Speeding up 5 y.o. gateway Athlon 1100

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan
  • Start date Start date
D

Dan

I have a 5 year old Gateway athlon 1100 I would like to get a few more
years out of. Has socket A (462) K7T PRO (MS-6330) ver 2.1 ATX VA mobo
with a VIA KT133 chipset & 200mhz fsb (max 266). PC has 786 meg of
SDRAM & 2 hdd's, 120 gig & 160 gig. What are the practical
possibilities for speeding up this pc? New CPU? I guess another
possibility is new mobo/cpu. I would like to retain as much of the
current pc as possible (case, hdd's, dvd burner, TV ATI card, vid &
sound cards, ps is 300 watt replacement, probably needs upgrade. I'm
guessing a new mob would not accept this SDRAM), spend $300 or less, and
get a meaningful speed increase to allow me to use the machine another 3
years or so. Any suggestons or referrals to good links appreciated.

TIA

Dan
 
" Any suggestons or referrals to good links appreciated. "


You should sell your motherboard, Athlon and SDRAM at www.ebay.co.uk , which
should get you a further $100 or so. You might also have to raise your
budget a little on top of that too.

A number of questions remain unanswered:
1) What do you use your PC for?
2) What operating system do you have?
3) What graphics card do you have?

If you are happy with your operating system, and your graphics card is 1.5v
AGP compatible, then the following might be suitable:
- AMD Athlon 64 3000+ skt939 http://snipurl.com/a5dp $153.00
- Chaintech VNF4/Ultra skt939 http://snipurl.com/daej $97.00
- Corsair 2x 512MB PC3200 http://snipurl.com/a5dn $100.00
- Antec TRUE430 430W PSU http://snipurl.com/dij7 $75.00
TOTAL = $425.00

If you need to upgrade your operating system too, then you'll have to scale
down the hardware. Perhaps...
- MS Windows XP Home SP2 http://snipurl.com/dhyi $92.95
- AMD Sempron 3100+ skt754 http://snipurl.com/dijd $116.00
- Chaintech VNF3-250 http://snipurl.com/diji $74.00
- Corsair 2x 512MB PC3200 http://snipurl.com/a5dn $100.00
- Antec TRUE380 380W PSU http://snipurl.com/594f $68.00
TOTAL = $450.95

If you need to buy a compatible graphics card, then the additional costs
depend on whether you are a gamer or not.
 
Dan said:
I have a 5 year old Gateway athlon 1100 I would like to get a few more
years out of. Has socket A (462) K7T PRO (MS-6330) ver 2.1 ATX VA mobo
with a VIA KT133 chipset & 200mhz fsb (max 266). PC has 786 meg of SDRAM &
2 hdd's, 120 gig & 160 gig. What are the practical possibilities for
speeding up this pc? New CPU? I guess another possibility is new
mobo/cpu. I would like to retain as much of the current pc as possible
(case, hdd's, dvd burner, TV ATI card, vid & sound cards, ps is 300 watt
replacement, probably needs upgrade. I'm guessing a new mob would not
accept this SDRAM), spend $300 or less, and get a meaningful speed increase
to allow me to use the machine another 3 years or so. Any suggestons or
referrals to good links appreciated.

TIA

Dan

Due to the inherent difficulty in flogging off used motherboards with CPUs
and memory that are not part of a working computer I'd suggest that you save
a bit longer and eventually replace the whole base unit - perhaps keeping
the larger HDD and much needed cards, as long as the old bits can be
assembled to make a working PC. Its always easier to sell a computer second
hand if prospective buyers can see it all working.

Why do you need it to be faster - if its only used for MS Office
applications etc, then if you're patient, that should already be plenty to
keep you going for a couple more years and you should even be able to use
the TV card as a PVR (for recording & playing back TV shows) with your
current setup. I've found that if a machine has been slowing down with
normal use over time, often "just" formatting the HDDs and performing a
complete reinstall makes the world of difference both in terms of speed and
reliability. How long is it since this was done to it?

