Proposed Build - Help!

 > Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get
 > an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
 > in most applications.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font</a>>
 >
 >
 > For Doom 3, a $160 Athlon 64 3000+ even beats the $825 P4 3.2 ghz EE!
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7</font</a>>
 >
 >
 > It is also great for other games.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8</font</a>>
 >

God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:

The P42.8 Prescott 800FSB 1MB L2 Cache is BARELY slower (on average) than
the Athlon 64 3000+ in games. Their numbers are close enough to call these
two processors identical.

For most business applications, the performance of the two processors is
identical. (yes, identical)

In the one or two business applications where there is a difference, the P4
2.8 is very slightly FASTER than the Athlon 64 3000+ (yes, I said the P4
2.8 prescott is faster)

There is nothing wrong with an Athlon 64 3000+. I'd recommend it to just
about anyone. But it is NOT "a much better performer in most applications"
than a P4 2.8 prescott. It's most accurate to say that it is a VERY
SLIGHTLY better performer in A FEW applications.

Now go look at the cost of Athlon 64 motherboards compared to P4 Prescott
motherboards, and most reasonable people would conclude that the P4 2.8
processor is actually a better deal, at the moment, than the Athlon 64
3000+.

Stop spreading lies about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave

If anybody cares to know the REAL numbers between these two processors,
check out the DX9 and Applications benchmarks below.

<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html</a>
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

JK wrote in message ...
 > Colin Phillips wrote:
 >
  > > Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
  > > ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
  > > got sidelined with buying a car instead).
  > >
  > > Windows XP
  > > Antec Sonata case
  > > P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)
 >
 > Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get
 > an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
 > in most applications.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font</a>>

I suppose it's a bit of brand-loyalty. I don't have any experience
with AMD, whereas I've used Intel's for years. I've considered the
change to AMD, but didn't know which one to look at.

Also, games aren't a huge priority, I'll be using this system all day
for work, with lots of multi-tasking, graphic editing, and some
video/animation work. It's my understanding that the Intel still
outperforms in those areas.

I've checked out the link you provided (thanks), and several other
benchmark tests. But there doesn't seem to be a clear winner.

I keep going back and forth (and since I'm used to Intel, they win in
a tie I guess), but if you could convice me otherwise...


  > >
  > > Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
  > > Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
  > > WD Caviar SATA 120GB
  > > ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
  > > LG DVD-Writer
  > >
  > > Questions:
  > > -The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
  > > know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?
 >
 > On board sound in decent quality modern motherboards is good
 > enough for casual use.

Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in
a game like Doom 3, or when watching DVD's?


Another question, would you suggest an after market heatsink instead
of the stock one(I don't currently plan to overclock)?

Also, is the one stock fan enough in the Antec case for good airflow?

Thanks
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

"Dave C." wrote:

  > > Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get
  > > an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
  > > in most applications.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font</a>>
  > >
  > >
  > > For Doom 3, a $160 Athlon 64 3000+ even beats the $825 P4 3.2 ghz EE!
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7</font</a>>
  > >
  > >
  > > It is also great for other games.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8</font</a>>
  > >
 >
 > God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:
 >
 > The P42.8 Prescott 800FSB 1MB L2 Cache is BARELY slower (on average) than
 > the Athlon 64 3000+ in games. Their numbers are close enough to call these
 > two processors identical.

I don't want to hear stories about achitecture, I want to see benchmarks.
Can you provide benchmarks to prove your case? I have provided
benchmarks to prove my case.

When an Athlon 64 3000+ beats a P4 3.4 and even a P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3,
how can you call the P4 2.8 equal to Athlon 64 3000+????

<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7</a>




 >
 >
 > For most business applications, the performance of the two processors is
 > identical. (yes, identical)

You have not looked at the benchmarks.
An Athlon 64 3000+ beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.
<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</a>

Even a $105 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $250 P4 3.2 in Business Winstone 2004.

