Computer Science Canada

New Computer
Author:  apomb [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  New Computer
I am planning on building my own computer in the next year and i am starting to round up prices on components for it. One area i was counting on eliminating cost was software. OS: Linux ... which one tho? I know theres a bunch of distros out there, so which one is best for Linux Noobs? plus, i am planning on using OpenOffice and Firefox for my primary apps , obviously both are free. Also the other programs i am intending on using i already have on Maximum PC CDs (awsome deal) like Spyblocker, adaware, Zonealarm, stuff like that.
Additionally, i was wondering which is a better deal : 80 Gb, 8Mb cache Maxtor drive $127.24 total or a Maxtor 60 Gb 2Mb cache $111.11 total all $ in Cdn.
Author:  Andy [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
errr obviously the 80... the 8mb cache will come in handy
Author:  Maverick [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Agreed
Author:  Andy [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
what processor are u getting?
Author:  wtd [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
The 80GB hard drive. As others have said, the 8MB cache will be good.

I personally like Ubuntu Linux for novice users. Gnome is a very friendly desktop, and it comes with Firefox and OpenOffice. The whole thing comes on a single CD, and you can use apt-get (either command-line or via Synaptic) to get extras like GCC, G++, etc.

I find this better than a distro with 3 or 4 CDs that tries to package everything on the CD. With at-get you don't spend time installing unnecessary stuff, and you get better, more up to date software.
Author:  apomb [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
First, i am looking at a Chaintech VNF3-250 nVidia Socket 754 ATX Motherboard / AGP 8X/4X / Audio / 10/100Mbps Ethernet LAN / USB 2.0 / Serial ATA / RAID from Tigerdirect.ca (or something i can find here in town that closely matches that.) Combined with an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ / 512KB Cache / 1600MHz FSB / Socket 754 Processor ... This bundle Makes the Board only $123.01!! Alone it is _way_ to expensive (136.99) hey, its a $14.00 savings!

^i am kinda nervous about this part especially^

oh, and what exactly does the 8mb cache do?
Author:  wtd [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Say you drag a 4MB file from a CD onto the icon for that 80MB drive with its 8MB cache. What happens next?

Well, the system first copies the file into that 8MB of memory that's embedded on the circuit board attache to your shiny new hard drive. The data is then written to the drive from that buffer. A larger buffer can speed up input and output involving the hard drive by allowing it to store recent data in memory that's much faster to access than the hard drive itself.
Author:  apomb [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
oh. i get it, its like a que for the data being written, but a que that is moving faster than the rest of the line?
Author:  wtd [ Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Basically, hard drives, in the grand scheme of things are slow. Very slow.

You don't want to wait for your file to finish writing to the hard drive before you can work again, so instead of copying to the hard drive directly, it first copies to the much faster cache. The system moves on, and the drive takes its sweet time writing that data to the disk.

The bigger the cache, the greater the speedup, because you can write more to the cache without having to wait for it to finish writing to the disk.

8MB seems to be fairly standard. Even in the day of multimedia, many of the files youdeal with on a daily basis are smaller than that.
Author:  Andy [ Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
i think u should wait a month or two for the new nVidea nForce 3 chipset... and get a 3400+ processor...
Author:  apomb [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:10 am ]
Post subject: 
uuum i forgot to mention ... NVIDIA nForce 3!!! i wasnt sure what u were talking about at first but i looked into it and i is definately 3!!! heres a screenshot ... and a 5200 is fine for my needs
Author:  Leftover [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:36 am ]
Post subject: 
I'd wait on the whole thing. If you want 64 bit, Linux is definatly the best way to go (And on that topic, Gentoo is the best flavour for noobs I think, because your forced to do 90% of the setup atleast your self, which helps you learn all the basic commands in linux {of course there are documents, forums and IRC channels to assist you in your journey}), but even thought I've been working with Linux for 6 years, I still find it VERY hard to live without windows. There are many differences in the way things work in linux, and you may find something as simple as using TV-Out, or disabling one port on your motherboard, VERY difficult to do under linux, where as in windows, its the click of a mouse. There are also programs out there to help emerging linux users, but most of them still don't work (and I don't know how they get away with charging money for them). For example, Cross-over Office. I purchased it. Tried to install turing, wasn't a supported app, didn't work, okay no biggy. Tried to install MSO XP just for kicks, it was a supported app, but it still didn't work. Later I only found out it was merely a GUI for installing programs in Wine (a free windows emulator for Linux) and all it did was make its own Wine dir and install stuff, when its as simple for the user to type "wine blah.exe" to do practically the same thing. Anyways, enough rambling about that.

