Would This Work? (New to the forums and hobby)

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Mon May 16, 2005 10:55 pm

you can do what both Yves and I did, remove the fan assenbly and replace the thermal pad with some AS5, which solves the problem of cards resting on it.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:02 pm

yeah and get some 600 grit or better wet sand paper and give it a quick lapp on some glass plate if you get the time, it will drop your temps by a few more degrees.

daftpunkit · Post by **daftpunkit** » Tue May 17, 2005 3:43 am

Hehe, I know DFI is the board of ethuists, and it is showing.

Yeh, playing with the fan housing seems a bit tricky, because I am new to this, and heh it seems if i screw up, I am out a few hundred dollars.

But like I said, I still have plnety of time to decide, just more time to decide on MSI or DFI

While searching for PSUs i came across the fanless technology. They seem promising actually, this just interests me cause I do notice with my current machine, when its just sitting there doing nothing, I can hear the fan going, heh. (I am attending a University, so I live in my apt with my computer in my bedroom). But I might just be foolish because cooling options add noise too.

Speaking of cooling, any suggestions?

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Tue May 17, 2005 4:09 am

Antec will shortly be releasing their Phantom 500, a very quiet 500W PSU that picks up where the highly rated Phantom 350 left off.
I don't advocate totally fanless as heat is our enemy, but their are options out there that are almost as quiet and which do a great job.

daftpunkit · Post by **daftpunkit** » Tue May 17, 2005 4:31 am

capper5016 wrote:Antec will shortly be releasing their Phantom 500, a very quiet 500W PSU that picks up where the highly rated Phantom 350 left off.
I don't advocate totally fanless as heat is our enemy, but their are options out there that are almost as quiet and which do a great job.

Actually it's at ZZF already for only $169.99, http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... ode=273504 and some reviews on fanless PSUs reveal that they are only 1-3C more then fan PSUs. All say the only negative is the cost. But they all say it really is 0db! Wow!

daftpunkit · Post by **daftpunkit** » Tue May 17, 2005 4:52 am

A new possibility has arised...
AMD 64 3800+ Venice Core is $375, AMD 64 3700+ San Diego Core is $329, AMD 64 3500+ Venice Core is $288, all are Retail, not OEM.

Venice cores are the same except the 3800+ is 2.4GHz vs. the 3500+ is 2.2GHz. San Diego core is 3700+ is 2.2GHz but has 1MB of L2 cache...
All are 90nm proccesses too.

So it seems the San Diego is a good deal, so I think. Just wondering what everyone else thinks.

-mogwai · Post by **-mogwai** » Tue May 17, 2005 5:50 am

why not just get a pentium m?

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Tue May 17, 2005 6:22 am

The Phantom isn't truly "fanless" it is to a point, then a small fan kinks on. got to play with one back at CES in January and was really impressed. Antec puts out some really high quality stuff.
As to the CPU, the 3800 is 2.4, and the 3500 is 2.2, but the 3500 will reach the same overclock that the 3800 will, so no sense in spending the extra money.
As to the Pentium M, I haven't played with one, so nate would be better answering that question, but my experience is the AMD CPUs are much better gamers and just as good at most other things. Plus, I think the ASUS solution really needs to be improved (Look at Nate's dead processor, two dead motherboards). Until something better than an 855 based board is out, I won't jump on that bandwagon. DFI, ASUS, and Aopen are working on boards based on the 915 chipset, but I won't buy into it until it is running on current generation hardware.
I still think the best solution here is the AMD CPU and a DFI or MSI board

daftpunkit · Post by **daftpunkit** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:43 am

To be honest I guess I am just an old fashion AMD Fanboy. I just think Intel's, you are paying more for a name, then AMD. They always seem to be bit more pricier and AMD has just suited me for games and the slight edits I do.

As far as to me posting the 3 CPUS in my previous post, I was just showing really the prices of comparable(?) CPUs. I am just wondering if that San Diego core is a good deal, because it looks like it.

San Diego 3700+ and Venice 3500+ seem to have identical specs,
2.2GHz, 90nm, etc etc, but the San Diego has double the L2 cache.
Isn't that good?

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:55 am

The sandi is a good deal its about as close as you can get to an FX with out paying the FX tax. If your not penny pinching then its worth taking a look for sure, if you need to save on $$ then anything over a venice 3200+ is overkill as most will overclock to the same range, there does seem to be some speed binning with the 3000+ but most people are still hitting 2.7-2.9 on air with venice. With the sandi you should get simmilar results but with higher benchmarks and game play from the 1mb cache.

daftpunkit · Post by **daftpunkit** » Tue May 17, 2005 10:02 am

I have found one difference in San Diego vs. Venice and that is power consumption. According to Monarch, the Venice uses 67W vs. 89W to the San Diego.

But the reason why this interests me is why do they rate the San Diego 3700+ vs 3500+ if its identical except for the cache size and power usage? Cache size increases the XX00+ number? Just curious. Also if they are near identical, wouldnt that mean they OC probably the same? They both are the new AMD cores using 90nm, and seem to have nearly all the same specs. $329 vs. $288, a $41 difference for that difference in performance looks like a good deal, cause its $46 cheaper then 3800, which is $87 more then the 3500+.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Tue May 17, 2005 11:04 am

They should overclock about the same, but the 1mb should give between 2-5% better performance than the 512k on the venice.