Rate My Pc...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: egyptianmafia
P4 3.2 GHz (Hyper Threading) 800 MHz FSB
1 gig DDR 400
Win. XP PRO
Maxtor 180 GIG HDD (8 mb cache)
ASUS P4C800-DLX
Samsung 16x DVD-ROM Drive,
Mitsumi 52x24x52 CD-RW Drive,
Sony DRU-500AX DVD+/-RW Drive
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB DDR (Video Card)
Sony SDMS71 17" Flat Panel
Sound Blaster 5.1...Upgrading to Audigy 2 Plat
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
Originally posted by egyptianmafia@25 July 2003 - 19:25
P4 3.2 GHz (Hyper Threading) 800 MHz FBS
1 gig DDR 400
Win. XP PRO
Maxtor 180 GIG HDD (8 mb cache)
ASUS P4C800-DLX
Samsung 16x DVD-ROM Drive, Mitsumi 52x24x52 CD-RW Drive, Sony DRU-500AX DVD+/-RW Drive ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB DDR (Video Card)
Sony SDMS71 17" Flat Panel
you should get a big crt monitor and stop showing off
8 out of 10
also, learn to spell 'fsb' ;)
Posted by: Lamsey
Performance: 9/10
Cost efficiency: 3/10
Posted by: egyptianmafia
8/10
man...i have 800FSB....
180 GIG HD 8mb
DVD writer
Cd Burner
DVD Rom
ATI 9700 Pro
1GIG Ram
and 8/10 only...
and 17'LCD is good...if i want more i would be looking at $1000+
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
Originally posted by egyptianmafia@25 July 2003 - 19:33
8/10
man...i have 800FSB....
180 GIG HD 8mb
DVD writer
Cd Burner
DVD Rom
ATI 9700 Pro
1GIG Ram
and 8/10 only...
and 17'LCD is good...if i want more i would be looking at $1000+
well, if you want 10/10 you'll have to do more than that anyway
there are oc'd p4's running at a gig more clock than you...with over 1 gig fsb...
you only have 180 gig hdd space. there are lots of people with more
you only have a 9700 pro (which is a little slow in comparison to 9800 pro
you only have 1 gig of ram. you could have 1.5 gig easily
as for monitor, crt are still the best option for outright performance
Posted by: harrycary
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just stuff a sock down your pants?
(fuck'n asshat show-off)
Posted by: bigdawgfoxx
Ok hes trying to show off....but you have to admit its an awsome rig...nice ..id give it 9...best processor from the FACTORY and not overclocked lol 1 gig of ram...good..but more is always better lol im digging the monitor and the graphics are pretty nice and lots of HD...i give it about a 9
Posted by: Neo 721
You want to build an Athlon system its much more cost affective and it can give you just as good performance.
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
Originally posted by Neo 721@26 July 2003 - 18:41
can give you just as good performance.
i'm a big athlon fan and even i would dispute that claim...
athlons are very efficient though
Posted by: bigdawgfoxx
I agree with 3rd gen...sept im not that big of an AMD fan..i mean yeah it might be good and all..but im into brand names..thats just me though...i dont ever see myself using an AMD...and it doesnt give as good of performance....check some benchmarksBenchmark (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-32.html)
Posted by: adamp2p
Originally posted by egyptianmafia@25 July 2003 - 19:25
P4 3.2 GHz (Hyper Threading) 800 MHz FSB
1 gig DDR 400
Win. XP PRO
Maxtor 180 GIG HDD (8 mb cache)
ASUS P4C800-DLX
Samsung 16x DVD-ROM Drive,
Mitsumi 52x24x52 CD-RW Drive,
Sony DRU-500AX DVD+/-RW Drive
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB DDR (Video Card)
Sony SDMS71 17" Flat Panel
Sound Blaster 5.1...Upgrading to Audigy 2 Plat
Show us a copy of your bill.
Without showing us the price you paid, giving you a rating is without merit.
Edit: your biggest mistake was the monitor. 17 inch flat panels are weak...you could of had a 21 inch FD Trinny for less and had better image quality and pixel response.
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
if you're happy with your computer, you don't need to ask for approval from some anonymous people on the internet. ;)
and just to echo what everyone else said, YES it does sound like a good computer and you prolly paid more than most of us would be willing to spend on a PC.
Posted by: adamp2p
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@26 July 2003 - 19:17
I agree with 3rd gen...sept im not that big of an AMD fan..i mean yeah it might be good and all..but im into brand names..thats just me though...i dont ever see myself using an AMD...and it doesnt give as good of performance....check some benchmarksBenchmark (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-32.html)
That benchmark is very outdated. It is using RDRAM which is at least 2 GB/sec slower than DDR Dual Channel 400 PC 3200. Also those cpus do not have the 800 MHz FSB (spelled correctly) nor the hyperthreading.
Posted by: sparsely
Nice setup...but...
all that hardware..for what? Surfing the web & downloading files? Playing games?
That's an expensive game machine. :blink:
Like non-mountain/swamp-dwelling citizens who drive hummers..
they look cool, but what's the point?
Posted by: Schmiggy_JK23
silly choice in monitors.
any one who would buy a 3.2 ghz chip right now, is totally retarded... when u can get the 3.0 for far less, and almost have the same performance.
sounds like a lot of hype...
Posted by: egyptianmafia
i got this PC as a gift because i will be taking Computer Science in University...so i cant show the receipt...and I will use this rig for gaming...and downloading and surfing...but #1 is for games
Posted by: adamp2p
http://ti89.acz.org/images/89sm.JPGYou got a TI-89?
That will help you more than that computer of yours.
Posted by: Spindulik
Will the Audigy 2 Plat be 7.1? And will it have DIGITAL audio output, capable of being transduced to fiberoptic, for a BOSE surround system?
Posted by: leonidas
Originally posted by adamp2p@27 July 2003 - 07:20
http://ti89.acz.org/images/89sm.JPGYou got a TI-89?
That will help you more than that computer of yours.
I've got a Casio Graph 100+ 1Mo Calcul formel, wich is twice better than your crapy Texas-instruments.http://multimedia.fnac.com/multimedia/images_produits/grandes150/7/3/8/3126170022837.gif
HA! HA! HA! ........
Posted by: G-Tzmax
9/10 maybe if u have the FX5900 ultra 256Mb
i have it and is really good.