From: a@b.c   
      
   Mark South wrote:   
   > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:56:32 +0100, Wim Cossement wrote:   
   >   
   >> It would be a PC for sure but the biggest question is about the type of   
   >> CPU I'd be using.   
   >>   
   >> AMD or Intel?   
   >> How many cores?   
   >> 32 or 64 bit?   
   >>   
   >> I have about â�¬ 1000 - 1200 to spend and I don't really need a GPU or a   
   >> screen if this might help a bit.   
   >   
   > For a new processor, go for 64-bit (can one still buy 32-bit?) and get   
   > dualcore, they are cheap. With your budget you should be able to get a   
   > multiprocessor mobo and run a pair of dual core processors.   
   >   
   > I prefer AMD because they seem more cost-effective for the same kind of   
   > performance, and the mobos that take them are also cheaper for the same   
   > feature set.   
      
   I'll check out those AMD cores, for me it's all the same. I was kinda   
   happy with my old Athlon XP+ 2100... :-)   
      
   > Clock speed is less important for overall performance than memory, because   
   > most systems spend most of their time waiting for memory.  Buy as much of   
   > the best quality memory you can get, even if it means saving a bit on the   
   > processor speeds.   
      
   Well I would get 2 times 1GB at the highest speed possible (3200?) in   
   dual channel mode.   
   But do I also need to look close at all those latencies or don't they   
   have to big an influence?   
      
   > Finally, with a high performance system, set aside a good chunk of your   
   > budget for a really good quality power supply and a really good cooling   
   > system.  It makes one sad to see â�¬1000 of hardware fail from   
   overheating!   
      
   Yeah, I've noticed over the years those cheap 'normal' 300 Watt supplies   
   can't cope with all the powedrains by modern CPU's and GPU's   
      
   Wimmy   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)