OK, for my new economy desktop PC, I have already purchased a 17"
flat monitor and a double layer DVD writer. Tomorrow, I am ordering
these items:

1. Intel 3 GHz, 2MB cache, 800 FSB P4 [I have not selected AMD 3000+
because in benchmarks, the Intel processor has shown better performance
in applications of my use, such as in multitasking, rigorous
calculations, and media related works, due to its hyper threading
technology. Besides, it also incorporates 64 bit and EIS technologies.
The tests show that the AMD processor is much better for games, but I
rarely play games; and even my current slow processor is fast enough to
defeat me in chess.]

2. Intel D945GNTL Motherboard ("If the cost of a good-quality
compatible board from any other company, such as from Asus, is almost
as much as that of Intel's, if I am not interested in overclocking, and
if Intel makes the processor, 945G chipset, the 950 GMA graphics chip,
why should I not buy the complete board from Intel," I thought.)

3. A matched pair of Kingston 533 FSB 256 MB DDR2 (Some people suggest
that 400 FSB RAM will perform best with an 800 FSB processor; but I
researched the Web, questioned Intel officers, technical staff, and
dealers and concluded that 533 FSB will work faster.)

4. Seagate 160 GB SATA HDD (I have two Seagate hard-drives, one 4 GB
and the other 40 GB, bought in two different years. They have worked in
all sorts of difficult and easy situations but have never given any
problem.)

I welcome any suggestion, instruction, or caution from the experts and
experienced people in this reference.

Thanks,
Gyan

Since you are building an "economy" PC, I see you are opting for onboard
video and audio. Not an issue if you don't plan on doing any graphically
intensive work such as photo or video processing and editing. The same goes
for RAM. 512 MB will be suitable for general usage. I would add a DVD
drive so you can do disk-to-disk copying. You can purchase decent DVD-ROM
drives for about $30 to $40 these days.

"Gyan" <letterzone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135451655.516923.65440@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> OK, for my new economy desktop PC, I have already purchased a 17"
> flat monitor and a double layer DVD writer. Tomorrow, I am ordering
> these items:
>
> 1. Intel 3 GHz, 2MB cache, 800 FSB P4 [I have not selected AMD 3000+
> because in benchmarks, the Intel processor has shown better performance
> in applications of my use, such as in multitasking, rigorous
> calculations, and media related works, due to its hyper threading
> technology. Besides, it also incorporates 64 bit and EIS technologies.
> The tests show that the AMD processor is much better for games, but I
> rarely play games; and even my current slow processor is fast enough to
> defeat me in chess.]
>
> 2. Intel D945GNTL Motherboard ("If the cost of a good-quality
> compatible board from any other company, such as from Asus, is almost
> as much as that of Intel's, if I am not interested in overclocking, and
> if Intel makes the processor, 945G chipset, the 950 GMA graphics chip,
> why should I not buy the complete board from Intel," I thought.)
>
> 3. A matched pair of Kingston 533 FSB 256 MB DDR2 (Some people suggest
> that 400 FSB RAM will perform best with an 800 FSB processor; but I
> researched the Web, questioned Intel officers, technical staff, and
> dealers and concluded that 533 FSB will work faster.)
>
> 4. Seagate 160 GB SATA HDD (I have two Seagate hard-drives, one 4 GB
> and the other 40 GB, bought in two different years. They have worked in
> all sorts of difficult and easy situations but have never given any
> problem.)
>
> I welcome any suggestion, instruction, or caution from the experts and
> experienced people in this reference.
>
> Thanks,
> Gyan
>

On 24 Dec 2005 11:14:15 -0800, "Gyan" <letterzone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>OK, for my new economy desktop PC, I have already purchased a 17"
>flat monitor and a double layer DVD writer. Tomorrow, I am ordering
>these items:
>
>1. Intel 3 GHz, 2MB cache, 800 FSB P4 [I have not selected AMD 3000+
>because in benchmarks, the Intel processor has shown better performance
>in applications of my use,

Same exact applications, including version # of those apps?
That is important, older apps may easily run faster on even
Athlon XP than P4. Not trying to discourage the P4, just to
make clear if/when it really is faster, or not.

>such as in multitasking, rigorous
>calculations,

P4 is not very strong at calculations.

>and media related works, due to its hyper threading
>technology.

Sometimes it's faster to disable HT. It seems almost like
you are repeating an advertisment, which is OK, it's your
$$$. It just seems rather bizarre to write "economy PC" and
"P4" one paragraph after the other. You might be a good
candidate for a Celeron around 3GHz.


