[PLUG] Real-life hardware comparison.

[Aaron Burt]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 04:30:47PM -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
>...so I'll have some cash that
> just might get diverted into finally updating my lame workstation.
> 
> I've got a really decent dual PIII motherboard and a gig of PC133 SDRAM
> but a single rather pathetic processor on the board.

Exactly how pathetic?

> OR I could go with something on the middley-end of what's current (because
> I'll need new motherboard, power supply likely, as well as processors and
> memory).

AMD, definitely.  I don't much care for my K7S5A motherboard, but the
CPU has been a dear, and the combo cost like $50.  The Athlon64s are the
fastest thing out there and getting affordable I hear.  And I'm of the
opinion that DDR is appropriate on anything with 512MB or more of RAM.

Note that by the time you're done, you'll be a hard drive ($.50/gig) and
a video card ($5 or so at FreeGeek) away from a whole 'nother 'pooter.

> Is the new fast bus stuff really that much faster?  Is it really
> worthwhile to have DDR memory and a single 2GHz processor over the
> maxed-out system I could have for much less money?

Yes and yes.  How much less money, really?  And do you need the
horsepower?  If you find you need a GB+ of RAM, you likely do.  
But watawino, I'm running an AMD 1.3GHz and a half-gig of RAM, and 
think it's more than I need.

Alternate things to spend it on:
Better monitor (can't upgrade eyes, after all)
Quieter computer
PVR card
WiFi toys
Really nice dinner/show with SO
ISEPP season tickets
Savings account

-- 
I used to do my checkbook in octal - It felt like I had more money.
 -- Pete Stickney