I think we need to put a few things in perspective.

Lets say right now, video card "A" plays a kickbutt game at 60fps (frames/sec), but video card "B" plays the same game at 80fps but costs 100 bucks more, which card are you going to get? Many hardcore-ists will say "g0 f0r v1de0 c4rd 'B' d00d!!111!!!". However... in reality, can you really tell the difference between 60 and 80fps? In reality, we can't even tell the difference after 30-40fps. Now, the same hardcore-ists will say "bu7 d00d!1! V1de0 c4rd 'B' w1|| l4s7 l0nger!!11!!". Yeah... ok, by how long? By the time video card "A" is obsolete, video card "B" will be obsolete soon after.

What I'm trying to say is, even if the 14% speed boost is true, the average user won't notice it. With current computer tech now, I would stick with an good overall chip and save my cash... because being able to process a video in 9 minutes, rather than 10 just isn't worth the extra dough. Unless of course, you only need to spend relatively small amount of money... then by all means go for it! :mrgreen:

I think the only way you'll ever get some sort of agreement is if you actually tell us what you're thinking about getting (ie. computer brand/model/etc.) then we can give you suggestions to improve upon what you want.

Sorry if my above posting offended anyone, I didn't mean to attack anyone... just mocking some of those hardcore computer geeks I know out there :wink: (sadly enough, I used to be one of them... I just didn't use "h4x0r")

-Richer

R1ch3r j00r p01nt5 r w311 t4k3n.

1337!

:lol: :rolleyes:

We sure like to hear ourselves talk ("you especially Quinn," you're all saying, "you especially").

We all pretty much agree a custom built system is our favorite. But not much could convince me that any of the holes in the walls I shop at (in Calgary and Vancouver) will ever provide the level of service (quick, accessible, to-your-door) that Dell will. So we need to find out if Scales would ever consider a generic system.

Speaking of RAM, it might be a good idea to buy a motherboard that supports Dual Memory Channels (at least when buying a P4 motherboard). Then, if the price is similar, try to get 2 sticks of RAM rather than 1 stick and take advantage of the Dual Memory Channel support (IE. if you want 512MB of RAM total, then you should buy 2 sticks of 256MB instead of 1 stick of 512MB). Using Sisandra on my P4, 2 sticks of RAM vs 1 stick of RAM gave me a large advantage in the Memory benchmarks. Something like 50% better.


http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=760374

"Intel's P4 architecture, in contrast, is designed to exploit the increased bandwidth afforded by dual channel memory architectures. The 64-bit Quad Pumped Bus of the modern Pentium 4 CPU working at 800MHz, in theory, requires 6.4GB/s of bandwidth. This is the exact match of the bandwidth produced by the Intel i875 (Canterwood) and i865 (Springdale) chipset families. The quad pumped P4 FSB seemed like drastic overkill in the days of single channel SDR memory, but is paying handsome dividends in today's climate of dual channel DDR memory subsystems."

http://www.corsairmicro.com/main/875_benchmarks.html

"Second, obviously, is that dual channel memory provides significant performance improvements over single channel memory. So, it is therefore very important to populate both memory channels in dual channel boards."

Going back to what Richer said though, that doesn't necessarily translate into a noticeably faster computer. :neutral: It might not be worth the effort. Having said that, I do hear dual channel RAM is pretty cool stuff. :cool:

ok lets put this in perspective.. I could care less about frame rates as I don't plkay games. what I do do, is a lot of photo and video editing, soooo for video editing do you need a vid card with a good hardware encoder... no but it sure makes life easyer. also with the 1 gig of rame you can manipulate large files and not lose any speed while changes are being made ect... no for you final point of not spending any more money than you need to.. well I am probably one of the cheepest buggers you'll meet when it comes to computer.. heck I am still running a 900 mhz athlon cuz I can't justify the 600 bucks to up grade (just bought a new monitor :rolleyes: ) so my theory is and always was when it is finaly time to upgrade get the fastest stable set up you can for MB, Chip and ram and then you won't have to upgrade if for a long time. so by spending and extra 200.00 on a 800 buck build could potentialy be a savings of 500 bucks over 3 years. :mrgreen:

Steve

it is due to it useing a 64bit channel through out the board ie cpu to ram. there was something else also to do with the AMD64 design and how they ran 32 bit software but I can't remember the details on that exactly so I won't even try that part.

so yes to both :mrgreen:

Steve

Not sure what effort we are talking about? For example, 2 sticks of 512MB RAM is $210 (2x$105) while 1 stick of 1GB RAM is $249. So not only is 2 sticks of RAM in dual channel faster, it is cheaper too. The original point I made was that if prices were similar, then go for dual channel. As I was replying to Richer's point that more RAM is better, it was within context to explain that for memory intensive operations, dual channel memory will make a difference since data will be transferred between CPU and RAM often. Just something else to think about for those in the market for a new computer.

I never tried to argue that "bigger/badder" hardware is not good... to the contrary, if I could, I would personally buy the biggest and baddest hardware that I could get my hands on if I was building a new computer... but thats because I'm crazy (would explain the Radeon 9800 pro I bought when it first came out... or the various other components that I blew my money on... would also explain why I'm usually broke). All I'm saying is, when building a computer, a person needs to be smart about it and weight the pros and cons. I completely agree that a crap load of ram will always be useful... but Scale needs to think about how much video editing he's going to be doing, and see if it justifies 1gig of ram. Or if it justifies getting a kickbutt cpu. For the general user, I don't see any problems using 512MB of ram with a Athlon XP 2700+ cpu. It would run fine, and last for quite a few years, and isn't too expensive. However, if Scale is going to do hardcore video editing (it doesn't sound like it to me... but I could be wrong), then getting 1+gig of ram and a nice 64bit cpu may be worth looking into. After quitting the computer hobby and looking back at how much money I blew and what my stuff is worth now... I just cannot justify buying computer stuff when you don't need it... especially if its not going to be worth anything a year or two down the road. At least with an expensive aquarium pump you can still sell it for a decent price after you decide to upgrade your tank :mrgreen:
Oh... and yeah, I basically assumed that any mobo made in the past two years utilize dual channel ram... probably something I shouldn't have assumed.

-Richer

Should have explained this. I find keeping up with the latest technology (being aware of and owning) is a headache, and the research involved is the effort that may not be worthwhile. Although what I've read agrees with what you're saying about RAM, everything I've read about 64-bit processors disagrees with what Steve said, so who is really telling the truth. Making the right call to me is the effort, hence why I generally don't kill myself over it, and I'm hesitant to believe any benchmarks, particularly those reported based on one single system.

omg, bahahahahhaahahahahaha! d00d hahaha. oh man haha i'm gonna die

another reason I'm gonna die. when I bought my current mobo pc3200 was NEW, it was HOT! but i could only afford 256mb of ram...and guess what...that's all I have. I remember on my 486 when I got a 16MB ram chip..man, I was so pumped -- "I CAN PLAY DOOM NOW WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS!!" I need more ram. are there any places cheaper than www.ntcw.com -- they're pretty uber low.