>Besides, it also incorporates 64 bit and EIS technologies.
>The tests show that the AMD processor is much better for games, but I
>rarely play games; and even my current slow processor is fast enough to
>defeat me in chess.]
>
>2. Intel D945GNTL Motherboard ("If the cost of a good-quality
>compatible board from any other company, such as from Asus, is almost
>as much as that of Intel's, if I am not interested in overclocking, and
>if Intel makes the processor, 945G chipset, the 950 GMA graphics chip,
>why should I not buy the complete board from Intel," I thought.)

For starters, because their budget boards are often
lower-featured, but mainly, integrated graphics are bad for
performance. In the long run I think you'd be better off
taking the savings from a Celeron and getting a low-end
video card. That's not necessarily an argument to avoid an
Intel board, but IMO, no good reason to get an integrated
video board if the cost is already stretching to fit in an
P4 under the guise of "budget".


>
>3. A matched pair of Kingston 533 FSB 256 MB DDR2 (Some people suggest
>that 400 FSB RAM will perform best with an 800 FSB processor; but I
>researched the Web, questioned Intel officers, technical staff, and
>dealers and concluded that 533 FSB will work faster.)

Well it's not quite that simple, it's 133MHz FSB, 533 FSB in
intel-speak as a quad data rate, vs 200MHz FSB, 800 FSB in
intel-speak. Becaue the 200MHz is the FSB rate, a DDR(1)
memory module would be DDR400, PC3200.

All that aside, it depends on the specific memory you buy.
If you're going to buy cheap low-end DDR2 memory, it'll be
slower than PC3200, DDR1 because of the higher latency. In
short, same-situation-different-parts, there's higher cost
in faster parts. At a premium price you'd be better off
with DDR2, but this is only a secondary concern to the
following:

It might be wise to buy 2 x 512MB modules rather than 2 x
256MB. It'll give the system more longevity and later if
you tried to add more memory you might find the result is
either the need to abandon the original memory or slower
memory due slowed-down timings to retain stability. This is
another area where I would sacrifice the P4 for a Celeron
before setting for 512MB for a new system. However, your
needs might be different... some people only need fastest
performance on a single application that doesn't use a lot
of memory, but above you wrote "multitasking", and presuming
you were talking about newer applications in the benchmarks,
it's possible the benchmark cofigurations had more than
512MB memory in them. If less memory causes less file
caching by OS, by apps for temp files, or more access to the
pagefile for virtual memory, the performance degrades
quickly.


>
>4. Seagate 160 GB SATA HDD (I have two Seagate hard-drives, one 4 GB
>and the other 40 GB, bought in two different years. They have worked in
>all sorts of difficult and easy situations but have never given any
>problem.)
>


It is a reasonable value drive with a nice long warranty.
It's not a high-performance drive but like anything else,
those are disproportionately higher priced.

Yes, I plan to do video capturing, processing, and editing on this PC.
I shall add a good 16 bit PCI express card in future if I need one. And
as I said, I have already bought a good double-layer DVD writer.

I have studied several tests available on the internet. The recent
AMD's are much better than their Intel counterparts. But when it comes
to comparing 3 GHz 2MB cache P4 and Athelon 64 3000+, all tests are
unanimous that the intel processor shows better results in
multitasking, calculations, and multimedia.

I see 800 FSB as 133 X 6, though I am not sure about it. An Intel Web
page says that the memory on the board will function at the speed of
the slowest memory stick you have installed; thus, I selected the
fastest I could manage: Kingston 533 FSB 2X256MB DDR2. Further, I think
Kingston is a reputable RAM manufacturer.

I am currently working with 400MB (128MB + 256MB) RAM, and I rarely
feel the need of more memory. So I think 512MB will be sufficient for
me. In distant future I may upgrade the memory with 1, 2 or 4 GB 667
FSB RAM, discarding the current ones.

Though a Pentium is costly in comparision to Celeron, I have opted for
the former because it is the speed of the processor that poses the
ultimate limit to the capability of a PC. At present, my investment
attention is on bare basics, which can hardly be upgraded in the
future.

On 24 Dec 2005 20:40:05 -0800, "Gyan" <letterzone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I have studied several tests available on the internet. The recent
>AMD's are much better than their Intel counterparts. But when it comes
>to comparing 3 GHz 2MB cache P4 and Athelon 64 3000+, all tests are
>unanimous that the intel processor shows better results in
>multitasking, calculations, and multimedia.

