Upgrading(advice needed)

I'm mainly building a PC thats gives me good performance in productive apps like Photoshop, Illustrator etc. and is also adequate for a little gaming. Here is the setup I'm going for.

Pentium 4 3.0E GHz
512MB Dual Channel DDR RAM PC3200
Intel 865PE Chipset(ASUS Mobo)
*HDD- 80gig, 40gig and 40gig(Ext)
*ATI 9550 256MB video card
*Sound Blaster Live!
*DVD-ROM 16x
*DVD +/- RW 16x

*Already have in my current system

I'm basically just replacing my current P4 1.6Ghz and motherboard(512MB PC-133 RAM). I've been trying to make a choice between the 3Ghz P4 and the AMD Athlon 64 3200+......I just decided to roll with the P4(thought long and hard about this). So I basically want good performance out apps like Photoshop, but I also get decent performance out of games. Tell me what you think, any suggestion/advice welcome.

Also I think I'll be doing the upgrade myself. In the past I had a "go to guy", but he's not available any more. So I face one main problem...Windows XP, do I have to reinstall it afterwards? I mean the only thing new there is the CPU and motherboard.
 
I second that and I would also go with an AMD. The perf of an AMD is pretty damn good especially if you go with a Venice core...
 
Looks fine to me, but you really should consider getting at least 1 GB sytem memory, especially for your productivity apps (Photoshop will still call you asking for more).
 
Get a PCIe mobo and an ATi Xx00 or NV 6x00 vidcard instead, AGP is seriously on the way out, so when what you have right now feels too small you'll have to waste money on a second mobo for your new system to get a PCIe slot...
 
Anyone know of any benchmarks for photoshop-type applications? I always wondered which CPU was better and how much of a difference there is.
 
Absolutly get an Athlon64 of some kind, preferably a Venice or San Deigo core. They support SSE3, better memory controller, the San Deigo has 1MB L2 wherea Venice has 512KB L2, cooler, more overclockable like 2.75Ghz average, so way faster then any stock P4. You'll definitly also was 2x512MB RAM for 1GB total and dual channel, 1GB is the minimum imho for any decent new computer. I'd get a BFG 6600GT for the vid card personally, more future proof and peforms excellent, but do consider that the next-gen Nvidia cards are just around the corner.
 
For photoshop, your old system with only the RAM upgraded to 2GB would almost certainly work better and faster than a speedier processor with only 512MB RAM. For casual gaming, it's a toss-up between a faster MB / processor and more RAM.

So, if you're not into heavy gaming, you might want to spend your money on RAM only. If you want to be able to upgrade your computer easily in the future, go for the cheapest socket 939 MB and Athlon 64 that you can get, and as much RAM as possible, depending on your budget.

Edit: If you want the best upgradeability, you want PCIe as well, but that would require a new videocard.
 
Thanks for all your help guys. I'm actually now considering going with the Athlon 64(the 3200+ is within my price range). As for RAM, I'm just starting with the 512MB, I'll get more later on...

As for PCIe, the reason why I'm not going with the PCIe motherboard right now is because of my limited budget...I don't have enough for a new videocard.

My last question was though is it necessary to reinstall windows xp(or other programs) after the upgrade?
 
DigitalSoul said:
My last question was though is it necessary to reinstall windows xp(or other programs) after the upgrade?

Absolutely. Make sure you have two harddisks or partitions (PartitionMagic might help), put all your data on the D: drive, format your C: drive with the Windows installation CD, reboot, and install a fresh Windows on your C: drive / partition.
 
DigitalSoul said:
My last question was though is it necessary to reinstall windows xp(or other programs) after the upgrade?
It's not usually necessary but it is definitely recommended.
 
Alstrong said:
I thought it was pretty much necessary when switching mobos.

As the HAL in Windows is nowadays chipset-dependend (really stupid, if you ask me), it is as soon as you switch to a new kind with 2000/XP. With 98/ME/NT, it didn't matter much.
 
DiGuru said:
Alstrong said:
I thought it was pretty much necessary when switching mobos.
As the HAL in Windows is nowadays chipset-dependend (really stupid, if you ask me), it is as soon as you switch to a new kind with 2000/XP. With 98/ME/NT, it didn't matter much.
I think you just might be able to make the jump with some serious fiddling and in-advance driver installing, but it's way easier to do the clear install once and be done with it.
 
incurable said:
DiGuru said:
Alstrong said:
I thought it was pretty much necessary when switching mobos.
As the HAL in Windows is nowadays chipset-dependend (really stupid, if you ask me), it is as soon as you switch to a new kind with 2000/XP. With 98/ME/NT, it didn't matter much.
I think you just might be able to make the jump with some serious fiddling and in-advance driver installing, but it's way easier to do the clear install once and be done with it.

Yes, you might. But there are multiple versions of the Hardware Abstraction Layer, all compiled with specific hardware in mind. And you cannot run Windows without it. So, even if it did run, it would never be able to run well.
 
How can the HAL be chipset-dependent when there's new chipsets out all the time?

Besides, all PC chipsets are register-compatible on a basic level, so why there would need to be specific HALs is beyond me.
 
Back
Top