Hi :)

I'm planning a new PC. Because of the differences in the architectures
of the AMD and Intel CPUs, I'ld like to hear suggestions about whether I
should use a high end Pentium IV or a high end AMD CPU.

(Not talking about the P IV extreme nor the AMD 64 - I never pay double
the price for a bit more performance)

Also, I'ld like to hear your suggestions for the graphics card. I would
tend to use an ATI Radeon 9600XT or 9800XT because of their overall
performance. How about the Nvidias?

Finally, I'ld like to setup a multi-display solution with one main
screen in the middle and left/right-forward monitors added to it.
Is there a one-pc solution or will I have to setup 1 or 2 more computers
in a small network?

Many thanks in advance,

Peter

Sectioned below:

"Peter Hovorka" > wrote in message
...
> Hi :)
>
> I'm planning a new PC. Because of the differences in the architectures
> of the AMD and Intel CPUs, I'ld like to hear suggestions about whether I
> should use a high end Pentium IV or a high end AMD CPU.
>
> (Not talking about the P IV extreme nor the AMD 64 - I never pay double
> the price for a bit more performance)
>

64 bit can be a lot more effective - but not the place for that discussion.
AMD are slightly better for 3D work, and Intel for 2D. In terms of raw
speed, the Intels are faster. However, AMD can be a fair bit cheaper.

> Also, I'ld like to hear your suggestions for the graphics card. I would
> tend to use an ATI Radeon 9600XT or 9800XT because of their overall
> performance. How about the Nvidias?

Both of those cards would be reasonable, the Nvidias are quite good, but
there are known issues with FS and other things - I had to return one after
it refused to work. But all it takes is time for most of these issues.

>
> Finally, I'ld like to setup a multi-display solution with one main
> screen in the middle and left/right-forward monitors added to it.
> Is there a one-pc solution or will I have to setup 1 or 2 more computers
> in a small network?

You can use multiple monitors in FS, but not (as far as I'm aware) like
this. However, WideFS and FSUIPC (unfortunately now cheap payware) provide
an excellent solution.

>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Peter
>

HTH,
Angus

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:33:21 -0000, "Angus Lepper" >
wrote:


>You can use multiple monitors in FS, but not (as far as I'm aware) like
>this. However, WideFS and FSUIPC (unfortunately now cheap payware) provide
>an excellent solution.

You can use this configuration if you buy a Matrox Perhalia video
card.

Hi :)

Thanks to both of you for the nice reply.

I usually like AMD much more in regard to desktop systems - their
architecture seems a lot 'leaner' to me and I've got much better
experiences with them.

My problems:

- I don't know about the FS-specific performance of INTEL compared to
AMD. That means how do the 32 (and 64) Bit CPUs of both vendors compete
in regard to FS 2004 performance.

- I don't know about the performance differences of the actual ATI
chipsets compared with the NVidias.

Sorry for not making that clear in my first post :(

Best regards,
Peter

PS: The Parhelia seems a bit weak to me...

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:04:05 +0100, Peter Hovorka >
wrote:

>Hi :)
>
>Thanks to both of you for the nice reply.
>
>I usually like AMD much more in regard to desktop systems - their
>architecture seems a lot 'leaner' to me and I've got much better
>experiences with them.
>
>My problems:
>
>- I don't know about the FS-specific performance of INTEL compared to
>AMD. That means how do the 32 (and 64) Bit CPUs of both vendors compete
>in regard to FS 2004 performance.

The AMD Athlon 64 will give you the best performance in games. But an
Intel P4 3.2ghz with 8000mhz FSB will do fine too.

>- I don't know about the performance differences of the actual ATI
>chipsets compared with the NVidias.

According to benchmarks I saw today the Nvidia Geforce FX 5950 looks
to be the top performer if money is no object. But in games that use
Directx9 pixel shaders it has been shown that the Radeon cards perform
much better, unless that was just a Nvidia driver problem. If you want
the best bang for your buck then get a Radeon 9800pro. The RadeonXT
cards are a bit faster but not enough to warrant the extra bucks.

>PS: The Parhelia seems a bit weak to me...

Yea, it is, but it supports triple monitors, the other cards only
support dual monitors.