Upgrade advice: mobo, cpu

[Deadwood]

I am considering upgrading my computer, and would like any advice others here can give.

Current configuration:
Celeron 1.3 GHz
Shuttle motherboard, Apollo Pro 133 chipset with VT82C686 south bridge
A few parallel ata hard drives
1 broken DVD burner (reads, won't write DVD's anymore, writes CDs)
640 Megs of RAM ("should be enough for anyone")
A power supply of unknown quality that's probably 300W
ATI Rage Fury Pro
SoundBlaster PCI128
USB 2 pci card
Firewire pci card
PCI ethernet card, Lite-On LNE100TX (rev 21)
Usually runs Linux, dual boots WinXP OEM.
I have a Hyundai flat panel, but it does NOT have digital inputs.

I have an extra case and power supply of the same vintage as an Athlon 800.

The computer serves mostly as a web browser and digital photo viewer. However, it also does a lot of compiling. I run a version of Linux (Gentoo) that compiles everything from source, sometimes taking hours to upgrade software. Additionally, it is actually slow at browsing the web. I believe it's due to firefox using cairo using xrender, which is very slow on my video card in linux, or so I've been told. Also, we watch videos taken with our Fujifilm Finepix F10, and it can barely keep up (in linux). If I had more horsepower, I might do more video editing/transcoding and send clips to family. I have a miniDV camera and firewire pci card that I occasionally use to upload home movies to the computer, for editing and burning to DVD (in windows). My two printers each have USB inputs. I do not run any serial devices.

I might be willing to spend between US$400 and $500 to upgrade. I would like something stable, and something that will last a long time. I appreciate quiet, but it doesn't have to be silent. I don't currently do any 3d, so onboard video is an option. I'm considering an Intel branded board with the G33 chipset, assuming there is one. The main reason for considering Intel is stability, I'm tired of the faults in my current system. It eats RAM (2 or 3 bad sticks in the last couple years).

I'm considering a new power supply, motherboard, processor, RAM, and a pata to sata adapter for the time being. Secondary hard drives could be connected via USB, I presume. I can upgrade the optical drive and get a native sata hard drive later. I think I would actually benefit from a multi-core system, because of all the compiling. Also, my wife and I often run programs concurrently from different virtual terminals.

Does onboard audio suck less these days? My current motherboard has terrible onboard audio. I occasionally video conference, I've been known to record from line in, and I frequently listen via headphones.

Thoughts, criticisms, suggestions? Should I wait some more before upgrading?

Previously, I purchased most major items from brick-and-mortar stores. However, there are no nice, local, hobbyist-friendly computer stores where I now live. There is a Best Buy nearby, and a Frys a little further away. I would consider buying online from a reputable store.

A related question: why are the 1333Mhz bus C2D processors cheaper than their 1066MHz counterparts? (e6750 vs e6700, for example)

Thanks!

 

[ddrueding]

Wow, that is an old system

Things to keep in mind:

New motherboards typically have just one PATA port, so your optical will be going there. Sticking an SATA adapter on your HDD shouldn't be a problem, provided the SATA controller doesn't require special drivers (most of them don't anymore). Onboard sound is probably as good as what you have now, but there are other options.

I'm building systems out of the parts I have left over from builds, and we might be able to come to an arrangement. Are you near the SF bay area?

 

[Will Rickards]

Yes consider the G33 chipset. I bought the gigabtye board GA-G33M-DS2R but there is an intel version which is cheaper. Add a Q6600 (quad core 1066Mhz bus) and say 2 or 4GB of appropriate DDR2. You'll get onboard video. Buy yourself one of those optiarc dvd burners that is SATA. Onboard you get one pata port so you can natively support two parallel ata drives. You can use an adaptor for the rest. You might consider a new case and quality power supply. You can probably get that all for around $500.

 

[Will Rickards]

The 1333Mhz processors are cheaper because intel wants to push them not the older ones. After all the penryhn revision is not far off. So the 1066Mhz processors are going to go the way of the dinosaur quickly.
That doesn't mean the Q6600 is bad. In fact it is a real bargain for a quad core processor. And the G33 can support the newer 1333Mhz processors and probably even the penryhn revision. I bought my stuff from mwave.com

 

[ddrueding]

I would be cautious putting this stuff in an old case with an old PS, what are the make/model? This will draw significantly more power, and put out significantly more heat than you current system. The good news is you can get rid of the PCI cards.

 

[e_dawg]

I had such an old system that used standards that were replaced by newer formats/standards for basically every hardware subsystem that I couldn't really use some parts and upgrade others.

It was easier and cheaper (esp. if you include a legal copy of Windows) to just buy a Dell on sale.

