I'd like to note though are the processor and motherboard. The 1800+ is definitely sufficient for whatever editing needs Anneke has and you're definitely right on performance (esp. for something like 1.5 Ghz vs. P4 2.0 Ghz). As for the motherboard, I am somewhat ashamed I forgot about the nForce2 boards. They are excellent! Thanks for the reminder.

I would prefer to have the main pieces assembled. I know I can plug in a few drives, and the video card, but it's the whole mother board to case to fan thing and plugging in memory or what ever that freaks me.

Oh definitely! Putting in heatsinks is not an easy task. You can crack your die fairly easily if you slip. That is unless you are the master of putting equal pressure on all sides. I know I'm not. Definitely get some four pads to put on the processor corners. This helps A LOT. If you live in the CA or TX area, you can always go to a Fry's and have them do this. To most of us this is fairly trivial, but I know it can be intidimating.

[dwchang]

Note: More technical (and off-topic) post ahead. You have been warned. Can't blame me when you fall asleep .

To go along with my previous point about performance =/ frequency. Intel has recently published benchmarks which more or less proves the rumor (or so I thought) I mentioned earlier.

The Inquirer

(Go to the links they provide and go to "notebook" under "Performance Comparison")

Essentially, the new notebooks, the Centrino, operates at 1.6 Ghz instead of the P4's 2.4 Ghz. However, it operates much more efficiently than it's (bastard) sibling. If you are into architecture, you know that that's because they took their P3 Architecture (good arch.) and made tweaks. That's all the Centrino is...a P3. As I said earlier, the P3 is a respected and fairly efficient architecture with less pipeline stages. Since the Centrino has pretty low voltage standards (which the P4 could not attain), they went back to the P3 Architecture and modified it.

As I said earlier, Intel realized they couldn't push the frequency up way back when and thus the P4. Many analysists believe this was a step backwards. If they continued along the P3 route, they'd be similar to us in frequency (although a more efficient core). It looks like they realized this with their mobile products and went with the P3 since they needed the voltage standards and performance.

Regardless, I find it hilarious that they are finally admitting that Mhz =/ Performance after dogging us for so many years. I can't wait to see them use model numbers like we do.

For the fairly technical, I know some may retort with Moore's Law about doubling frequency every 1.5 years. Well first off, Moore's Law does not state anything about frequency increasing. It talks about transistor technology (namely size). Therefore, in the (near) future, I see (and hope) the frequency standard being abandoned andm true performance coming to light for the consumer (that is performance = instructions per cycle * frequency). IIRC AMD has more instructions per cycle and Intel higher frequency.

[jbone]

O...k....jbone, if you knew your computer history you would know that AMD have been making chips as far back as the 486!! Ever heard of the AMD K6-2? My dad had one, it out-performed his equivalent Intel chip in just about everything.

I was talking about 1GHz+ CPUs, I wasn't talking about the CPU wars. Do not belittle my computer knowledge simply because you don't understand what I'm talking about.

And, cycle for cycle, a K6-2 was most definitely *not* faster than an equivalent P-II - I know because I used a K6-2/33 for a long time, and it was always outperformed by a comparable P-II in all my graphic and multimedia applications.


DWChang: I couldn't care less about architectures, about pipelining, about cache, about long-term expandability - a computer is simply a tool.

I read up on the architectures. I know what is inside each CPU. I know why one is faster than the other, and I know how I can get the best bang for the buck. There is nothing anyone here can tell me that I don't already know, or that I don't know how to find out.

I care about what I can do with the computer once it's built.

Neither an Athlon nor a P4 is any better at performing any of the tasks I'd want to do.

One may be a few percent faster. Hells, one may be significantly faster. But, in real-world applications, neither does anything that the other doesn't. And that is what I care about.

[dwchang]

I read up on the architectures. I know what is inside each CPU. I know why one is faster than the other, and I know how I can get the best bang for the buck. There is nothing anyone here can tell me that I don't already know, or that I don't know how to find out.

I care about what I can do with the computer once it's built.

Neither an Athlon nor a P4 is any better at performing any of the tasks I'd want to do.

One may be a few percent faster. Hells, one may be significantly faster. But, in real-world applications, neither does anything that the other doesn't. And that is what I care about.