<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</a>


 >
 >
 > In the one or two business applications where there is a difference, the P4
 > 2.8 is very slightly FASTER than the Athlon 64 3000+ (yes, I said the P4
 > 2.8 prescott is faster)

LOL! Where are the benchmarks to prove your claim?

 >
 >
 > There is nothing wrong with an Athlon 64 3000+. I'd recommend it to just
 > about anyone. But it is NOT "a much better performer in most applications"
 > than a P4 2.8 prescott.

Read this review and try to prove your case.
<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1</a>



 > It's most accurate to say that it is a VERY
 > SLIGHTLY better performer in A FEW applications.

LOL! Very slight? Not quite. In Business Winstone 2004, even Intel's
$1,000 P4 3.4 EE chip can't beat a $210 Athlon 64 3200+, and the
$825 P4 3.2 EE can't beat the $160 Athlon 64 3000+.
<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</a>



 >
 >
 > Now go look at the cost of Athlon 64 motherboards compared to P4 Prescott
 > motherboards, and most reasonable people would conclude that the P4 2.8
 > processor is actually a better deal, at the moment, than the Athlon 64
 > 3000+.

That is a very funny comment. For many applications, it takes at least P4 3.2
ghz
to come close to Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 motherboard might be around
$25 more than a P4 one, however the P4 3.2 would be around $90 more.
Does it pay to spend $90 more for the cpu to save $25 on the motherboard?
Perhaps we should compare the $210 Athlon 64 3200+ to the $420
P4 3.4 Prescott?

 >
 >
 > Stop spreading lies

Lies? I am giving benchmarks.

 > about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
 > Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave

Look at the benchmarks.
<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</a>

 >

 >
 >
 > If anybody cares to know the REAL numbers between these two processors,
 > check out the DX9 and Applications benchmarks below.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html</font</a>>

Those DX9 benchmarks show the Athlon 64 3000+ on par with the
P4 3 ghz, not the 2.8 ghz.
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

Colin Phillips wrote:
 > Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
 > ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
 > got sidelined with buying a car instead).
 >
 > Windows XP
 > Antec Sonata case
 > P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)
 > Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
 > Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
 > WD Caviar SATA 120GB
 > ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
 > LG DVD-Writer
 >
 > Questions:
 > -The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
 > know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?

Try the audio for a few weeks. If it doesn't meet your needs, look for an
Audigy 2 or another card.
 >
 > -The DVD writer has poor CD reading spead. Will I need to pick up
 > another CD or DVD ROM drive to get good speeds?

In general, DVD writers are slower at reading/writing a CD-R than is a CD
burner. If you burn a great number of CDs, buy a CD-RW burner. If not, 30x
isn't /that/ bad.

 > I'll be using this system for gaming (soon to be used for Doom 3, I
 > hope) and work. For work, I'm a web developer and do a lot of
 > multi-tasking (10-20 programs running, remote desktop, some graphics
 > and animation work).

Nice video card. It runs hot. Have sufficient case cooling; add another
120mm fan to the Sonata.
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

Dave C. wrote:

 > Stop spreading lies about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
 > Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave

Can we say that the Prescott uses more power and can present a cooling
problem?
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

Colin Phillips wrote:


  > > Colin Phillips wrote:
  > >
   > > > Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
   > > > ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
   > > > got sidelined with buying a car instead).
   > > >
   > > > Windows XP
   > > > Antec Sonata case
   > > > P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)
  > >
  > > Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get
  > > an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
  > > in most applications.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font</a>>
 >
 > I suppose it's a bit of brand-loyalty. I don't have any experience
 > with AMD, whereas I've used Intel's for years. I've considered the
 > change to AMD, but didn't know which one to look at.
 >
 > Also, games aren't a huge priority, I'll be using this system all day
 > for work, with lots of multi-tasking, graphic editing, and some
 > video/animation work. It's my understanding that the Intel still
 > outperforms in those areas.

About the only areas that the P4 really excells compared to the Athlon 64
is video and 3D rendering. That is especially true when comparably priced
chips are considered.

