Althlon processors....

are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together for me and I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a fraction of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good for gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, soundblaster, and the 1.6 for $575.00 GPL, N4 and such... your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

On 29 Jun 2002 19:56:19 GMT, [email hidden] (Race1530) wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together for me and >I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a fraction >of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good for >gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > >Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, soundblaster, and >the 1.6 for $575.00 > >GPL, N4 and such... > >your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

Dude, I think you got the nomenclature crossed up. The AMD Athlon XP's are named "1500+" to "2200+". It's supposed to state the "real" performance of it. Marketingbabble, but however, quite true. At least when it comes to gaming, but that's what we're here for ain't it? ;-) The Athlons are aces and even though the P4's are closing in the best bang for the buck, easy. The VIA based motherboards that you'll probably use, not so much... but it's manageable nowadays.

I'm not so sure about the US$ rate but that sounds a lot to me, if your looking for a driving sim spec PC, I think you should be looking a bit faster and probably a bit cheaper. There are two types of Celerons, P2 architecture and P3 architecture. The P2 ones were very slow teh P3 ones were OK. However you'll get a much better solution with an AMD Athlon XP or an Intel P4. The Geforce 3 was a good card but there are some cheap detuned ones out there, a better bet would be a Geforce 4. Having said that there are some GF4's that are slower than GF 3's - confused? I'm not surprised. I would check out some prices in local PC mags for PC bits to see if you are getting a good deal. Andi. "Race1530" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together forme and > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at afraction > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good for > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, soundblaster,and > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > GPL, N4 and such... > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with the motherboard chipset problems that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes, beyond that, IMO, they're still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together for me and > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a fraction > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good for > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, soundblaster, and > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > GPL, N4 and such... > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

Athlons are THE WAY TO GO cheaper much more bang for the buck and imo stable and reliable. "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with themotherboard chipset problems > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes,beyond that, IMO, they're

Quoted text (10 lines)

> still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]... > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together forme and > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at afraction > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very goodfor > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram,soundblaster, and

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > >

You can get more for your Money going with AMD, and I assure you they are just fine for Gaming. There are pro's and con's to both processors. It depends on what you are after, overall. -Larry "Race1530" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together forme and > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at afraction > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good for > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, soundblaster,and > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > GPL, N4 and such... > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

I've read reports that the new 1.7Ghz Celeron is a complete and total dog. I would avoid it at all costs. -Larry "Andi Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afl89t$lal$[email hidden]... > I'm not so sure about the US$ rate but that sounds a lot to me, if your > looking for a driving sim spec PC, I think you should be looking a bit > faster and probably a bit cheaper. > > There are two types of Celerons, P2 architecture and P3 architecture. TheP2 > ones were very slow teh P3 ones were OK. However you'll get a much better > solution with an AMD Athlon XP or an Intel P4. The Geforce 3 was a goodcard > but there are some cheap detuned ones out there, a better bet would be a > Geforce 4. Having said that there are some GF4's that are slower than GF > 3's - confused? I'm not surprised. > > I would check out some prices in local PC mags for PC bits to see if youare

Quoted text (12 lines)

> getting a good deal. > > Andi. > > > "Race1530" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together for > me and > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a > fraction > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good

for > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram,soundblaster,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> and > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > >

It's much better than it was 2 years ago. I don't think the Chipset is an issue any more, personally. -Larry "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with themotherboard chipset problems > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes,beyond that, IMO, they're

Quoted text (10 lines)

> still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]... > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together forme and > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at afraction > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very goodfor > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram,soundblaster, and

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > >

Yeah, reliability is pretty much a non-issue these days. The chipset makers for the Slot A boards have steadied and are on par with Pentium based motherboards. "Jack Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d1e2ffb$[email hidden]... > Athlons are THE WAY TO GO cheaper much more bang for the buck and imostable

Quoted text (13 lines)

> and reliable. > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with the > motherboard chipset problems > > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes, > beyond that, IMO, they're > > still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > > -- > > Biz > > > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular

structures,....and > > the....." - Ash > > > > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put togetherfor

Quoted text (18 lines)