Don't buy windows online or from a store like futureshop or anything. I work at a PC store in Waterloo, and we sell Windows XP Home for $129 + tax when you buy a major component of a computer (MS makes us do that, it's not our choice) like motherboard, hard drive, cpu, anything thats required for a pc to run windows. Compare that to futureshops price of over $400. Not worth it anymore is it? Oh, and to add, you don't get a box with our copy of XP, only a manual, product key sticker, and the cd it self, no box Sad sorry.

Anyhow, on 64 bit systems, wait untill end of year. PCI Express should be somewhat perfected by then, and there should be more support for 64 bit under windows beta 64 bit edition.

Thats my 74 cents.
Author:  Andy [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:34 am ]
Post subject: 
damn... no doubt about that, nForce3... wait does this mobo support dual slot agp?
Author:  apomb [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
I dont think it does support dual AGP Dodge... Why do you ask??

Any whay as i said, i am building it over a couple months, so i can afford to wait and buy products, as for waiting for PCI express,it is not something i care about, AGP is fine, especially since i got a board and GPU to match!

Linux is something i want because it is free, and also because i hate the glitches and dead ends Windows contains. I might end up buying XP OEM any way just for convenience of knowing ... imasuker . I am beginnig to buy my motherboard/CPU combo and am becomming quite fond of the components i have chosen. The AMD 3000+ 2.0 GHz is more than enough for my needs since all i know is a Pentium III 933 MHz! I dont care if it takes a whole 80 ms more than a Prescott P4 3.6 GHz or whatever.

Thank you all for your insights, i will consider all of them since, as i have said Many, Many timnes, i am taking a while to build it. However, i want to Start NOW!!! lol, ne wway thanks again and Leftover, i need to expand my horizons with Linux, i have to start somewhere...
Author:  Leftover [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
No problems, Just hope it helped your decision, because it took me a hella long time to type at like 2AM Very Happy.
Author:  SuperGenius [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm thinking about a new computer... one which would have an Athelon 2800+ chip, 64 bit. What exactly, are the advantages of 64 bit machines?
Author:  Andy [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
we had a bigger discussion on this a while back here's the link
http://compsci.ca/v2/viewtopic.php?t=5817&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

my advice is, stick to a64.. they provide superior 32 bit performance and are ready for the 64 bit change in computing
Author:  Neo [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey I was just wondering how do you convert athlon processor speeds like 3000+ into pentium procress speeds like 3.2ghz? I keep getting confused when you say athlon speeds.
Author:  wtd [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Neo wrote:
Hey I was just wondering how do you convert athlon processor speeds like 3000+ into pentium procress speeds like 3.2ghz? I keep getting confused when you say athlon speeds.


You don't. The AMD numbering system compares a processor's performance to that of a 1GHz "Thunderbird" Athlon.

A 3000+ is at least 3 times faster than a 1GHz Thunderbird.
Author:  Neo [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
wtd wrote:

You don't. The AMD numbering system compares a processor's performance to that of a 1GHz "Thunderbird" Athlon.

A 3000+ is at least 3 times faster than a 1GHz Thunderbird.


So is a 1GHz Thunderbird better or worst than a 1Ghz pentium? Sorry if this is such a newbie question.
Author:  wtd [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Neo wrote:
wtd wrote:

You don't. The AMD numbering system compares a processor's performance to that of a 1GHz "Thunderbird" Athlon.

A 3000+ is at least 3 times faster than a 1GHz Thunderbird.


So is a 1GHz Thunderbird better or worst than a 1Ghz pentium? Sorry if this is such a newbie question.


