Quote:
Originally posted by soccerchamp76
So then this board would be nice because I can get the scalability of the new Prescotts but I do not have to deal with the huge prices of DDRII and PCI-x?
|
Well, that only goes so far. I mean, you can change the processor to a certain extent, but what happens when, say, Intel pulls an expcted move like going to FSB 1066? How bout this for size, RAM companies are gonna start strictly producing faster and faster RAM for DDRII only. I mean, that's what standards are all about. Same thing goes for video card companies. If PCI-X proves to be the shit that the Intel camp claims it to be, (and most likely it will be, once there are 1) pieces of hardware that can really, truly utilize it, and 2) pieces of software that can push it to its limits or at least be optimized by the presence of it.) So you find yourself with a choice. The newest shit is expensive, and guess what, that's the way it's always gonna be. Innovators and early adopters always pay the highest price, due to market factors such as demand, and the whole idea of caution in the marketplace (especially in light of computer parts). That's one path, pay the price, get the newest, latest and greatest that's yet to be utilized and invest in a future that might not possibly pan out. There is a second path, as always. Buy older stuff that has been proven to be effective for today and the near future (next 18 months). Moore's Law has held true, stating 1) Processors double in clock speed every 18 months, and 2) software always has and always will be at least 18 months or greater behind the hardware that drives it. Face it, there's not gonna be an application that LGA 775, PCI-X, DDRII, or even SATA hard drives are necessary for, except on the very, very highest end for the next 18-36 months. I mean, Longhorn comes out, and that supposedly requires at LEAST a 2.0 Ghz processor (at least according to rumors), and that the average Processor running Longhorn will fall between 4 and 6 Ghz. According to Moore's Law, this is no surprise, as an OS is definitely always behind that 18 month curve.
Anyways, the point, after that long rant is, in your case, you can make three different choices. 1) The costly choice, which will ultimately be phased out of existence by better, faster, and perhaps better priced (though highly unlikely) hardware. I mean, everybody gets super-excited about a new hardware craze, and this year, PCI-X, DDRII, and LGA 775 are that craze, and if you choose to invest in that, it's gonna cost you the bucks. 2) The accepted choice, the proven choice. This choice represents getting the most for your money, being prepared to make the sacrifice of not getting the BEST performance possible for applications that are coming out in the future, but will run dogshit around whatever is out now. This is the path that most enthusiasts (at least those with more sense than money) take. I mean, you can get a machine that will play brand new games damn good for the next 18 months, then within the 18 months following that, what you bought today will be the standard, what comes highly recommended that you play for decent performance. 18 months after that (we're talking 4.5 years in the future) the computer that you build will be something that people talk about as a relic of an era "long past." It won't run crap for crap. New apps can be forgotten, and gaming at any decent resolution (at least for brand new games at that time) will be completely forgotten. But then that's almost 5 years from now. Any person who likes to game will have bought at least 1 new computer by that point, hell maybe 2. Then the 3rd path. The one that is represented by the LGA 775/865 chipset. One that compromises. You can get the best of the new, and still save some cash on other components like RAM and GPU. But then, that will only buy you, at most, a 6 month extension onto those 54 months I was talking about earlier (54 months = 4.5 years), at best.
The point I'm trying to make, my word to you concerning this is, you're gonna face a bottleneck. A huge one. You won't be able to get super-duper fast RAM. Most video cards are sailing away on the PCI-X ship to expensive land, leaving behind their decrepit, older AGP parents to watch over the Dells of the world. Shitty metaphors aside, I think you get my point. Intel introduces the technology that the industry will make the standard of. AMD responds with a cheaper, better constructed response, running at lower clock speeds but delivering better performance for one niche. Gamers. They make up a large portion of the enthusiast community (hell, who am I kidding, all of it), but that only panders to so many. The rest of the populace doesn't have need for gaming performance out the wazoo. They need multi-media solutions, they need good, solid, trustworthy architecture, that goes with a solid platform.
I can't really explain to you why there's an LGA 775 solution using the 865/875 chipset. Hopefully, a reviewing firm like Tom's Hardware or Anandtech will put forth some answer for us, the community of enthusiasts as to how and why the hell some companies have come up with this middle-of-the-road solution. I mean, I knew that, at least for the current super-fucking-duper generation of graphics cards there were going to be both AGP and PCI-X shit produced, but how Abit did it, I have not a clue.