 >
 >
 > I've checked out the link you provided (thanks), and several other
 > benchmark tests. But there doesn't seem to be a clear winner.
 >
 > I keep going back and forth (and since I'm used to Intel, they win in
 > a tie I guess), but if you could convice me otherwise...
 >
   > > >
   > > > Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
   > > > Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
   > > > WD Caviar SATA 120GB
   > > > ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
   > > > LG DVD-Writer
   > > >
   > > > Questions:
   > > > -The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
   > > > know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?
  > >
  > > On board sound in decent quality modern motherboards is good
  > > enough for casual use.
 >
 > Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in
 > a game like Doom 3, or when watching DVD's?

You could try the on board sound, and if you don't like it, you could
always add a sound card later. Another reason to add a sound card would
be that the cpu demands of your applications are great, and that a sound
card would take some workload off your cpu.

 >
 >
 > Another question, would you suggest an after market heatsink instead
 > of the stock one(I don't currently plan to overclock)?

An good aftermarket one might be a bit quiter. The heatsinks in the
retail boxes for both AMD and Intel chips are adequate if the chips
aren't going to be overclocked.

 >
 >
 > Also, is the one stock fan enough in the Antec case for good airflow?

If you don't plan to add extra hard drives and a very high performance
video card, a single case fan be fine. Many cases come with only one
fan, but have space for additional fans if needed. See how your temperatures
are, then decide if you need extra fans. Get a case that has spaces for
additional fans if needed.

 >
 >
 > Thanks
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

"S.Heenan" wrote in message ...
 > Colin Phillips wrote:
  > > Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
  > > ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
  > > got sidelined with buying a car instead).
  > >
  > > Windows XP
  > > Antec Sonata case
  > > P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)
  > > Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
  > > Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
  > > WD Caviar SATA 120GB
  > > ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
  > > LG DVD-Writer
  > >
  > > Questions:
  > > -The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
  > > know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?
 >
 > Try the audio for a few weeks. If it doesn't meet your needs, look for an
 > Audigy 2 or another card.
  > >
  > > -The DVD writer has poor CD reading spead. Will I need to pick up
  > > another CD or DVD ROM drive to get good speeds?
 >
 > In general, DVD writers are slower at reading/writing a CD-R than is a CD
 > burner. If you burn a great number of CDs, buy a CD-RW burner. If not, 30x
 > isn't /that/ bad.
 >
  > > I'll be using this system for gaming (soon to be used for Doom 3, I
  > > hope) and work. For work, I'm a web developer and do a lot of
  > > multi-tasking (10-20 programs running, remote desktop, some graphics
  > > and animation work).
 >
 > Nice video card. It runs hot. Have sufficient case cooling; add another
 > 120mm fan to the Sonata.


Thanks for the suggestions, I think I'll drop the SB Audigy and won't
bother with an extra CD or DVD ROM drive for now. No harm in trying
things without them first.

Any suggestions on which fan to go with?

From what I've been reading, the Prescott runs a bit hot, and could
use the cooling. Do you think the stock heatsink for the P4 is
sufficient or will I be better off trying something else in there?
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

"Dave C." wrote in message ...
  > > Why a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? For around the same price, you can get
  > > an Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ is a much better performer
  > > in most applications.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6</font</a>>
  > >
  > >
  > > For Doom 3, a $160 Athlon 64 3000+ even beats the $825 P4 3.2 ghz EE!
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7</font</a>>
  > >
  > >
  > > It is also great for other games.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8</font" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8</font</a>>
  > >
 >
 > God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:
 >
 > The P42.8 Prescott 800FSB 1MB L2 Cache is BARELY slower (on average) than
 > the Athlon 64 3000+ in games. Their numbers are close enough to call these
 > two processors identical.
 >
 > For most business applications, the performance of the two processors is
 > identical. (yes, identical)
 >
 > In the one or two business applications where there is a difference, the P4
 > 2.8 is very slightly FASTER than the Athlon 64 3000+ (yes, I said the P4
 > 2.8 prescott is faster)
 >
 > There is nothing wrong with an Athlon 64 3000+. I'd recommend it to just
 > about anyone. But it is NOT "a much better performer in most applications"
 > than a P4 2.8 prescott. It's most accurate to say that it is a VERY
 > SLIGHTLY better performer in A FEW applications.
 >
 > Now go look at the cost of Athlon 64 motherboards compared to P4 Prescott
 > motherboards, and most reasonable people would conclude that the P4 2.8
 > processor is actually a better deal, at the moment, than the Athlon 64
 > 3000+.
 >
 > Stop spreading lies about the P4 2.8 Prescott. It is NOT better than an
 > Athlon 64 3000+. Not worse, but not better either. -Dave
 >
 > If anybody cares to know the REAL numbers between these two processors,
 > check out the DX9 and Applications benchmarks below.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html</font</a>>