They're different processors. They'll run the same software (for the most part), but inside they're dramatically different. You can't really say one's "better" than the other.

I tend to believe AMD engineers their processors better than Intel, and gets more performance out of them at the same clockspeed.
Author:  apomb [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:55 am ]
Post subject: 
so is there a clear one that is better at lets say _overclocking_ for example?
Author:  Andy [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
an athlon 64 3000+'s performance is comparable to an intel 3.4 ghz... but its actual clock speed is at like 2 ghz.. this is because the p4 chip wastes alot of its clock cycles... thats y they bsed that crap about hyper threading... it doesnt really give u better performance.. it just makes the chip slitelyless crappier where as the hyper transport associated with the amd chips actually boosts performance cuz now u have an 1600 mhz bus... the new intel extreme edition boosted their fsb to 1066 which is fairly nice.. the 266 mhz increase should help but the 3.46 clock speed isnt really much of an advancement from their previous 3.4 ghz.
Author:  wtd [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
dodge_tomahawk wrote:
an athlon 64 3000+'s performance is comparable to an intel 3.4 ghz... but its actual clock speed is at like 2 ghz.. this is because the p4 chip wastes alot of its clock cycles... thats y they bsed that crap about hyper threading... it doesnt really give u better performance.. it just makes the chip slitelyless crappier where as the hyper transport associated with the amd chips actually boosts performance cuz now u have an 1600 mhz bus... the new intel extreme edition boosted their fsb to 1066 which is fairly nice.. the 266 mhz increase should help but the 3.46 clock speed isnt really much of an advancement from their previous 3.4 ghz.


In tests, the 1066MHz FSB doesn't help.

It's still not the top performer in that category either. Wink The 2.5GHz PowerPC 970s in Apple's top of the line G5 have two independent 1.25GHz FSBs.
Author:  Andy [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
aha, thats some funny stuff... yea i'd go wit a g5.. but its not too mainstream... bleh.. once again we proved that the ppl at intel are a bunch of money grabbing asses
Author:  apomb [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
wtd wrote:
It's still not the top performer in that category either. Wink The 2.5GHz PowerPC 970s in Apple's top of the line G5 have two independent 1.25GHz FSBs.


Shocked that.... is ... huge! Shocked
Author:  wtd [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Aside from being expensive (though not outrageously so compared fairly), what's not mainstream about the G5?

Games? Get a GameCube/PS2/XBox. Razz
Author:  Andy [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
haha yea thats true.. oh wells
Author:  SuperGenius [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
In that other thread I saw something about a 64 bit linux distro... that would be what I want if it is easy enough to install and use because I don't know anything about linux... can someone please give me a link to a website about this?
Author:  apomb [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:17 am ]
Post subject: 
quote ^
Author:  Martin [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:40 am ]
Post subject: 
I personally think that pushing the AMD 64's was a very stupid thing to do on AMD's part.

The AMD 64's are just a 64 bit extension of the x86 archetecture, and thus become the x86_64. The problem with x86 is that it's ancient, and beyond obsolete, due to this huge desire for everyone to have backwards compatability.

Intel, on the other hand, wanted to push their Itanium ia64's, which, alas, were not backwards compatable. AMD's move to continue drawing out the x86 is going to force about another 10 years of life out of this already obsolete archetecture.

Stopping progress in favour of competition. Bah.

I could go into detail as to why the x86_64 is inferior to the ia64, but nobody would have a clue what I am talking about. If you are interested, PM me.

And the only reason to get a mac is to install Linux. Duh.
Author:  Dan [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Also if u are using windows there is almost no reason to have 64bit yet. The only reason why i could see geting 64bit is if u have a 64bit linux distro or if u realy need to progame with a very very very long int :p
Author:  Martin [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
64 bit processors still have their advantages in a 32 bit environment, even though there is no 64 bit windows edition. Currently, on linux, one experiences approximately a 20% speed increase going from 32 bits to 64 bits. Also, WinXP 64 is supposed to be released by the end of the year.

This outlines some advantages to a 64 bit chip.
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/16018/2046/page/2

As for speed, currently the benchmarks show the AMD64 3000+ to be slightly faster than the P4 3.06GHz, and so on. A downside to the AMD64 is that it runs hotter than the corresponding Pentium chip.

