My new rig - Needs checking..

[ZiRo]

Right, I'm getting myself a new computer which i've been due for some years now. Basically, if you think its worth waiting for something better, or something to come down in price then I'd like you to tell me. I'd also like you to comment on the balance of the system, upgradability optionality and any conflicts you may see.

Currently my basket stands at this:
Chieftec DX-01BD-USB Black Dragon (£46)
OCZ PowerStream 520W (£106)
OCZ VX PC4000 2x512 (~£170)
3200+ 64 Venice (~£135)
DFI Lanparty Ultra-D (~£110)
XFX 6800gt 256mb (~£200)
2x Maxtor Diamondmax 160gb SATA (in RAID?) (~£100 total)
XP120 sink with some fan (£40)

Any raid controllers or stuff that i need? Because i've never used sata or raid before, its kind of new territory. If i ordered that (plus dvd + floppy + fans), would i be ready to go, or is there anything else i need in terms of raid or sata?

Basically, I'm looking a system that will fly, I can overclock, will last a fair amount of time and has upgradability potential for when it does start to become out of date. It started out as a 3000+, hiper type r, a8v board with my existing 9600xt, but i figured why bother with a half upgrade.

I can't afford dual core. At the same time I don't expect it to really be mainstream for another year or more yet.

Currently my system is this:
2200+ athlon @ 1.86ghz
768mb of a few sticks of random SDRAM
jetway v266b
9600xt
Some random 400w psu
40gb ide

How do you think i'll find the new performance? :slobber:

I keep my system well, it runs better than most newer systems i've played with. Most notably my mates who only upgraded last november aswell as my mum's which was update recently. On paper everything owns mine but it seems to be better in practise.

[Daveb2012]

looks good but I would get an xp-90c over the xp-120..

[Daveb2012]

heres a comparison and its about the same price:

<P align=center><IMG alt=[HOTLIST] src="http://www.systemcooling.com/images/reviews/Heatsinks/Thermalright_XP-90C/temp_chart_lg.gif"> </P>
:)

[ZiRo]

I guess you're right, saves a few pennies..

PS: I still want comments, COMMENT!

[popeye]

You want to get a cpu with a 1MB cache for direct performance results.
So you have to decide if you want 939 pin or 754 pin... if you're sure you want 939
pin then the minimum choices are the Athlon 64 3700 Venice and the Athlon 64 3700 San Diego, which cost the same so you may as well get the San Diego (around $300).
If you are OK with 754 pin then you can get a 3200, 3400 or 3700 clawhammer for a great price.

Actually I'm not sure if Venice has 1MB cache... San Diego definitely does.

[ZiRo]

939 for sure, i didn't think that was worth mentioning...

Most clockers seem to be using 3000's or 3200's..

Is the 1mb cache really worth the extra cost that i'd have to squander? I'm pushing it as it is but i'm going for the buy quality - buy once mentality.

[popeye]

yes.

[Major_A]

If you want 1MB of cache you have to get a San Diego core or an FX processor. The Winchester and Venice cores only have 512.

*EDIT*
Just occured to me I am incorrect, the 4000+ Clawhammer has 1MB of cache.

[perkam]

Its perfect :) Though make sure the GT isnt blue pcb ;)

Perkam

[ZiRo]

Whats wrong with a blue pcb? And why a 1mb cache, why is it better and worth $100?

[perkam]

Whats wrong with a blue pcb? And why a 1mb cache, why is it better and worth $100?

Dont worry about the 1mb cache...unless you really need that power. Though a Venice IS more powerful clock for clock against a san diego, so your investment is STILL a fine choice.Blue PCBs are usually mean bad yields from what I've seen. Keep it green :)

Perkam

[ZiRo]

I'll try.. and you havent explained the advantage of 1mb cache :)

[Major_A]

Basically it is more room for information to be stored temporarily. Think of it as RAM on steroids, more is usually better.

[CNCL]

It makes sense to say more cache is better, though I still do not quite understand why isn't the cache giving the extra performance as some SD vs. venice reviews are suggesting. There are even instances where venice beats SD, which got me totally lost.

[ZiRo]

Do i need any RAID controllers or anything? Does the Mobo handle RAID?

[perkam]

Do i need any RAID controllers or anything? Does the Mobo handle RAID?

No you dont and yes it does. :)

Perkam

[popeye]

Here's a little tidbit from techreport.com benchmark tests:

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/athlon64-3500/index.x?pg=16

I couldn't find a more current test yet but I'll be back.

basically a larger cache wins in almost every benchmark.

"In seven of our tests, mostly games, 1MB of L2 cache helps the Athlon 64 3400+ overcome its single-channel memory controller and come out ahead of the 3500+. If you're primarily a gamer, that's a pretty compelling selling point for the 3400+, which can be had for $60 cheaper than the 3500+."

EDIT:
Ok So here's the benchmark test of San Diego 3700 1MB cache vs. Venice 3800 with 512K cache. They are very, very close. I would get the 3700 with the cache though... but that's just me.

http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.compressorcooling.com%2fhtm l%2famd_athlon_64_san_diego_vs__ve.html

It would help if the author could write little more clearly...

Here's the forum discussion where I found it:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/43592/?o=20

[ferrari_freak]

You could always OC the 3700+ to 3800+ speeds, and even faster. The most popular processors are 3000+ Venice and 3700+ San Diego since they are the best OCers of their core type. I would also go with the 3700+.

Usama aka Ferrari Freak