Computer Questions

audiobliss

All right, before I start in with questions I'll tell ya what my computer is. It's a Compaq Presario SR1050NX. (Link for its specs.) It has an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ processor, 512MB RAM (dunno the speed), etc.

If you'll click on that link you'll see that it says that it supports PC2700. You'll also see that the type is '184 pin, DDR SDRAM 333 MHz'. Is that's what's installed? Is 333MHz the same as PC2700? Pretty much what I want is the fastest memory my board will support. I guess I want 1GB since I'm not happy with my computer's performance. I've been blaming it on the AMD and the fact that I multi-task instead of play games, but my memory could have a big hand in it.

So, what brand memory should I get? A single 1GB stick or 2 x 512MB sticks? What speed?

Any information here would be greatly appreciated as I've forgotten all I used to know (very little) about memory.

Thanks!

*EDIT* Ooops. After you go to that page, click on 'product specifications.'

[Deleted User]

First off...it says it has PC2700. Your motherboard specs indicate PC2700 max. It says 2GB max (2x1GB). 2x512 will be cheaper than a 1GB stick, but you can go either way or go with (2)1GB sticks $$$. If you are going to add onto your current memory, make sure they're the same specs. I made that mistake. If I were you, I would buy a twin pack of 512GB sticks. I got mine at Newegg.com . I am a big Half-Life² and CS:S fan. I've got 2x512GB PC2700 (1024GB) sticks with a 2.4 Ghz Pent 4. I also have a Radeon 7600XT 256mb video card. Anybody want to add to this?

audiobliss

Thanks, Josh. So, if I just buy one stick and continue use one of the ones I have now, the specs have to be the same?

I'm not wanting to spend a lot of money on this, because I'm *wanting* to re-do it this summer. Like, buy a MB and P4 processor and new case and video card, but use the rest of it. In which case, I could use faster memory.

Does that sound stupid? I mean 're-building' my desktop?

bobman1235

I seriously doubt you'll ever notice a difference between an Intel vs AMD, so stop worrying about that, first of all. It's marketing, plain and simple - they work the same. I switched to AMD a long time ago and never looked back.

As for the memory. Chances are, you're not gonna want to just add random memory to your existing memory. While it'll probably work, you won't get the full speed out of the new memory you buy; usually your motherboard will slow everything to your slowest memory chip. So you'll have MORE, but not FASTER.

I recommend you take out whtaever crap that Compaq put in there (which is probably the slowest thing they could find, knowing Compaq), sell it on ebay for a couple bucks, and buy a 1GB stick. Yes, 2x512MB will be cheaper. But if you ever want to add more (don't know why you'd want more than 1GB, but..) you couldn't add it without tossing out one of your current sticks, which seems liek a waste.

Once you have new memory installed, make sure you go into your BIOS and set your memory settings to the DRAM you're using - sometimes it's automatic, sometimes not.

Also, I second that trip to www.newegg.com ... great site.

nadams

There's no real reason for you to rebuild your computer, unless you really think you need it. A 3200+ is plently fast by my standards (considering I have a 2200+ at home, and don't feel the need to upgrade even when I played through HL2), but I guess your tastes may differ.

Yes, PC2700 is 333mhz. Newegg has a sale on today, and these are only $127 for 1gb (512x2)- http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-141-423&depa=1

It's 400mhz memory, but should downclock to 333 speed. If you want to be sure, find some that's specifically 333, but usually modern memory will conform itself to the spec.

If you feel your system is slow when loading programs and such, maybe look at your HD as being a possible bottleneck. If it's slow when playing games... look at your videocard. Look closely at your videocard... no, closer. It's onboard (according to the specs I'm reading) with 64mb shared. Not only is this bunk for games, but it slows your system down overall, because it steals 64mb of your system memory to run the video. An alternative is just to buy an AGP video card and slap it in there and be done with it (obviously, disabling the onboard video...)

Another thing... I just checked the PC specs and it claims 1gb max installed memory, and only two open slots. That means that you'd only want to look for a single 512mb module. It'll be easier to find one in 333, anyway. However, the motherboard claims 2gb max... conflicting statements, there...

I think you need to find out what's really in your computer. Either way, you only have two available slots for memory, so if you have a single 512 in there already, then you'll want to get another 512. If they shipped it with dual 256mb sticks, then you'll need to get the dual 512mb kit, and you'll be getting rid of two 256's.

So many choices

[Deleted User]

No, not at all. If I were you, though, I would start a new one and keep that for back-up. You can get towers for cheap and just build it from scratch. Newegg has all that stuff.

BTW, yes, you can find cheaper stuff on the web, but Newegg has been reliable as others have not.

PhantomOG

Originally posted by audiobliss
... I've been blaming it on the AMD and the fact that I multi-task instead of play games, but my memory could have a big hand in it.

ughh... its amazing what marketing can do. AMD has had higher performing processors than Intel for quite awhile now. But Intel has the marketing dollars and continues its monopolistic practices and people eat it up.

Imagine a world where Bose has 85% marketshare in loudspeakers, and bullies around vendors to give their speakers top billing. That's similar to the current microprocessor business with Intel.

Others have given good advice, so read and follow their instructions. I just had to chime in since I design microprocessors for a living and it makes my gut wrench reading comments like the one above.

nadams

Or imagine a world where Monster Cable has an 85% market share and bullies vendors into....

oh...

nevermind.













AMD all the way! Cheaper, more powerful for the money.... whee!

[Deleted User]

Originally posted by nadams
Another thing... I just checked the PC specs and it claims 1gb max installed memory, and only two open slots.

If you check the MB specs, it says 2GB max.
HERE

audiobliss

Wow. Yet again I'm amazed by the number of replies. Thanks!

Hopefully I can convince my parents to let my get stuff off of newegg; definitely a lot cheaper. Y'all say they're good to work with, too.

I'm thinking that I may just put some more memory in this desktop like most of y'all have said. However, I still want more than this computer will allow me to do. For instance, this board is limiting the speed memory I can install. Also, there are no available internal 3.5" drives. The DVD-writer is incredibly slow. There are just three PCI slots.

So, I'm thinking about putting memory in this computer and giving it to Mom. She's currently using an old, old, old HP desktop that wouldn't be any less valuable if it would just go ahead and quick all together. Then, I could build myself a dekstop, since I've wanted to that for a long time, anyways.


Since we've brought up the AMD vs. Intel thing anyways, I've got a few questions. I understand how the AMD Athlon XP has a more efficient cycle, making it 'faster' even at slower clock speeds. However, all their processors are limited to a 400MHz FSB. I can get an Extreme Edition P4 with an 800MHz FSB. Even if the clock frequencies were the same, wouldn't that make the P4 be faster, since it can communicate with the system faster? Also, isn't the P4 still better for multi-tasking? Like I *think* I said earlier, I usually have about 7 or 8 programs running at the same time; and that's not including the stuff that runs in the background.


Thanks for all the advice!!

bobman1235

It seems to me you have a pretty decent setup there. Running 7 or 8 programs at once isn't really that big a deal. I'm on a 3 year old P3 right now at work, and I have at least a dozen programs running, including a compiler chugging away, and it's still pretty reasonable. At home I have a pretty similar setup to yours (Athlon XP, 512MB memory) and am constantly running a whole bunch of programs, and the thing still does pretty much everything I could want, and I can watch TV at the same time on it wiht a Tuner card without any lag. Only thing that slows it down is CD burning, but I'd like to see a system that DOESN'T slow down doing that.

It's always fun to build a new system, and giving yours to yoru mom sounds like a plan. But I htink one thing above all others would give you the biggest improvement in speed - reformat everything, and start from scratch with your OS. You'd be amazed how much garbage can clog up your ssytem, no matter how careful you are.

And if you do end up keeping the system and upgrading it, after you do the memory, I'd go hard drive. Huge bottleneck in most systems is definitely the hard drive. Also, if you're worried about drive bays, a new case can run you like 50 bucks and make you FEEL like you have a whole new computer, even if you don't. Cosmetic upgrades are always good for keeping the old spending bug at bay

Good luck with everything, no matter what you decide to do.

PhantomOG

Originally posted by audiobliss

Since we've brought up the AMD vs. Intel thing anyways, I've got a few questions. I understand how the AMD Athlon XP has a more efficient cycle, making it 'faster' even at slower clock speeds. However, all their processors are limited to a 400MHz FSB. I can get an Extreme Edition P4 with an 800MHz FSB. Even if the clock frequencies were the same, wouldn't that make the P4 be faster, since it can communicate with the system faster? Also, isn't the P4 still better for multi-tasking? Like I *think* I said earlier, I usually have about 7 or 8 programs running at the same time; and that's not including the stuff that runs in the background.

answering this question is all about how far you want to go with learning about modern microprocessor architecture.

simple answer: NO. in the same way that you understand the clock frequency cannot be used as a complete metric for determining processing "power", the same can be said for the FSB or any other *one* aspect of a microprocessor or comlete system for that matter.

i don't know where you picked up the idea that multitasking in Windows is better with Intel processors than AMD but it is *completely* bogus. just forget you ever learned it.

you are comparing two completely different architectures so comparing specifics points (such as the FSB or clock freq.) is completely irrelevant and makes no sense whatsoever.

long answer: NO. Intel's current processors are ultra deep pipelined CPU's. This means it takes the execution of an instruction and breaks it down into *many* steps (many more than AMD's architecture). As a result, each step is less complicated so they can crank the speed up really fast. Still with me? Ok.