Also, with the high end chips, AMD is killing Intel on the benchmarks. Currently, the four fastest chips on the market are, in decreasing order of speed, the AMD 64 FX-55, the AMD 64 4000+, the AMD 64 FX 53 and finally the P4 3.46Ghz Extreme Edition.

More benchmarking information can be found here: http://sharkyextreme.com/

If you want a really neat chip, go fo an Operton. Dual cores, each rated at the labelled speed. Take that hyperthreading.
Author:  Dan [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
martin wrote:

As for speed, currently the benchmarks show the AMD64 3000+ to be slightly faster than the P4 3.06GHz, and so on. A downside to the AMD64 is that it runs hotter than the corresponding Pentium chip.


Witch whould mean over clocking whould lead to bad things.........esatply in laptops.....
Author:  Martin [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Overclocking's pretty safe, it just turns off the computer if you get too hot.

If you want to seriously overclock, you need some extra cooling, regardless of if you have an Intel or AMD chip. The guy down the hall from me has a p4 3.2GHz overclocked to 4.4Ghz, and running at -34 degrees celcius.
Author:  Dan [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
well i could get my laptop to 4 ghz as well but it whould mean runing at the bordline temp in such a way that if there was a like a 0.5C chage in temp it whould mean the comp whould overheat.

Tho i do have a cooling pad for it now so it is not bad........
Author:  wtd [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
martin wrote:
If you want a really neat chip, go fo an Operton. Dual cores, each rated at the labelled speed. Take that hyperthreading.


Hyperthreading by itself is not a bad thing. It's quite a good thing, in the right circumstances. It's just that the rest of Intel's engineering sucks, so they're using HT to try to mask the warts in their design.

IBM is implementing a similar system in their POWER5 chip and it's leading to some impressive numbers.
Author:  Andy [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
wtd wrote:
martin wrote:
If you want a really neat chip, go fo an Operton. Dual cores, each rated at the labelled speed. Take that hyperthreading.


Hyperthreading by itself is not a bad thing. It's quite a good thing, in the right circumstances. It's just that the rest of Intel's engineering sucks, so they're using HT to try to mask the warts in their design.

IBM is implementing a similar system in their POWER5 chip and it's leading to some impressive numbers.


exactly.. opteron is very nice btw.. it has ram error checking so less clock cycles are wasted... and martin, windows xp 64 bit edition is out already, u can dl it at microsoft.com
Author:  Dan [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
dodge_tomahawk wrote:
and martin, windows xp 64 bit edition is out already, u can dl it at microsoft.com


That is still a beat verson, and with good reason too. Almost all of the drivers are messed to hell, lol.
Author:  Martin [ Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah. You get about a 5% CPU speed increase, but there are no video drivers, so you get shafted there.

The final version will have a 15% - 20% speed boost, and drivers that take advantage of the 64 bits.
Author:  Andy [ Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
hmm... btw opteron can run xp wit no problem rite? cuz i wanna get a gaming system wit that chip or should i just get a fx 55 when its out wit a nforce 4 mobo
Author:  wtd [ Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
dodge_tomahawk wrote:
hmm... btw opteron can run xp wit no problem rite? cuz i wanna get a gaming system wit that chip or should i just get a fx 55 when its out wit a nforce 4 mobo


Yes, you just won't be able to use ludicrous amounts of RAM. Wink

And I would go with the Athlon64. An Opteron would probably be overkill.
Author:  Andy [ Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
heh.. yea the fx 55 chip does seem very nice
Author:  wtd [ Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Even the A64 is probably overkill. If you want to play games, buy a console. Wink
Author:  the_binary_soul [ Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey, sorry but I've come into the discussion to late to have much imput, but if you live in the toronto area you might check out Tiger Direct (www.tigerdirect.ca) you can find some good stuff there....and some crap but hey
Author:  Leftover [ Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Any distro of linux with 2.4 kernel or later will run fine on 64 bit, just enable support in the kernel for it or make sure your installer if your using dead rat or something lame like that knows its 64 bit.

:


You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy