Hello,
First, sorry about the low 165 points, but I'll only have 100 total left once this is posted -- I have to keep something for an emergency :)
Now, as far as the post's main dilemma, I've read articles on all of this, including AnandTech's benchmarks which also include the higher end Extreme (out of my budget range), yet their comparisons were for equals -- all were 3.2 Ghz and focused on dual core.
But let me clarify my situation a bit more.
Purchasing Why & Purpose
______________________
My main reason for getting a second new system is for video creation and editing, possibly some short 3-D creation and rendering sequences, and also music recording and editing.
As flagship applications reference, I'd be using Sony Vegas 6x for video, possibly get Carrara for 3D, and use Steinberg SX for music.
Reason for getting new system:
My current P-4, 1.Ghz, 896 SDRAM (not DDR or DDR2) maxes out too fast. For example, I can get pretty stacked with dozens of tracks due to the "Pink Floyd" complexity of what I can do sometimes (background sfx, etc.).
"To 'D' or Not to 'D', That Is The Question"
__________________________
________
As stated, I've done a fair amount of reading, and "D"/dual core seems to be the logical step considering what I'd be doing. Multitasking wouldn't be a major factor, for it's always wise to shut off as much background activity when using such heavy-duty apps anyway.
Build-Your-Own or Pre-Built
--------------------------
----------
-
I've looked at several build-your-own within both options of "the big names" (HP, Dell, etc.-- but not Gateway for I don't like their proprietary limitations) as well as the more boutique/lesser know ones (Systemax, Empower).
Obviously what one chooses as HD and so on makes a difference, but it's the chipset/CPU that can really make a price difference.
While I've never built a system from scratch, I am not a total newbie at configuring systems (I've dealt with BIOS, installed cards, internal and external hard drives, etc).
I simply prefer some pre-configuration so I don't make major mistakes and fry the boards or CPU, and -- from what I've seen, building from scratch doesn't save one much money.
I may be wrong on this, but it seems that buying retail CPUs, chips, m-boards, etc. to add up to a system isn't the affordable route even if I could handle it technically.
So I might as well go the offered "build-your-own" -- or get lucky with some pre-built HP or whatever that has enough free slots for me: 2 PCI, PCIE free.
The Money/Budget Factor
____________________
I would like to spend less than $USD 1000 on the system, preferably hovering at about $850 so I can get a dual-monitor video card. Due to these budget restraints, it looks like I've come down to the above mentioned choices:
A) Pentium "D" 2.8 Ghz (8xx or 9xx chipsets?)
B) Pentium 4 3.0 or 3.2 HT (5xx or 6xx chipsets)
__________________________
__________
__________
__________
_______
>>> Core Q:
--- What would I gain from going "D" in lower Ghz. (2.8) vs. P-4 (3.0 or 3.2) with HT --- or lose by choosing the latter? As far as I know, lower end "D" doesn't have HT.
Either way, I need PC2 4200 memory power, L2 2Mb cache.
All that said, it seems to me that "D" would be more stable or robust for the apps I need to run from what I've read.
But then, I'm splitting hairs here considering I would have 200-400 more Mhz in the P-4 HT version. So IF the performance differences would not be that much, I sure would like to save some money.
Your input and advice on this dilemma would be much appreciated.
~ PSK/Sonicoul