Money spent upgrading old machines is often money that could better be spent
in a replacement (the common exception is with servers that use specialist
motherboards or hardware where often CPU upgrades are justifiable). In the
UK where I live they sell "barebones" bundles which normally include a case
with PSU, Mobo, CPU with HSF and memory - if you can find such bundles where
you live then when you have enough and cant put up with your current machine
anymore, then look to replace your base unit. If its low price your looking
for then several manufacturers (including MSI) have just released AMD Athlon
64 motherboards with ATI chipsets which include integrated graphics, audio
and LAN, these boards still include a couple of IDE ports as well as SATA
(unlike many of the other Athlon 64 boards these days which are SATA only),
so you'd be able to use your existing HDD(s). Here's a link to MSIs version:
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=RS480M2-IL&class=mb

Paul
 
I have a 5 year old Gateway athlon 1100 I would like to get a few more
years out of. Has socket A (462) K7T PRO (MS-6330) ver 2.1 ATX VA mobo
with a VIA KT133 chipset & 200mhz fsb (max 266). PC has 786 meg of
SDRAM & 2 hdd's, 120 gig & 160 gig. What are the practical
possibilities for speeding up this pc?

The most demanding tasks must be considered. It should be
plenty fast for office, surfing, email, etc, already. If it
seems sluggish at these things too, you might have spyware,
an overly cluttered/encumbered windows installation that
could benefit from a clean install.


Maybe. Does the board support manual multiplier
adjustments? If so, a Mobile Barton Xp2400 might be a good
choice. if not, an Athlon XP2400 w/266FSB. "Usually" a
socket A board will accept these w/o issue but there's
always some chance a bios glitch might surface, I suggest
upgrading bios if possible, perhaps if it's exactly same as
the MSI board, using an MSI bios rather than Gateway, which
would (usually) be older, even their most recent bios have
historically been older than what board manufacturer has
available.... IF the bios can be swapped without fooling
with editing to change vendor ID strings or forcing differnt
bios... things that are possible but not for the faint of
heart.
I guess another
possibility is new mobo/cpu. I would like to retain as much of the
current pc as possible (case, hdd's, dvd burner, TV ATI card, vid &
sound cards, ps is 300 watt replacement, probably needs upgrade. I'm
guessing a new mob would not accept this SDRAM), spend $300 or less, and
get a meaningful speed increase to allow me to use the machine another 3
years or so. Any suggestons or referrals to good links appreciated.

DDR memory is pretty cheap right now as it usually is in
Spring... that could work in your favor since there is no
significant upgrade for the motherboard that would still use
PC133 (SDRAM) memory. You could get 1GB of PC3200 memory
for about $100 if you keep an eye open for deals. Another
$80 for a board (there are large variations, decide what you
want featurewise and brands then you can narrow that down
some).

Then of course the CPU... whatever if left of the budget
will dictate what to choose. Sempron 3100 or Athlon 64
would be preferred, but if you needed a new PSU too then the
budget might require older technology, like an nForce2
board, Barton XP????, plus the power supply. Frankly I'd
budget in another few dozen $$ for a PSU before downgrading
to an older platform, but your current PSU might be
sufficient, we don't know what you have nor the video card
(which is typically 2nd highest power consumer in a system,
for some systems).

So there wasn't anything unique or revealing in my post, I
pointed out the pretty obvious/common choice, which is
common because it's a good one. Do keep in mind though that
any modern CPU will produce more heat, your case may not
have sufficient airflow and could need some modifications to
be optimal for a new build. If this is your only system and
you decide to get a power supply too, it might make sense to
get a whole case with decent PSU in it, so you can have the
new parts pretty much working before you have to dismantle
current PC to finalize the new system with the reused parts.
 
Cuzman-Thank you for the informative reply. The pc is presently dual
boot w/win2k on one hdd & xp home SP2 on the other. Used to run win2k
mostly, moving to xp, probably will eventually have a dual boot w/2
installs of xp. XP install is brand new, as my original hdd just failed
(also got help w/that here - great ng, btw ;-) I keep on top of spyware,
unneeded junk running in the background, etc, so I think from that
standpoint it's as fast as it can be. Mostly I use the pc for fairly
intensive Internet, I have 4 meg cable, like to dl from ng's & peer to
peer. Also I use it to bun cd's & dvd's. It's in the latter
application I've noted some slowness (not that I have anything to
compare it to/haven't really done this stuff on other pc's). For
instance, I use the TV card to grab stuff from HBO, which I then burn to
a DVD+rw to send to a friend. When the software goes to reduce the file
size to get 4 hours on one dvd, this usually takes 8 hours or more. Not
that big a deal, I do it overnight, but I'm just wondering if I can
improve on this (w/o spending a ton) & if in the process this might
speed up general use (probably not on the latter question?). Don't do
any gaming, so the vid card seems fine, it's an nvidia riva tnt model 64
w/32 meg of ram. Sandra under "AGP capabilities" says 2.00. Not that
up on this stuff at the moment ;-(