> me and > > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a > fraction > > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good > for > > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, > soundblaster, and > > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > > > > > >

Race1530 wrote: > > are they any good? Yes, cheaper and faster. Gerry

WIth VIA chipset drivers updates every few weeks for bug fixes, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that. I don't see too many AMD based systems used as true network servers yet either, so I'm probably not alone in my thinking. If reliability and stability were equal, you'd see a huge migration away from Intel based servers due to the lower price point. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Larry (The Other Larry) <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2lqT8.90282$[email hidden]... > It's much better than it was 2 years ago. I don't think the Chipset is an > issue any more, personally. > > -Larry > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with the > motherboard chipset problems > > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes, > beyond that, IMO, they're > > still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > > -- > > Biz > > > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > > the....." - Ash > > > > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together for > me and > > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a > fraction > > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good > for > > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, > soundblaster, and > > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > > > > > >

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:06:35 -0500, "Jack Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Athlons are THE WAY TO GO cheaper much more bang for the buck and imo stable >and reliable. Most definetly. I have alwasy run Intel but recently upgraded to an AMD 2100 and it rocks!!! Don't get fooled by the Mghz. The Athlons perform more instructions per clock cycle then the Pentium 4's. The 1.73 Mghz Athlon will perform about the same as a P4 2.1 Mghz (hence the name - XP 2100) The high end P4's will slightly edge out the high end AMD's but you will pay about $500 more... for me the Athlon was an easy choice. Brian Oster

I'll be quite honest, I was expecting to have issues when I went back to VIA like I did when I was trying to get Win98SE to deal with my KT133 motherboard...it took WinXP to stabilize that computer finally... But when I upgraded from an SIS735 board (ECS K7S5A) to my KT333 board (Gigabyte GA-7VRXP), I just installed the newest 4-in-1's on a fresh install of XP and I haven't had a single problem. Newer VIA chipsets and drivers are a vast improvement from where they were two years ago... I think one thing that still makes sysadmins a bit wary of AMD is that they've just barely started to require motherboard manufacturers to use the internal thermal diode on the CPU. Without that, a heat emergency almost always ends in death of the CPU on an AMD setup, even if you're right there when it happens. On a P4, it doesn't even crash. That's a major difference in possible downtime for systems that aren't going to have people right there when they go down... Performance and stability (as far as crashes, not heat), though, are quite equal with P4s and AMD XP's. The only time the P4 outdoes the XP is when the P4 has an extreme clock speed advantage - say, the 2.4 and 2.53GHz P4's versus the XP2100+ and 2200+, running at 1.73 and 1.80GHz respectively. Price/performance wise, especially for a home user, AMD is the way to go, in my opinion. And they've been striving to be server friendly as of late - look at platform stability. Even the oldest SocketA boards can run a 1.4GHz Thunderbird or a 1.3GHz Duron. Move forward just a little bit to the earliest SocketA boards that could support a 133MHz FSB and you can generally run any SocketA CPU on it. Intel, on the other hand, has changed platforms at least twice since AMD went with SocketA - from Socket370 to 423, and from 423 to 478. Not to mention the SDRAM/DDR RAM/RDRAM mess... Milhouse "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3XqT8.67989$[email hidden]... > WIth VIA chipset drivers updates every few weeks for bug fixes, I'm afraidI have to disagree with > you on that. I don't see too many AMD based systems used as true networkservers yet either, so I'm > probably not alone in my thinking. If reliability and stability wereequal, you'd see a huge

Quoted text (12 lines)

> migration away from Intel based servers due to the lower price point. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Larry (The Other Larry) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2lqT8.90282$[email hidden]... > > It's much better than it was 2 years ago. I don't think the Chipset is

an

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > issue any more, personally. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > > > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with the > > motherboard chipset problems > > > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes, > > beyond that, IMO, they're > > > still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > > > -- > > > Biz > > > > > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > > > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular

structures,....and > > > the....." - Ash > > > > > > > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put togetherfor > > me and > > > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's ata > > fraction > > > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent verygood

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > for > > > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, > > soundblaster, and > > > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >

I am one that migrated away from Intel last December, and am happily running an Athlon system on a via based motherboard, has been extremely stable and I have been running at at 145mhz fsb ( 290 ddr). I am very pleased, and will probably stick with AMD now for a while. Don Burnette "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3XqT8.67989$[email hidden]... > WIth VIA chipset drivers updates every few weeks for bug fixes, I'm afraidI have to disagree with > you on that. I don't see too many AMD based systems used as true networkservers yet either, so I'm > probably not alone in my thinking. If reliability and stability wereequal, you'd see a huge

Quoted text (12 lines)

> migration away from Intel based servers due to the lower price point. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Larry (The Other Larry) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2lqT8.90282$[email hidden]... > > It's much better than it was 2 years ago. I don't think the Chipset is

an

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > issue any more, personally. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > > > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with the > > motherboard chipset problems > > > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes, > > beyond that, IMO, they're > > > still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > > > -- > > > Biz > > > > > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > > > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular

structures,....and > > > the....." - Ash > > > > > > > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put togetherfor > > me and > > > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's ata > > fraction > > > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent verygood

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > for > > > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, > > soundblaster, and > > > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >

I had a 1Gig AMD Athlon clocked to 1.4Gig and was happy enough, but had heat/noise concerns when overclocking. I priced around and found that the P4 1.6a with a good board was almost the same price (in NZ at least). It was a no brainer for me, don't get me wrong I love AMD, but for the money I couldn't say no to a 2.5Gig processor that absolutely kicks ass, and this is with the standard Intel cooler... :) they run damn cool. If you want to run a Athlon XP at 1800+ Real Mhz then you need serious cooling (NOISE). You take your pick....in my opinion without a doubt the P4 is the real value processor at the moment....although 1.6a's are running out a 1.8a may be the next best option. Good luck Peregrine -- System: Asus P4S533 P4 1.6a @ 2.560Ghz Kingmax DDR333 256Mb @ 200Mhz Gainward 128Mb Ti4200 Golden Sample 340/580Mhz SBLive! 2 x 20GB Seagate Barracudda III's Creative DVXR2 Aopen 24x CD Writer Windows XP build 2600 3DMark2001 Default Score 12597 > "Race1530" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together for > me and > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a > fraction > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good for > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, soundblaster, > and > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:14:24 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You can get more for your Money going with AMD, and I assure you they are >just fine for Gaming. The P4 1.6A Northwood is probably a better buy right now. Considering it can be overclocked to 2.5G easily. The only thing that can match a P4 2.5G is probably an Athlon XP 2200. But it costs like twice that of the P4 1.6A. If you factor in overclocking, Intel is ahead at the moment. >There are pro's and con's to both processors. It depends on what you are >after, overall. > >-Larry I agree, I still have my 1.2G Athlon and it was a good buy at the time. But if one of my friends wants to get a new computer at the moment I'd tell him to get an Intel. Better buy with the P4 1.6A. -- karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

The bug fixes are not for everyone, and everyone doesn't have to update every time. Also, some of the updates are to support new chipsets and processors. A year ago, I was at the head of the pack of the complainers concerning VIA chipsets. It was really ugly back then. In fact, the ONLY thing that kept me using AMD processors was the ABIT KG7 Mainboard (which I still use) that has the AMD 781 NorthBridge. If it wasn't for this chipset being available, I would have bailed away from AMD because of VIA in a heartbeat, regardless of the cost. But, it's just not as bad these days. Is VIA as stable as Intel ? No, not quite. But it's by all means something anyone can live with these days. Don't forget, there are other chipsets available as well. SIS has been making a name for themselves lately, starting with the SIS 735 which turned out to be somewhat of a sweetheart chipset. Very fast and very stable. I don't know much about their newer DDR333 Chipset, though. And, finally, let us not forget that Intel has also released several chipset driver updates in the last year. In short, with Athlon's you can save a TON of money for just a little more effort. My only gripe against Intel is the cost. -Larry "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3XqT8.67989$[email hidden]... > WIth VIA chipset drivers updates every few weeks for bug fixes, I'm afraidI have to disagree with > you on that. I don't see too many AMD based systems used as true networkservers yet either, so I'm > probably not alone in my thinking. If reliability and stability wereequal, you'd see a huge

Quoted text (12 lines)

> migration away from Intel based servers due to the lower price point. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Larry (The Other Larry) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2lqT8.90282$[email hidden]... > > It's much better than it was 2 years ago. I don't think the Chipset is

an

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > issue any more, personally. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > > > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with the > > motherboard chipset problems > > > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes, > > beyond that, IMO, they're > > > still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > > > -- > > > Biz > > > > > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > > > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular

structures,....and > > > the....." - Ash > > > > > > > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put togetherfor > > me and > > > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's ata > > fraction > > > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent verygood

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > for > > > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, > > soundblaster, and > > > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >

Oh, and one other thing :) Though it's not a corporate setting, I have a File Server with 270GB of storage in it at home running on an ASUS A7V133 motherboard, which has the KT133a Chipset in it. I've had no real issues with it, and it has been up 24/7 for over a year. -Larry "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3XqT8.67989$[email hidden]... > WIth VIA chipset drivers updates every few weeks for bug fixes, I'm afraidI have to disagree with > you on that. I don't see too many AMD based systems used as true networkservers yet either, so I'm > probably not alone in my thinking. If reliability and stability wereequal, you'd see a huge

Quoted text (12 lines)

> migration away from Intel based servers due to the lower price point. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Larry (The Other Larry) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2lqT8.90282$[email hidden]... > > It's much better than it was 2 years ago. I don't think the Chipset is

an

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > issue any more, personally. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:JHpT8.59784$[email hidden]... > > > Athlons are cheaper and faster, if you are willing to live with the > > motherboard chipset problems > > > that tend to plague them, its the way to go. Bang for the buck, yes, > > beyond that, IMO, they're > > > still behind in reliability/stability to the more expensive P4.. > > > -- > > > Biz > > > > > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > > > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular

structures,....and > > > the....." - Ash > > > > > > > > > Race1530 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put togetherfor > > me and > > > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's ata > > fraction > > > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent verygood

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > for > > > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, > > soundblaster, and > > > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >

I run an AthlonXP 1800+ (1.53 Ghz) with the standard AMD cooler (using the standard heat transfer pad, no fancy smancy greases) and it runs at a nice, cool 41c. The case only has the standard front intake and rear exhaust fans, and is very quiet. I think case design and layout has a lot to do with it. This particular machine is in a Lian-Li PC50 case (one of their better buys) and is easy to live with. -Larry "Peregrine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I had a 1Gig AMD Athlon clocked to 1.4Gig and was happy enough, but had > heat/noise concerns when overclocking. I priced around and found that the > P4 1.6a with a good board was almost the same price (in NZ at least). It > was a no brainer for me, don't get me wrong I love AMD, but for the moneyI > couldn't say no to a 2.5Gig processor that absolutely kicks ass, and thisis > with the standard Intel cooler... :) they run damn cool. > If you want to run a Athlon XP at 1800+ Real Mhz then you need serious > cooling (NOISE). You take your pick....in my opinion without a doubt theP4 > is the real value processor at the moment....although 1.6a's are runningout

Quoted text (23 lines)

> a 1.8a may be the next best option. > > Good luck > > Peregrine > > -- > System: > Asus P4S533 > P4 1.6a @ 2.560Ghz > Kingmax DDR333 256Mb @ 200Mhz > Gainward 128Mb Ti4200 Golden Sample 340/580Mhz > SBLive! > 2 x 20GB Seagate Barracudda III's > Creative DVXR2 > Aopen 24x CD Writer > Windows XP build 2600 > 3DMark2001 Default Score 12597 > > > > "Race1530" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > are they any good? Am looking at having a new computer put together

for

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > me and > > > I am being told that the p-3 1.6 is just as fast as most p4 1.4's at a > > fraction > > > of the price. The guy said that five years ago they werent very good > for > > > gaming, but are now the processor to have. Is this right? > > > > > > Hes taking my old case, putting in a gforce3, 256 megs ram, > soundblaster, > > and > > > the 1.6 for $575.00 > > > > > > GPL, N4 and such... > > > > > > your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks > > >

Question here... Do ALL of the new Northwood P4's have the 512kb Cache on them, or is it only the high-end Northwoods ? -larry <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:14:24 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >You can get more for your Money going with AMD, and I assure you they are > >just fine for Gaming. > > The P4 1.6A Northwood is probably a better buy right now. Considering > it can be overclocked to 2.5G easily. The only thing that can match a > P4 2.5G is probably an Athlon XP 2200. But it costs like twice that > of the P4 1.6A. If you factor in overclocking, Intel is ahead at the > moment. > > > >There are pro's and con's to both processors. It depends on what you are > >after, overall. > > > >-Larry > > I agree, I still have my 1.2G Athlon and it was a good buy at the > time. But if one of my friends wants to get a new computer at the > moment I'd tell him to get an Intel. Better buy with the P4 1.6A. > > -- > karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

Thanks one and all! He bought the xp1800 and got it up and running today - Sunday. It flat out rocks! I am going to have to buy one just to stay with him. N2 has never looked so fine! Thanks again for all your opinions. Mike

"Race1530 > I am going to have to buy one just to stay with him. N2 has never lookedso > fine! > > Thanks again for all your opinions. > Mike N2? with an 1800xp+ (and a new video card)you should see what N2002 looks like... dave henrie

"Race1530 N2? with an 1800xp+ (and a new video card)you should see what N2002 looks like... dave henrie

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Race1530 > >>I am going to have to buy one just to stay with him. N2 has never looked > > so > >>fine! >> >>Thanks again for all your opinions. >>Mike > > N2? with an 1800xp+ (and a new video card)you should see what N2002 looks > like...

Hmmm... wonder what N1 in lo-res mode looks like now. :-) -- Fester

LOL!....My obvious mistake. N2002. Mike

Uncle Fester wrote: > > Hmmm... wonder what N1 in lo-res mode looks like now. :-) Like shit, saw it the other day when I installed it on a friends PC, it's a very old PC, and I was going.....did we used to drive that ? Well, I actually didn't as my Nascar experience started with N2, but you get the point :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Uncle Fester wrote: > >>Hmmm... wonder what N1 in lo-res mode looks like now. :-) > > > Like shit, saw it the other day when I installed it on a friends PC, > it's a very old PC, and I was going.....did we used to drive that ? > > Well, I actually didn't as my Nascar experience started with N2, but you > get the point :-)

ICR2 in lo-res wasn't any better. I remember trying to race around Cleveland like that, before I discovered the -h switch. It'd make your eyes bleed. <g> Taught me to read the manual first. Just thought it had crap graphics. :-) -- Fester

Uncle Fester wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > Uncle Fester wrote: > > > >>Hmmm... wonder what N1 in lo-res mode looks like now. :-) > > > > > > Like shit, saw it the other day when I installed it on a friends PC, > > it's a very old PC, and I was going.....did we used to drive that ? > > > > Well, I actually didn't as my Nascar experience started with N2, but you > > get the point :-) > > ICR2 in lo-res wasn't any better. I remember trying to race around > Cleveland like that, before I discovered the -h switch. It'd make your > eyes bleed. <g> Taught me to read the manual first. Just thought it > had crap graphics. :-)

RTFM.....I did the same thing actually, and a friend of mine asked me why I didn't run ICR2 in hi-res when he came over one day, felt kinda stupid :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Well, I actually didn't as my Nascar experience started with N2, but you >> get the point :-) > > >ICR2 in lo-res wasn't any better. I remember trying to race around >Cleveland like that, before I discovered the -h switch. It'd make your >eyes bleed. <g> Taught me to read the manual first. Just thought it >had crap graphics. :-)

I ran ICR2 in lo-res for a long time simply because my system at the time couldn't handle higher graphics. When I went back to it last year for an offline league, the graphics were quite nice in hi-res...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Stolen vehicle! - Det,MI 1999 Blk Pontiac Grand Am SE, Lic# 947SLS, VIN:1G2NE12EXXM815898 carjacked from Grnfld/W. Chicago 6/30/02.Contact Officer Penn at 313-596-2850.Thanks Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.