im going to build a socket 754 system. (yes i know so939 is better but 754 is fine for me) its going to be this mobo=
http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=3T8K&Quicklinx=3T8K#UsedStock
and this processor=
http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=3T8K&Quicklinx=3T8K#UsedStock
i will upgrade to a a64 processor later (and looking at the way athlon xp's have gone lately i may hang on to the sempron for a few years and sell it for a fantastic profit!!!!!)
so what i want to know is what do you think. the rest of the system will be my sig sys. i have given dad my xp3200+ processor in exchange for his 3000+ which currently fetch more on ebay!! and will sell my current mobo and processor to finance it. (taking all the custom coolers off first of course!!!)
this sys should fly!
edit=
ok so i have changed my mind already. im going for a so939 system whith either a 3000+ or a 3200+ a64 processor
i will then upgrade to a 4000+ at a later date.
edit=
now its,
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6826531541
and
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6827370992
Good choice. If you were looking at the 3400+ sempron, you may as well get a 3000+ A64 on a 939, as the price difference is nil.
that was my reasoning.
especially as it works out cheaper than buying a athlon xp 3000+ processor!
my new cpu (purchased this afternoon)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6829378040&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1
and my mobo (5 mins later!)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6829005594&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1
basically what i want to know is the pitifalls of this setup. i wouldnt mind knowing the good bits either!!! any problems you've had installing 939 systems and how you overcame them would be nice too!!!! ;D as you may have guessed im a bit nurvous about throwing away ?142!
thanks guys
freelance
I helped my friend build a computer with a venice 3000+ and that same motherboard, and it works very well. One issue was the fact that the motherboard automatically over-volted the CPU to 1.6, so lowering was required. And although he hasn't tried, I've heard those aren't very good at overclocking if you are planning on doing that. Otherwise, you should be happy with it. Also, just FYI, you bought an OEM Athlon 64, so you still need a heat sink and fan for it. I personally like the ones that came with the CPU, so I got that for the warranty and simlicity, but you can easily buy a decent setup there.
i got given a a64 cooler that had sometime in its life lost its fan, by my local computer store CH Solutions. i added a fan and polished the copper bottem and vola!!!! a artic cooler cooler!!!!
Quote from: freelance on December 09, 2005, 15:12 hrs
i got given a a64 cooler that had sometime in its life lost its fan, by my local computer store CH Solutions. i added a fan and polished the copper bottem and vola!!!! a artic cooler cooler!!!!
Hmm, I guess you could say that you now have a cooler Arctic cooler that is really cool? Maybe not, only on Sonic commercials and the Comedy Channel. :P
got the parts 2day and its up and running (boy do i have too much time on my hands) my only annoyance is that the 5-6 usb header doesnt work :'(. but it doesnt really bother me.. see my sig!!!
Congratulations. Sounds like a nice system. Good luck with it.
Bill
hey scuzzy whats your experiences with the a8v dulux, 64 3200 and corsair value ram combo????
iv just fitted a western digital sata hard drive, 7200rpm and 300mb/s transfer rate. the problem came when installing xp. there are 3 floppy creator utilities on the mobo cdrom, 2 for the promise controller and 1 for the normal sata connections. ( for the f6 option in xp install) on each of thse utilitys there is the driver for win 2000, xp, nt4 and me. the normal sata drivers wouldnt work (caused a problem with xp and crashed the install), so i swiched to the promise controller. i then tried the xp driver with the same error, the same resault was given by the 2000 then the me driver. but suprise of suprise, the nt4 driver did it!!!! i mean kudos to backwards compatibility, i dont even think xp is based on nt arcitecture? i thought it went down the same line as 2000????
Xp and 2000 are based on NT, but I am no less surprised that you needed to revert to NT4 to install. 2000 is technically NT5. The older 2000 setups even refer to the WINNT folder instead of Win2000 folder. I may be on a limb here, but I also believe that XP is a hybrid of 2000's NT5. Someone may smack me down, but I believe that is right.
i always got that mixed up.
freelance,
dang do you live in here? i only poasted 2 minuites ago!