Member Avatar

This computer I am building must be cost effective. We don't need a lot of bells and whistles. The person I am building it for needs to use it for internet research, microsoft office and other minor tasks. It is not going to be overclocked and won't be used for games. I do want to go with the xp 64 as it is as cost effective as the other amd chips. I want a board that has good relability and has good tech support. I have built some with gigabyte boards which are awesome but their tech support was kind of iffy. They were on the line fast and tried to be very helpful but everyone I talked to about a couple of issues all had different things to say. What company can give all that????? Thanks.

not to many board that wouldn't do that !!Except for the tech support maybe !

Go with the basic ASUS models. Their pretty cheap, and very reilable. I've never had a problem with them, and they will run almost everything you throw at them.

There is absolutely no need for an Athlon64 for such tasks. An AMD Sempron would be perfectly adequate and considerably cheaper. The cheapest of motherboards for the particular socket format would also be perfectly adequate.

Hell! A secondhand motherboard fitted with a Pentium 3 would be perfectly adequate!

Member Avatar

The difference between a 64 2800+ and a sempron 2800+ is only $35. I don't see that as much difference for the performance advantage of the 64 and its use in the future. I have used many p3's and they will work for some internet things but when it comes to video downloads or such things or just sometimes surfing I think they suck. I have decided after trying out a bunch that the 64 is the way to go because there is not much cost difference.

Sure you are assessing the processor performance there and not simply seeing the effect of other factors in the systems you've used, such as amount of RAM installed, display card fitted and others?

The processor requirements for adequate performance on the tasks you've listed aren't very high, and the performance difference introduced purely by better processors should really be barely perceptible.

I'm not trying to discredit your choice, bty the way. The Athlon64 is a fine choice. I'm merely seeking clarification for the benefit of others who may be reading this.

If hes not going to be playing any games, just running data apps and browsing the web, theres no real need to go over 1 Ghz in processor speed, and 256 MB of memory. Load up a PC with those sytem specs and Windows XP Home, and it will probably take just a few seconds longer to boot as your current setup. Office Applications and web surfing dont need blazing fast speed. Hell I still use an AMD 900 Mhz T-bird in one of my boxes, and it runs fine....

I'd recommend 512Mb of RAM for Windows XP and modern apps, but other than that I'd agree.