Thanks Dave, that's what I was thinking.

From what I was reading, the two looked to be comparable. Intel would
win in some tests, AMD in others.

And in a tie (which is pretty much how it looks), I'll most likely go
with the Intel since I'm used to it.
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

  > > God, you're like a broken record bashing Intel. FACTS:
  > >
  > > The P42.8 Prescott 800FSB 1MB L2 Cache is BARELY slower (on average)
than
  > > the Athlon 64 3000+ in games. Their numbers are close enough to call
these
  > > two processors identical.
 >
 > I don't want to hear stories about achitecture, I want to see benchmarks.
 > Can you provide benchmarks to prove your case? I have provided
 > benchmarks to prove my case.
 >

(snip)

I wrote and you responded to:

  > > If anybody cares to know the REAL numbers between these two processors,
  > > check out the DX9 and Applications benchmarks below.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html</font</a>>
 >
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

JK wrote in message ...
(snip)
  > > Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in
  > > a game like Doom 3, or when watching DVD's?
 >
 > You could try the on board sound, and if you don't like it, you could
 > always add a sound card later. Another reason to add a sound card would
 > be that the cpu demands of your applications are great, and that a sound
 > card would take some workload off your cpu.


Thanks JK, that's what some others have been suggesting too. I think
I'll drop it for now.

  > >
  > >
  > > Another question, would you suggest an after market heatsink instead
  > > of the stock one(I don't currently plan to overclock)?
 >
 > An good aftermarket one might be a bit quiter. The heatsinks in the
 > retail boxes for both AMD and Intel chips are adequate if the chips
 > aren't going to be overclocked.
 >
  > >
  > >
  > > Also, is the one stock fan enough in the Antec case for good airflow?
 >
 > If you don't plan to add extra hard drives and a very high performance
 > video card, a single case fan be fine. Many cases come with only one
 > fan, but have space for additional fans if needed. See how your temperatures
 > are, then decide if you need extra fans. Get a case that has spaces for
 > additional fans if needed.

The Sonata has a mount for another 120mm fan.

But is the Antec 380W TruePower PSU in the Sonata sufficient power to
run what I have, and the added heatsink and case fan, and the SB
Audigy if I need to add them?

From what I've been reading, everyone says the TruePower is great, but
380W seems a bit low.

Thanks
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

  > > Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in
  > > a game like Doom 3, or when watching DVD's?
 >
 > You could try the on board sound, and if you don't like it, you could
 > always add a sound card later. Another reason to add a sound card would
 > be that the cpu demands of your applications are great, and that a sound
 > card would take some workload off your cpu.

I'm a little confused on this part. It was my understanding that on-board
sound was controlled by the northbridge or southbridge chipset, and that
these chips were dedicated to processes such as on-board sound (among other
things, like the I/O panel). When playing Doom 3, for example, it's easy to
see why your _CPU_ would be running near 100%, but I'm not sure why it's
assumed the NB/SB would be.
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

Colin Phillips wrote:


 > (snip)
   > > > Is the on-board sound at a level where I won't notice a difference in
   > > > a game like Doom 3, or when watching DVD's?
  > >
  > > You could try the on board sound, and if you don't like it, you could
  > > always add a sound card later. Another reason to add a sound card would
  > > be that the cpu demands of your applications are great, and that a sound
  > > card would take some workload off your cpu.
 >
 > Thanks JK, that's what some others have been suggesting too. I think
 > I'll drop it for now.
 >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Another question, would you suggest an after market heatsink instead
   > > > of the stock one(I don't currently plan to overclock)?
  > >
  > > An good aftermarket one might be a bit quiter. The heatsinks in the
  > > retail boxes for both AMD and Intel chips are adequate if the chips
  > > aren't going to be overclocked.
  > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Also, is the one stock fan enough in the Antec case for good airflow?
  > >
  > > If you don't plan to add extra hard drives and a very high performance
  > > video card, a single case fan be fine. Many cases come with only one
  > > fan, but have space for additional fans if needed. See how your temperatures
  > > are, then decide if you need extra fans. Get a case that has spaces for
  > > additional fans if needed.
 >
 > The Sonata has a mount for another 120mm fan.
 >
 > But is the Antec 380W TruePower PSU in the Sonata sufficient power to
 > run what I have, and the added heatsink and case fan, and the SB
 > Audigy if I need to add them?
 >
 > From what I've been reading, everyone says the TruePower is great, but
 > 380W seems a bit low.

A good 380 watt power supply like the Antec one you mentioned should be fine,
unless you plan to add a few more hard drives or other power hungry
components. A sound card probably wouldn't consume much power. If
you are getting a large case, and plan to add many other things later,
you might want to consider a 450 watt power supply.

 >
 >
 > Thanks
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help! 

Colin Phillips wrote:


  >> Colin Phillips wrote:
   >>> Here's the system I'm planning on building. Haven't built from the
   >>> ground up before (almost did, and posted here about a year ago, but
   >>> got sidelined with buying a car instead).
   >>>
   >>> Windows XP
   >>> Antec Sonata case
   >>> P4 2.8 GHz S478 800FSB 1MB Cache (Prescott build)
   >>> Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
   >>> Corsair 2x512MB PC3200 DDR RAM
   >>> WD Caviar SATA 120GB
   >>> ATI Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
   >>> LG DVD-Writer
   >>>
   >>> Questions:
   >>> -The mobo has on-board sound, but is it good enough (subjective, I
   >>> know) to render a SB Audigy 2 ZS unnecessary?
  >>
  >> Try the audio for a few weeks. If it doesn't meet your needs, look
  >> for an Audigy 2 or another card.
   >>>
   >>> -The DVD writer has poor CD reading spead. Will I need to pick up
   >>> another CD or DVD ROM drive to get good speeds?
  >>
  >> In general, DVD writers are slower at reading/writing a CD-R than is
  >> a CD burner. If you burn a great number of CDs, buy a CD-RW burner.
  >> If not, 30x isn't /that/ bad.
  >>
   >>> I'll be using this system for gaming (soon to be used for Doom 3, I
   >>> hope) and work. For work, I'm a web developer and do a lot of
   >>> multi-tasking (10-20 programs running, remote desktop, some graphics
   >>> and animation work).
  >>
  >> Nice video card. It runs hot. Have sufficient case cooling; add
  >> another 120mm fan to the Sonata.
 >
 >
 > Thanks for the suggestions, I think I'll drop the SB Audigy and won't
 > bother with an extra CD or DVD ROM drive for now. No harm in trying
 > things without them first.
 >
 > Any suggestions on which fan to go with?
 >
 > From what I've been reading, the Prescott runs a bit hot, and could
 > use the cooling. Do you think the stock heatsink for the P4 is
 > sufficient or will I be better off trying something else in there?


The two biggest heat producers will be the video card and the CPU. The stock
heatsink for the P4 should do just fine unless you try serious overclocking.

The Sonata will very likely need another 120mm case fan.

<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://sidewindercomputers.com/va12stfan.html" target="_blank">http://sidewindercomputers.com/va12stfan.html</a>

The Vantec is roughly as quiet as the stock fan in the Sonata.
 >> Stay informed about: Proposed Build - Help!