$425 isn't TOOOO bad, what sort of change would I get w/the video & in
general with that setup? I do favor AMD. The ebay idea is intriguing,
didn't think the stuff would be worth much. Mobo etc work fine, I've
even replaced all the leaky caps ;-)

Thanks again,

Dan
 
Kony-Thanks for the great response. Mostly I use the pc for fairly
intensive Internet, I have 4 meg cable, like to dl from ng's & peer to
peer. Also I use it to burn cd's & dvd's. It's in the latter
application I've noted some slowness (not that I have anything to
compare it to/haven't really done this stuff on other pc's). For
instance, I use the TV card to grab stuff from HBO, which I then burn to
a DVD+rw to send to a friend. Not sure about the multipliers, have to
check, not sure what that is (overclocking? I'm afraid I'm new to this)
bios date is 9/00, as I recall. I see what you mean about sdram mobos
being a waste of time; I'm surprised the ddr is that cheap. When I
upgraded I bought crucial, maybe it's not necessary to get that
expensive. PSU is 300 watts, maybe marginal, vid card is nvidia riva
tnt model 64 w/32 meg of ram. AGP 2.00, apparently. I agree in the end
probably best to just start a whole new pc, if nothing else at least
I'll have one running so I can get info if things don't go smoothly. If
my additional info suggests an other ideas, please pass them on.
Thanks again,

Dan
 
Thanks Paul, I would like to be able to use the HDD's on a new system,
perhaps in combination with SATA'(s) if possible. Hard to imagine how
IDE would be that bad for storing mp3's, vid files, word docs, etc etc.
Like I said in my other replies, I've only seen really delays in
video burning, Everything else is livable enough.

Dan
 
Cuzman-Thank you for the informative reply. The pc is presently dual
boot w/win2k on one hdd & xp home SP2 on the other. Used to run win2k
mostly, moving to xp, probably will eventually have a dual boot w/2
installs of xp. XP install is brand new, as my original hdd just failed
(also got help w/that here - great ng, btw ;-) I keep on top of spyware,
unneeded junk running in the background, etc, so I think from that
standpoint it's as fast as it can be. Mostly I use the pc for fairly
intensive Internet, I have 4 meg cable, like to dl from ng's & peer to
peer. Also I use it to bun cd's & dvd's. It's in the latter
application I've noted some slowness (not that I have anything to
compare it to/haven't really done this stuff on other pc's). For
instance, I use the TV card to grab stuff from HBO, which I then burn to
a DVD+rw to send to a friend. When the software goes to reduce the file
size to get 4 hours on one dvd, this usually takes 8 hours or more. Not
that big a deal, I do it overnight, but I'm just wondering if I can
improve on this (w/o spending a ton) & if in the process this might
speed up general use (probably not on the latter question?).

The performance of the MPEG encoding depends quite largely
on the specific software and codec used. You need to
investigate exactly what you have and what CPU optimizations
it has. For example SSE2. Athlon 64 would tend to boost
performance in this encoding, your initial impression was
correct that the CPU would make most difference in this
regard, though of course that's with supportive
motherboard's faster buss and memory.
Don't do
any gaming, so the vid card seems fine, it's an nvidia riva tnt model 64
w/32 meg of ram. Sandra under "AGP capabilities" says 2.00. Not that
up on this stuff at the moment ;-(

It's an awefully slow card, and it known to have relatively
poor/blurry 2D output. I'd recommend a newer card even if a
semi-budget model, but if you're really happy with it,
indeed the performance for 2D tasks won't be effected much
if any.
 
Kony-Thanks for the great response. Mostly I use the pc for fairly
intensive Internet, I have 4 meg cable, like to dl from ng's & peer to
peer.

See my other reply in this thread, made a couple minutes
ago. For the peer to peer, if that is an issue you might
try a different program, and/or tweaking your networking
settings (Google for TCP/IP tweaks). Even so, if your cable
upload speed is capped, ultimately that might be your limit,
as your current system should be sufficient even for 4 meg
cable... though SCSI drives might help if you had a vast
number of simultaneous connections, but that's a bit extreme
for peer to peer alone.

