|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
eli SirTweaksabit
Joined: 08 Feb 2003 Posts: 256
|
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:00 pm Post subject: [Memory latency] HMMM |
|
|
Before I order my computer, I was wanting to know what the best intel based motherboard on the market is. I've look all around, and all I come up with is many good motherboards, but no best. I was also wondering if ddr ram performs well on intel besed motherboards, or if the RDRAM performs better. I also hear that 32-bit RDRAM is slower then the 16-bit RDRAM, is that true?
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google Sponsor
|
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:00 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jadison Guest
|
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suggest you just stick to your original plan and go for an nForce2 based mobo ...
As far as what's the "best" intel based mobo? ... there's no such thing. Being the "best" only means what's "best" for you ... the person who's using it. It all comes down to what features do you need, want, and/or will want in the future ... and how much money you have right now to spend on this mobo. There are other factors that come into effect here, but those are the 2 most important. Intel generally costs more ... AMD doesn't.
As for RDRAM ... well, from sources I have and from what I've read recently Intel based mobo's will be phasing out support for RDRAM and will be taking on DDR based memory full steam.
Just stick w/an AMD solution - nForce2 is your best bet.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eli SirTweaksabit
Joined: 08 Feb 2003 Posts: 256
|
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll do that. Do you recommend barton core, or the thoroughbred B core?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jadison Guest
|
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do you recommend barton core, or the thoroughbred B core?? | I thought we we're discussing that earlier, I mentioned that the AthlonXP 2400+ was a prime OC'er...then you said in your thread here: http://www.tweaknews.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1254&highlight=#1254 So I was looking towards getting the AMD Athlon XP 2600+ with 333fsb, which I hear is much faster then 266 on the 2400. So if you want to go for the faster processor then go for it, it'll fit along well with PC3200 (333MHz) DDR RAM.
I really don't have an idea on how much you're willing to spend here...can you give us a specific price range?
You originally wanted to OC your system, so I recommended a good OC'er: AMD XP 2400+ which is also cheaper too, yet still @ 266MHz. So if you want to spend the extra $105+ dollars on an AMD XP 2600+ 333MHz then go for it.
Do you still want to OC your system as originally planned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eli SirTweaksabit
Joined: 08 Feb 2003 Posts: 256
|
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well you first of all you said that the XP 2400+ was good for overclocking. I Personally wanted the 2600+ do to the 333fsb. You never told me what your impressions were on that, so I was kind of confused. All I really wanted was to get a AMD processor with 333fsb, and the barton 2500+ looks to be good. The reason I'm asking your opinion is to signify a few of the processors that I read about, that were affordable, had 333fsb, and had good performance. The 2500+ looks to be good to me. What are your impressions??
Yes I do want to overclock my system, so im going to purchase the Thermalrigh SK-7, although the Thermalright SLK-800 had better performance. I was thinking about getting a vantec tornado 80mm fan for my case and CPU, but then I would have to get a rheobus, and it would be a big mess. So I think I'll just get a panaflo 80mm fan to go with that.
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jadison Guest
|
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
BTW - The Barton core consists of the following CPUs: AthlonXP 2500+, 2800+, and 3000+ with the following prices in US Dollars: $181, $381, and $598 respectively ... so if you go with a Barton ur best bet is the 2500+ since it's the cheapest and can still OC pretty well. (personal experience isn't speaking here ... I haven't had the pleasure of OC'ing an AthlonXP cpu sry )
BTW - here's a good resource describing a bit about the Barton core and some comparisons, etc - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.html
and a clear chart of ALL the AthlonXP CPU's - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-09.html ... if you notice, some AthlonXP's overlap in more than one category...personally I find this confusing to the end user and therefore confusing to the rest of us when we try to help the end user AMD's whole naming policy is turning out to be more cumbersome, esp with CPU names overlapping different core technologies! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jadison Guest
|
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey bud - didn't mean to sound harsh on ya ... hope that's not how you took it. I'm here to help you in the best way that I can :)
| Quote: | | The 2500+ looks to be good to me. What are your impressions?? | Looks good to me too, fits what you want and it looks to be the cheapest. It OC's well too and the extra 256K cache to bring the grand total of 512K of L2 cache will definitely help in performance. :) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eli SirTweaksabit
Joined: 08 Feb 2003 Posts: 256
|
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| not harsh at all, I like people to be very direct, and honest with me, and I have been reading a lot, I just like to run things past you before I purchase them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|