I found a local computer shop that builds custom units. They use only Intel Pentium 4 chips. One of the systems uses an SATA chip. What is SATA and why should I care? There’s about a $120 price difference between the SATA and regular P4 system prices.
Ex: 3.2Ghz system w/reg P4 chip is $1075 while the SATA version is $1265.
Here is their price sheet (NOTE: pdf file).
Probably Serial ATA.
The processor (Pentium 4) is the same in both systems. The difference is on the motherboards. One mother board, the more expensive one, has a Serial ATA controller for connecting hard drives (and eventually other currently-IDE drives).
The interface is faster and uses a thin cable instead of those dreaded ribbons.
You’d just be paying for an extra peripheral feature, not a difference inhenrent to the processor. The Serial ATA system, besides having a SATA-capable motherboard, would presumably also come with an SATA hard drive.
I think it’s a pretty attractive feature, but probably not worth an extra $200. Not when you consider the price difference of the components themselves (probably more like $100…but then again, I don’t know the mobo specifics. I’m assuming all unstated specifications are equal)
I think there must be some other difference besides SATA. I can buy entire motherboards with SATA RAID systems built in for about $120.
Obviously, the maker worships Sata.
From that link, an upgrade to a SATA system gets you an upgrade to an Intel i875P based motherboard, which is faster than the i865PE in the non-SATA system. It also upgrades you to dual-channel DDR400, which significantly increases performance. Finally, the HDD is changed to a Seagate model, which is slower and less reliable than the one in the non-SATA system. Total additional cost to them: $50 at most. In short, they’re screwing you. On top of this, none of the systems support 3D gaming (integrated video won’t cut it for anything), and none feature adequate power supplies. Furthermore, the MicroATX form factor limits upgradeability.
I’d buy from somewhere else, preferably someone that knows what units to use to measure memory storage capacity. Mgb my ass!
They charge extra for SATA? Pretty slick operators…
Most newer motherboards have SATA built in and ready to use at no extra cost.
And, this company is plain and simple gouging on the higher-speed PCs. Between their non-SATA and SATA systems, the only difference within those lines is the processor. At 2.8 GHz, there’s a $50 difference. At 3.0, the difference is $90. At 3.2 GHz, the difference is an insane $190!
Thanks for the info.
I’m not interested in gaming, but I do want to do video capturing and editing to burn DVD’s.
Suggestions on what I’d need?
I already have a Sony DVD burner and an extra 120Gb harddrive.
I’d suggest a system based on the AMD Athlon 64 processor. They’re price competitive with P4s, and noticeably faster across the board. If you want the absolute fastest you can get at a reasonable price, the Athlon 64 3400+ fits the bill. You’ll want at least 512MB of DDR400 RAM, besides this stuff it should all be good. If you can wait three months, AMD’s new platform will come out and you’ll get faster stuff for cheaper. If not, then in a week or so AMD’s price cuts will kick in where they haven’t already and you’ll save yourself some real cash.
If you decide to stick with a P4, Intel will slash their prices in February, if you can wait. I’d suggest a P4-C (800Mhz HT) 2.8Ghz or 3.0Ghz, depending on what you can afford. At least 512MB of dual-channel DDR400 RAM, and a motherboard based on the Intel i875P chipset.
You need a fast disk subsystem. UltraSCSI is your best choice. If not, try an IDE RAID 0, but RAID 0 really is not a recommended setting.
A few years ago, hard disks were the limiting factor in successful video work but today, there is no need for unusual investments. For capturing video and writing DVD’s all you need is real time speed capability. Today, any 7200 RPM IDE hard disk on the market has more than enough speed for flawless capture and any higher speed will not really increase editing speed.
The critical factor for most video software will be plenty of RAM (512MB for some software packages, up to 1GB for others) and the fastest processor you can afford. The AMD 64 bit does appear to be king of the hill right now and the 3200 version (less cache) is a super bargain.
I’ve gone the RAID and SCSI route and found no significant improvement in video performance - but a lot of cost and setup headaches.