Oh don't get me wrong, I meant in no way to "talk down" if you felt insulted or something. If so, sorry.

In any case, you do have your points in terms of useability to the...users. Both run the same programs within some Delta of each other. Although both can do the same thing, like you said, some can do it faster ("a few percent faster"). I mean, in theory, a Pentium I 90 Mhz can do editing in Premiere, but would you want to do it that slowly? Along your lines of logic, since a P4 and a P1 can run the same application, they are to a degree equivalent (of course I am just extrapolating your statements to exaggerations and I realize that). Obviously they aren't (and like I said about my exaggerations, I realize that you know this too).

Although both will get you from point A to B (a finished video), one obviously does it significantly faster. Now along the lines of your statement ("neither does anything that the other doesn't."), this is true, but again performance.

Along the same lines, I built a Dual machine because it would be significantly faster for all applications (when multi-taking). I could have easily have gone single CPU and easily have been able to edit, but I (like many others) would like to do things as fast and efficiently as possible.

Again, I realize you may not have meant it to the degree at which I'm exaggerating it, but along an argument standpoint the rebuttal was in order. I realize that a P1 vs. P4 comparison is quite out there, but again, the statement was in order since the statement is faulty.

[SS5_Majin_Bebi]

O...k....jbone, if you knew your computer history you would know that AMD have been making chips as far back as the 486!! Ever heard of the AMD K6-2? My dad had one, it out-performed his equivalent Intel chip in just about everything.

I was talking about 1GHz+ CPUs, I wasn't talking about the CPU wars. Do not belittle my computer knowledge simply because you don't understand what I'm talking about.

And, cycle for cycle, a K6-2 was most definitely *not* faster than an equivalent P-II - I know because I used a K6-2/33 for a long time, and it was always outperformed by a comparable P-II in all my graphic and multimedia applications.


DWChang: I couldn't care less about architectures, about pipelining, about cache, about long-term expandability - a computer is simply a tool.

I read up on the architectures. I know what is inside each CPU. I know why one is faster than the other, and I know how I can get the best bang for the buck. There is nothing anyone here can tell me that I don't already know, or that I don't know how to find out.

I care about what I can do with the computer once it's built.

Neither an Athlon nor a P4 is any better at performing any of the tasks I'd want to do.

One may be a few percent faster. Hells, one may be significantly faster. But, in real-world applications, neither does anything that the other doesn't. And that is what I care about.

So you'd use a shitbox computer, because you dont really care about it, cause its only a tool? You're a tool if you think like that. And that AMD K6-2 i was talking about OUT-PERFORMED my fathers P2. Speed isn't everything you know. Why would you get a chip thats more prone to overheating and crashing, just because its faster? AMD is also more efficient, so your system will be that much more stable.

But if you want to ask advice and then talk shit to the people who are giving it, fuck off and get whatever the hell you want, because in the long run, it doesnt matter to us here does it.

[kthulhu]

The K6-2 was an "OK" value chip, but one could consider it to be nothing more than a really souped up Pentium-level chip (no offense to dwchang's employer). Hey, it's called the K6-2, meaning it's a second version of the K6 (AMD's Pentium MMX comparable chip), in a sense.

Still, not bad for the money compared to other chips in its league (especially the Cyrix ones). A P-II or Athlon of the time would've still pretty much blown it away.

[dwchang]

The K6-2 was an "OK" value chip, but one could consider it to be nothing more than a really souped up Pentium-level chip (no offense to dwchang's employer). Hey, it's called the K6-2, meaning it's a second version of the K6 (AMD's Pentium MMX comparable chip), in a sense.

Still, not bad for the money compared to other chips in its league (especially the Cyrix ones). A P-II or Athlon of the time would've still pretty much blown it away.

You don't see me defending the K6 do you? Heh . I've also only been with the company....8 months , so I'll mostly be a fanboy about recent things (although I'm trying to make my arguments from a purely scientific/design standpoint).

[kthulhu]

Back in the day, I would've killed for a K6. Or even a damn K5.

All me and klinky had was a sad 486DX2-66 .

Now we're an all AMD house.

[dwchang]

Now we're an all AMD house.

Trust me, I appreciate it. This engineer still has a job because of some of you

[kthulhu]

Can I get my endorsement check now?