Cranking the speed up is all well and good, but there are tradeoffs. So we start an instruction into our "pipeline". We can pump instructions into the pipeline very quickly with our high clock speed... BUT we run into problems with data dependencies and branches. Say we have one instruction that computes a multiply and the next instruction needs that result. We can't just throw that next instruction into the pipeline right after the multiply. We have to stall until the previous instruction is complete. Now this is very simplified but you get the picture. The real processor will try to find the next instruction that is not data dependent and start that, but all of this is extra logic, which is more power and you are still constrained by your fast clock cycle.

Also, we have branches. This is an instruction that basically says, stop executing here, go to another point in memory and start executing code there. Well, the pipeline steps are simple, so it takes a while to figure out the branch and in the meantime we have gone ahead and loaded a bunch of bogus instructions into the pipeline which now has to be cleared and "backed" out so that *real* data doesn't get messed up.

On top of all this, we have memory accesses (relating to FSB). Since we have our clock speed so high, we also have a higher frequency of reads/writes to memory. Therefor a higher memory fsb is *needed*. Especially since alot of those memory calls will be bogus because of the data dependencies and branches. This is also why you will see Intel processors with HUGE caches (memory on the processor which is faster to access than RAM) and AMD can get away with much smaller ones. Caches take up alot of room so you will also see that the actual size of the die (the silicon itself) is much larger for Intel processors. All of this extra logic/cache also makes Intel processors run alot hotter and use more power (your electricty bill!).

Whew! Got all that? There is *SO* much more to take into account for modern day microprocessors and differences in architecture that this is just the tip of the iceberg. On top of all that, you have system bottlenecks (RAM, hard drives, OS, drivers, etc etc) that can completely mask the processor out of the picture.

With you running a 3200+ processor, I can guarantee to you that the problem is NOT the processor. Feel free to spend money as you see fit, but my advice is to educate yourself more on computers before you throw your hands up in the air and blame it on AMD.

PhantomOG

Originally posted by audiobliss
I can get an Extreme Edition P4 with an 800MHz FSB.

didn't even see this until now... the EE chips are a complete waste of money.

i wouldn't even recommend buying the top of the line processor from any company. the highest chips always have a *huge* markup just because they are the fastest, when in reality, you can buy a speed grade or two lower and get 90-95% of the performance for half the cost.

unless you are some kind of gaming freak that has to have the top of the line everything to *impress* your friends, don't waste your money.

besides that, with the state of computers/OS/software today, the microprocessor speed is very low on the list of importance towards real world performance. spend your money on a high quality MB, ram, hard drive and vid card and a middle of the road processor and your system will fly.

audiobliss

Wow. Thanks for all that information!! I'll hafta think about my plan a little more. Still sounds like I'm definitely going ot be upgrading my memory, though.

Thanks!!

audiobliss

Ok. After some browsing through newegg.com, I have some more processor questions. (All the following is based on the assumption that I decide to build a computer.)


1. Should I go with AMD or Intel?

It seems to me that I should probably go with AMD based on what I've read earlier in this thread. And that's a change of heart, because I had always dreamed of building a P4 system.


2. Should I go with Athlon XP or Athlon 64?

What's the real performance gain? Are the 64-bit processors compatible with all software? Will that technology change so that my system would soon be obsolete? Any different requirements with a 64-bit processor (besides compatible motherboard)?


3. What's the FSB on Athlon XP processors?

Newegg.com says that the Athlon 64 processors have 'integrated' FSBs. What does that mean? Also, when I searched for motherboards for a Athlon 64 processor, several of them had FSB speeds of 600/800/1000MHz and had 'Hypertransport' listed. What's that mean?


Maybe that's all for now. I sure appreciate all the help I've received so far!

Thanks!

audiobliss

More:

The AMD Athlon 64 3400+ processor only comes (at least at newegg) in socket 754. However, if I dedided to step down to the 3200+, it is available in 754 and 939. What's the difference?


Thanks!

Edit: I just noticed one is Winchester and the other is Newcastle; I assume it has something to do with that? Whatever they mean....

[Deleted User]

Originally posted by audiobliss
More:

The AMD Athlon 64 3400+ processor only comes (at least at newegg) in socket 754. However, if I dedided to step down to the 3200+, it is available in 754 and 939. What's the difference?

If you look at your MB spec page...all the way down. You can see a big square at the top that says Socket 462. That's the socket for your processor.

audiobliss

Originally posted by audiobliss
(All the following is based on the assumption that I decide to build a computer.)

I'll leave the processor in my Compaq alone.

PhantomOG

read here for more details on different processors.

read the guides for entry/mid-level systems for some good recommendations on hardware outside of the processor. if you've never built a system before, you might find it a bit frustrating at first, but it is also very rewarding and you *should* end up with a system that is alot more powerful and stable than you could get with the same amount of dolllars spent on a pre-built PC. also you will not be strapped down with proprietary hardware restrictions so you can upgrade components as needed much more easily.

if you haven't done it before, i recommend getting a friend who has to help you.

Strong Bad

I agree! Building your own machine is the way to go.

Check out this site for good motherboard/processor/memory combo deals.

http://www.pcboost.com/store/listproducts.asp?IDCategory=51


Building your own machine is not really that difficult. The parts come with instructions and pretty much walk you through. You can probably just look at the parts and figure out where things go. Just be careful as you install each part and you'll be fine. With all the plug-n-play stuff these days, it's a breeze!


John

audiobliss

Thanks, guys. I'll be doing some reading later today!!

audiobliss

Ok, I have some more questions. (Surprising, eh? lol)

First up is memeory. I'm pretty sure I'm going to build a desktop and give this one to Mom. However, I'll still want to put some memeory in it (and probably a video card as you will see why later on). I've always heard of Corsair, Crucial, and Kingston memory. I assume that it's best to stick with the big-name folks. However, from reading around I've found that a lot of people with high-end systems seem to be running GEIL and OCZ memory. I've never heard of those companies before; what's the deal with them?

I've also been looking at motherboards for when I do build this desktop. Just as with the memory, I've always thought you should stick with the big names (ie Asus, Abit, Gigbyte, MSI, Soyo; I've always leaned towards Asus for some reason). However, from reading around I've come across a lot of people running DFI boards. I've also seen ECS and Foxconn referred to a lot. I've never heard of these last three companies; what's the deal with them?

Now about a video card for my current computer. A few weeks ago we lost power for about 3 seconds while my desktop was on. I fired her back up, and the screen was a lot harder to read. Since then it's been darker; just not as clear. My monitor is a Samsung SyncMaster 150MP which also has a TV tuner built-in, so I use it as a TV in my room. When I switch to TV mode, everything looks fine. So, can I assume that the on-board graphics on the desktop went instead of the monitor? What's the best way to fix this, just buy a cheap graphics card? I wouldn't need anything nice, especially if it goes to Mom.


Thanks!!

audiobliss

Another thing. I've read a lot about there being a lot more future expandibility possible if you go with a Socket 939 and a motherboard with a PCIe slot. I udnerstand the reasoning behind why I should go with a Socket 939 processor, but what in the world is a PCIe slot? Why would that be a good thing? If I'm not interested in putting together a killer gamer rig, would I still want it?

Thanks!!

P.S. Sorry if I'm asking too many questions. Just refer me to some literature, and I'll read it!

bobman1235

I can't speak to most of the things you asked, but I will give a few brief little tidbits

1. I believe PCIe refers to PCI express. Just a faster PCI standard. If it's not unreasonably priced, it's definitely something I would look at. Peripherals are a huge bottleneck in ANY system, so a faster communications method with them is always good. Plus if any new PCI cards come out that use PCIe, you would be able to utilize them.

2. I have no idea with memory manufacturers, but rather than ask the 4 people who might respond to you here, I'd just hit up google and search for reviews of any company you might buy from. You'll get a much better sample set.

3. Same goes for motherboards, but I have to say I have nothing bad to say about Asus motherboards. I've had great experiences with them. Not so much with Abit.

4. Sure sounds like your video card died. If it's just for your mom's system, you can get a pretty decent video card for pretty freakin cheap. As mentioned earlier in this thread, anything you buy is better than what you have, because you'll be ridding yourself of that shared memory garbage, which uses your system memory for video. If you don't want to just blindly purchase a video card, do you have another monitor you can hook up to to test the one you have? Or, if you plan on building your own PC, pick out the video card you want and order that. Install it in your mom's computer, see if the probelm goes away. If it DOES, then buy her another, cheap memory card. If it DOESN'T, you know your monitor is the problem. Kind of a lot of work, but...

Hope that helps.

audiobliss

Originally posted by bobman1235
Hope that helps.

Sure does! I would have done that sooner except that my comptuer is behind a door in my desk, and it's such a pain to get to. Maybe I'll wait until I get some memory for it and have to take it out anyways to try that.

Thanks!!

ksuwildcats2004

u all rock thanks. this is why i like to come to this forum thanks