Again, I stress the importance of exactly what software you
run. It is not a matter of "task", it is a matter of
application optimization. I can tell you plainly that a P4
is slower at all 3 of the above tasks with some software,
but faster with others. Whether you are running the same
title and version means everything- because older software
was not optimized for a P4. This is not an attempt to steer
you towards AMD, rather if you need best performance you
need to have this newer software.



>
>I see 800 FSB as 133 X 6, though I am not sure about it. An Intel Web
>page says that the memory on the board will function at the speed of
>the slowest memory stick you have installed; thus, I selected the
>fastest I could manage: Kingston 533 FSB 2X256MB DDR2. Further, I think
>Kingston is a reputable RAM manufacturer.

Sure they're a reputible manufacturer, and just like any
other they sell multiple different grades of memory at
different price-points, with different performance levels.

>
>I am currently working with 400MB (128MB + 256MB) RAM, and I rarely
>feel the need of more memory. So I think 512MB will be sufficient for
>me. In distant future I may upgrade the memory with 1, 2 or 4 GB 667
>FSB RAM, discarding the current ones.

It seems a bit wasteful, no? Why throw out memory if you
have the option of simply buying more right at first? Of
course it's a larger initial expense but cheaper in the long
run.


>
>Though a Pentium is costly in comparision to Celeron, I have opted for
>the former because it is the speed of the processor that poses the
>ultimate limit to the capability of a PC. At present, my investment
>attention is on bare basics, which can hardly be upgraded in the
>future.

Ok, it seems you have your mind made up then. Can't say
that I agree with all of it but it is your money and you
know what you'll be using the system for better than anyone
else.

"Gyan" <letterzone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135485605.159760.26180@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> I have studied several tests available on the internet. The recent
> AMD's are much better than their Intel counterparts. But when it comes
> to comparing 3 GHz 2MB cache P4 and Athelon 64 3000+, all tests are
> unanimous that the intel processor shows better results in
> multitasking, calculations, and multimedia.
>
> I see 800 FSB as 133 X 6, though I am not sure about it. An Intel Web
> page says that the memory on the board will function at the speed of
> the slowest memory stick you have installed; thus, I selected the
> fastest I could manage: Kingston 533 FSB 2X256MB DDR2. Further, I think
> Kingston is a reputable RAM manufacturer.
>
> I am currently working with 400MB (128MB + 256MB) RAM, and I rarely
> feel the need of more memory. So I think 512MB will be sufficient for
> me. In distant future I may upgrade the memory with 1, 2 or 4 GB 667
> FSB RAM, discarding the current ones.
>
> Though a Pentium is costly in comparision to Celeron, I have opted for
> the former because it is the speed of the processor that poses the
> ultimate limit to the capability of a PC. At present, my investment
> attention is on bare basics, which can hardly be upgraded in the
> future.
>

Have a problem determining whether you're building an economy PC, or slowly
building a fast PC a bit at a time. The small amount of RAM is the clinker,
and makes no sense. This motherboard allows use of the 667 RAM.
Generally speaking, add one clock tick for CL as moving from 400, to 533, to
667. Makes more sense to get one RAM module rather than pairs. And makes
more sense to bite the bullet for the total amount RAM you need now, and not
use the slower RAM at all. Kinda knocks down the Pentium vs AMD argument
because you're slowing the PC down for slower RAM you intend to keep for
now. Makes absolutely no PC building sense to me choosing the 533 over the
667.
--
Jonny

A matched pair of RAMs can function in dual channel mode, providing six
to thirteen percent more speed than does a single RAM with the same
total capacity.

I agree on 667 but don't have any money left for 1GB RAM right now. I
shall upgrade the total capcity according to my needs later. Thanks.

Yes, the performance of a processor with HT often increases drastically
if a software has been optimized for it, i.e., if it has been designed
to work on multiple threads. And if it has not been optimized for HT,
disabling HT will probably give better performance.

Yes, but you only have one optical drive. You need two optical drives to do
disk-to-disk copying. Out of curiosity, how much are you spending on your
system, as you have it currently configured?

"Gyan" <letterzone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135485538.383484.307710@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Yes, I plan to do video capturing, processing, and editing on this PC.
> I shall add a good 16 bit PCI express card in future if I need one. And
> as I said, I have already bought a good double-layer DVD writer.
>