| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: What do you think: |
 |
|
Pentium 4 dual core 3.6GHZ - 195,000WON
17" LCD Orion Monitor - 210,000WON
119,000 ASUS Motherboard - 119,000WON
PC5200 667MHZ 2 gig memory - 214,000WON
XFX geforce 7900GT pci-e card - 295,000WON
DVDRW-CDRW combo - 35,000WON
Power 500watt - 70,000WON
medium case and fan - 55,000WON
Total = 1,193,000WON
What do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would love a system like that but my wife would kill me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am literally this close...to building it. I just need a buyer for my laptop. arghhhh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everything looks great except for the monitor.
Really. Think about getting a large LCD (4:3 or widescreen) and really make use of that graphics card.
Around 400,000 spent on a large LCD will really push your rig into the 'wow!' league. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
Everything looks great except for the monitor.
Really. Think about getting a large LCD (4:3 or widescreen) and really make use of that graphics card.
Around 400,000 spent on a large LCD will really push your rig into the 'wow!' league. |
Then I need help with the monitor. Suggestions please. Links and advice is welcomed (positive or negative).
So EAMO, the price for the hardware, IYO, is good? I was looking at the core duo......arghhhhh....  .... can't afford that right now. However, a 3.6 dual core sure looks nice. As we speak, I am reading up on the difference between dual core, 2 duo, and regular pentium 4. I want to make a smart decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so...what should i get:
a Pentium 4 dual core @ 3.6GHZ
or a core duo at 2.13 GHZ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't the major problem with dual core the fact that most software cannot use the improved efficiency?
As such the promised performance can not be achieved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Juregen wrote: |
Isn't the major problem with dual core the fact that most software cannot use the improved efficiency?
As such the promised performance can not be achieved? |
I am looking at the dual core most likely, not the core duom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Juregen wrote: |
Isn't the major problem with dual core the fact that most software cannot use the improved efficiency?
As such the promised performance can not be achieved? |
Correct my friend:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/120656-1/article.html
as you will read, buying a dual core is an investment for the future and future games, not for current configurations.
Still, 200,000WON for a dual core @ 3.6ghz...mmmmmmm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
Still, 200,000WON for a dual core @ 3.6ghz...mmmmmmm |
Dual core and Core Duo...
Think Willamette vs. Northwood.
Not so mmmmmm
Willamette buyers helped fund the work to make the P4 good, at which point it was re-released as Northwood. Dual core is a knee-jerk response to AMD and if my thinking is correct, it will be seen in history as another wallflower middle child from Intel.
I wouldn't touch one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
Still, 200,000WON for a dual core @ 3.6ghz...mmmmmmm |
Dual core and Core Duo...
Think Willamette vs. Northwood.
Not so mmmmmm
Willamette buyers helped fund the work to make the P4 good, at which point it was re-released as Northwood. Dual core is a knee-jerk response to AMD and if my thinking is correct, it will be seen in history as another middle child of Intel. |
I just read about Northwood. Give me the details about Wimmamette and what you know regarding comparing the two... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| someonewhoisntme wrote: |
Willamette to Northwood: what's new.
The original P4 is based on a 0.18-micron fabrication process Willamette core using aluminum interconnects, with 256KB L2 cache and 42 million transistors. The result is a rather chubby chip. Manufacturing its large (217mm�) die size on 200mm wafers proved expensive, so fewer chips could be made, which is certainly reflected in the Willamette P4s' high price. The die shrink to a new 0.13-micron process Northwood P4 core answers this economics glitch and ups the performance ante.
Clearly Intel is trying to make a blonde (since they have more fun) out of a mousy brown. Price, performance, and brand name alone haven't been enough to make the P4 as widely accepted as Intel had hoped. So, ciao Willy (P4 Willamette), and you can keep your aluminum, too, because Northwood P4s have copper interconnects with low-k dielectric material, which reduces crosstalk.
Northwood's die-size is dramatically smaller at 146mm�, allowing Intel to improve P4 yields (the company can now make more chips per wafer), thus saving on manufacturing costs. Intel should theoretically be able to manufacture nearly twice as many P4s per 200mm wafer as they had previously, thanks to the Northwood core.
Cool down.
Smaller die sizes also allow for higher frequencies and better heat dissipation, which should induce overclockers into nirvana-like, joystick-wagging frenzies. The Willamette P4 2GHz runs at 1.7 volts dissipating 78 watts of heat, whereas the Northwood P4 2GHz slashes down nicely to 1.5 volts dissipating 49 watts. This technological breakthrough is also going to be reflected in a much-needed price drop for the P4, making it more affordable to the masses. You know, so uncle Albert isn't left so much out of pocket this time around.
You could say that since Intel introduced the P4, the company has been putting the CPU through a strict low-fat Tae Bo workout diet attempting to get more muscle. Or you could say that Intel's engineers have awakened to the real threat posed by AMD and tried to address P4 critics' concerns. The die-shrink has shaved off some of the fat, allowing for the addition of more performance-muscle in the form of 256KB L2 cache, now totaling 512KB. Hence the transistor count, featuring the world's smallest (60-nanometer) transistors, according to Intel, is up to 55 million. (But I lost count after awhile.)
P4-naysayers have been crying out for more L2 cache, due to the Willamette P4's poor clock-for-clock showing against Athlon XPs. The Northwood increases the P4's IPC (instructions per clock cycle), making it more competitive with Athlon XP. The rest of the previous P4 core remains intact with Northwood, so you get all of the same NetBurst fluffadge (Hyper Pipelined Technology, Advanced Dynamic Execution, Rapid Execution Engine, Execution Trace Cache, Enhanced FPU, and SSE2 [Streaming SIMD Extensions 2] Instructions) as with the Willamette. |
Or...
There's a fairly good writeup at the Wiki. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK...so what would you say I should get instead of a dual-core intel 3.6GHZ? Also, for around the same price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
cl...first, don't get pulled in to the GHz spiral. Yeah...3.6 is cool, but for all purposes, you may as well get a single-core chip. At least the tech is mature and will enjoy no longer nor shorter a useful lifespan than a dual-core offering from Intel. Dual core, IMO, is just 2 cores quickly slapped together so Intel could put something on the retail shelves next to the AMDs.
CoreDuo is the whole thing done right.
I won't get into the differences right now (there is enough reading on the net these days), but trust me....if you do get a vanilla dual-core, you will regret it.
It's not total garbage - it is still a fast chip. But if you are looking to gain the rewards of 2 cores working togather in a mature, well-planned way, there is no choice; CoreDuo all the way.
I mean really...why do you suppose they are so cheap? They are in the bin for a reason... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