HDD: PATA --> SATA
Opticals: PATA CD-RW --> SATA DVD-RW
GPU: AGP --> PCIe
RAM: PC2700 DDR --> PC5300 DDR2
USB: 1.1 --> 2.0 HS

However, in the long run, it would be cheaper to build your own PC, as you would be able to reuse maybe half your parts the next time you upgrade. It's been many years since there has been such a significant change in the format of all the hardware subsystems.

 

[e_dawg]

Dell System for $429 US:

AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400+
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Basic
No Monitor
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
16x DVD+/-RW Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 6150 LE Integrated Graphics GPU
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse
No Floppy Drive Included
56K PCI Data Fax Modem

You can add Firewire to the Dell as a $30 option, and can get a dedicated nVidia 7300 LE graphics card for $50

If you find yourself running out of memory, you can get another 1 GB of RAM from a computer store for $40 or so and install it yourself instead of upgrading to 2 GB with Dell and paying $100.

But otherwise, I think you could use the system listed above to do everything you wanted with much more speed and stability than before.

 

[e_dawg]

P.S., you can get Linux-based Dell systems as well. Possibly even cheaper. I don't know where to find it on their website, though.

 

[Deadwood]

More info: processor/board/ram are the things that I get around to replacing least often. I have some relatively new hard drives, two 250 GB WD, and one 160GB Seagate. One of the WD is short-stroked to use only 30 GB, used for the OS and compiling, and the rest of it is only mounted when I back up stuff from the other WD. The Seagate is used for windows only.

I'm considering something like the following:
Core 2 Duo E6750 Processor
2 GB RAM
Intel DG33FB
Seasonic? power supply

I'll probably get 800 MHz RAM, and run it at 667 MH.

I'm also considering a Q6600 (quad core) on Will's advice, which does not cost much more at buy.com. Cons: more power consumption than a E6750 (this is a big one), slower at non-parallel-capable programs, more expensive. Pros: faster at parallel-capable programs.

I'm not sure about a Dell. I've always used self-built white box desktop PC's since the first pentium. The current machine started out as an Abit BH6, celerie 300A, moved to 533 celeron slotkit, BH6 broke, replaced it with the current one, then got the current celeron for $10 a couple of years ago. My concerns with a Dell would be durability and upgradability. I helped a friend troubleshoot an eMachines computer, and he ended up with a new motherboard on which he was unable to use his eMachines-specific windows xp.

For linux compatibility, I would prefer Intel integrated graphics over integrated ATI or integrated nVidia. (For full graphics cards, ATI or nVidia, of course). This is because I believe their linux drivers will be better. Keith Packard, major developer for the linux graphics subsystem x.org now works at intel and writes their drivers, meaning Intel officially supports linux with open drivers. Maybe it's just a warm fuzzy thing. Or maybe it's because I'm mad because my laptop advertises an ATI integrated video card, but delivers nothing beyond what one would expect from the cheapest integrated graphics card, and it uses 128 MB of main memory.

I don't want to give the impression that I don't like AMD, though. Other machines I've built for family have been AMD. I just like what's available from Intel right now.

 

[Bozo]

Why would you run 800MHz RAM at 667MHz?

Bozo :joker:

 

[Mercutio]

I'd absolutely look at the Quad core before an expensive dual core setup. The subjective difference between a fast dual core and a "slow" one isn't all that great, whereas the advantage of quad is fairly obvious.

IMO the only dual core Intels worth looking at are the slowest ones in any category.

 

[Will Rickards]

Why would you run 800MHz RAM at 667MHz?

I'd guess to run a 1066Mhz bus now but replace the processor with the 1333Mhz processors later? But even though the P35/G33 supports 800Mhz ram, somehow had told me that 667 was the balanced speed for a 1333mhz front side bus (1/2). So that is why I bought 667 not 800.
So that leaves me to wonder why 800Mhz as well.

 

[Will Rickards]

Maybe we should update the old cheap PC thread. I know there was one around here were quite a few posted their base PC configs. It might be a good time to get those configs updated.

 

[ddrueding]

Maybe we should update the old cheap PC thread. I know there was one around here were quite a few posted their base PC configs. It might be a good time to get those configs updated.

Good idea. I have one post to make first....

 

[Adcadet]

Good idea. My wife's Athlon XP 2500 with 0.5 GB of RAM is getting slow.

 

[Deadwood]

RE: run 800 MHz RAM at 667 MHz. Will Wickards is right. I thought I read somewhere that running the RAM at an 1333M?(bytes?words?)/sec speed (667 MHz dual data rate) would be better than running it at 1600M?/sec with a 1333MHz bus. I would get the 800 instead of the 667 RAM simply because it's slightly more future proof, and only slightly more expensive.

In the end however, I have put off my decision to upgrade my home desktop. Instead I spent my long-saved cash on something else that I shall name in a Pub & Brewery post Thank you all for your advice!