Need some advice.

[Stealthy_C]

Ok its been a while since ive looked around at Different hard parts. About 2 years now since i built my last computer and havent had the need to look around and see whats new out there.

Well im building a computer a friend of mine and need some advice.

What he wants to do with this computer is,

take all his old movies that are on VHS and burn them all to cd, now what card would be best for this?
and for video editing and other video editing stuff. He would like to record tv shows and burn them but im not sure how well they would record from a tv tuner card, any suggestions?
Games would also be played as well.

Im still not sure what MB or cpu to go with or what other hardware would be good for this kinda computer.

Any suggestions would be help full., thanx.

 

[darthparth]

Recording TV shows (the ATI All in Wonder Radeon is the best series I think for that). Video editing would need a gig of RAM and a fast processor (at least a P4 2ghz)

 

[dethangel]

for video editing

i would never ever ever ever suggest this for anyone who is gonna play games, but for video editing i would go with... a MAC, yes a MAC like G5 or something, because MAC has the best video harware/software, the new G5s come with like 2GB of RAM standard and can go up to 4GB

 

[Alexander]

Probably the top card on the market that would perform admirably in both applications would be the ATI Radeon All in Wonder 9800 Pro.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=Go&description=N82E16814102297

It's really rather pricy, but if he's going to do any real video capture and editting.. This is the card.. And yeah.. at least a gig of memory ( I would suggest Corsair DDR ) and use two DIMMS and sync them.. I would say something about the speed of the chip, but with the prices dropping on everything because the new series of CPUs are starting to emerge it would be a waste to build anything new that wasn't at least 2g. Personally, I like the AMD chipsets. They are less expensive than P4s and work just as well..

Have fun..

 

[dethangel]

alexander

you need to read my post called "the old debate" and follow the link, it will show you the superiority ofthe intel chip

 

[Alexander]

Well.. Superiority is in the eye of the beholder.. I would say a chip that performs adaquately that cost $50-$100 less for the same relational clockspeed is the superior chip where my wallet is concerned.. lol..

Alexander

:: I just checked out the article that you mentioned. It compares the high end chips that are just now coming out. A great many people are still updating and buying systems in th 2.2Ghz - 2.7Ghz range, and even the article that you posted gives props to AMD for both performance and price in that processor range. sooooo, until I'm heading into the 3Ghz+ range, According to that article, AMD is a better choice.::

This is a quote from http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_010a.html :

"AMD has been long since a favorite of gamers who wanted a fast computer with great performance but unwilling to pay the premium for Intel based processors. Even during the early Pentium 4 days when AMD was clearly outperforming Intel, AMD parts were always cheaper than IntelÂ’s comparable CPUs."

 

[dethangel]

that quote was before he ran the tests if you look at all of the scores youll see:

"Well, it starts off tough for AMD and finishes tough too. I don't see a single score that AMD wins in the benchmarks against Intel's 'slower' 3GHz Pentium 4. When looking at 3DMark 2003, focus on the CPU tests. The others are more video intense. SysMark 2002 and PCMark 2002 are dominated by Intel. The scores are not close. AMD has two SysMark 2002 scores. The left-hand score is without using their 'patch' that enables 3DNow! PRO instructions (SSE). The right-hand score is with the patch installed. A small increase in performance but nothing that touches Intel's 3GHz monster.

AMD's woes continue through Main Concept where Intel is faster to convert the file (lower time is faster). The trend is the same through the other synthetic scores.

The game scores are a bit closer in some of the benchmarks and in others, Intel is again dominate. Falcon 4 is close with a small Intel win. IL2 is being dominated by Intel. Comanche 4 is close but still Intel is ahead by at least 10%. "

and this was in the paragraph you quoted, right after you finished quoting:

"The new AMD Athlon XP 3200+ processor is selling for $449 on price watch. IntelÂ’s 3GHz CPU (800MHz FSB) and 3.06GHz CPU (533MHz FSB) are selling for $414 and $337 respectively. Given that AMD is claming their chip should be faster than both, this pricing falls in line with the expected performance gains from AMDÂ’s 3200+ CPU. "

as you can see, intel is now faster and cheaper, as far as the new technology goes, and isnt that what every1 wants?

 

[DoZZ]

I like this quote "For now, AMD has not been able to take the performance crown from Intel and Intel has now taken the price/performance crown from AMD. Intel is 'owning'. "

I have always used Intel solutions and don't always make my
decisions based on price/performance. I'm am glad AMD is there
for the competition and to keep Intel in check.