Also I use it to burn cd's & dvd's. It's in the latter
application I've noted some slowness (not that I have anything to
compare it to/haven't really done this stuff on other pc's). For
instance, I use the TV card to grab stuff from HBO, which I then burn to
a DVD+rw to send to a friend.

First, do you "need" to edit it later? A modern system can
capture video and compress it in realtime, no need to
recompress it later. You only need decide how that friend
"needs" it, what format. For DVD (standalone player) the
hardware requirements are even lower than with some things,
a newer set of hardware should be able to not only capture
compressed but burn to DVD in realtime too, though I'd
recommend just capturing to a file then buring whole thing
later, skipping the recompression/conversion step. However,
i've no idea if your present software can accomodate this.
It is drifting off topic a bit and better addressed in a
video capture/editing related (newsgroup or web) forum.

Not sure about the multipliers, have to
check, not sure what that is (overclocking? I'm afraid I'm new to this)
bios date is 9/00, as I recall. I see what you mean about sdram mobos
being a waste of time; I'm surprised the ddr is that cheap. When I
upgraded I bought crucial, maybe it's not necessary to get that
expensive. PSU is 300 watts, maybe marginal, vid card is nvidia riva
tnt model 64 w/32 meg of ram. AGP 2.00, apparently. I agree in the end
probably best to just start a whole new pc, if nothing else at least
I'll have one running so I can get info if things don't go smoothly. If
my additional info suggests an other ideas, please pass them on.
Thanks again,

Considering your goal I would skip the upgrade CPU for that
motherboard and go with Athlon 64, or P4 platform as second
choice. Your power supply probably will need replaced,
considering that it's from an era when they were targeted
towards peak 5V output capacity, while today's systems
utilize quite a bit of 12V as a varying load, difficult for
an older PSU to handle.
 
Kony-After reading the replies here, I'm beginning to think I should
just keep what I've got for the time being. I have regularly added ram,
hdd capacity, updated disk burners & psu to keep it pretty "fit"; maybe
it's not so bad after all ;-) One thing for sure with pc's, waiting
will only get you more for less. Yeah, the video thing is the only area
where I was beginning to wonder about the system's abilities. I know I
can do the compression as I grab the video, but despite reading & a lot
of experimentation, I just can't seem to get the quality I'm looking
for, regardless of the settings I use to grab the video or burn it. For
example, you can dl an episode of Sopranos or the like from a ng or p2p.
Hour long program, file's less than 400 meg AVI. Very, very nice
quality when burned to a dvd+rw, certainly the equivalent of LP video
tape speed, and you can get 4 hours on one disk (again, I share these
and similar programs with a friend who does not have hbo etc.). Now,
when I try & get the shows right off my own cable, a 3 gig file looks
like shit by comparison to these dl's. Looks great on the monitor (when
not recording), looks like crap when I play the file at anywhere near
400 meg per hour, burned to a disk or right on the pc. I've tried
various avi settings, mpeg 1, 2 & 4, etc. I can get good quality, but
only with files MUCH larger than these 300-400 meg avi dl's. if you
have any idea how they do that, or know where I might look, PLEASE pass
it on. Tried posting in several dvd-video related ng's, no help. I'm
using the software that came with the card, ATI Multimedia Center 9.01
for obtaining the video, for burning I'm using Nero Ultra 6.6.0. Is
there something beter?

Thanks again for your helpful input.

Dan
 
Kony-After reading the replies here, I'm beginning to think I should
just keep what I've got for the time being. I have regularly added ram,
hdd capacity, updated disk burners & psu to keep it pretty "fit"; maybe
it's not so bad after all ;-) One thing for sure with pc's, waiting
will only get you more for less. Yeah, the video thing is the only area
where I was beginning to wonder about the system's abilities. I know I
can do the compression as I grab the video, but despite reading & a lot
of experimentation, I just can't seem to get the quality I'm looking
for, regardless of the settings I use to grab the video or burn it. For
example, you can dl an episode of Sopranos or the like from a ng or p2p.
Hour long program, file's less than 400 meg AVI. Very, very nice
quality when burned to a dvd+rw, certainly the equivalent of LP video
tape speed, and you can get 4 hours on one disk (again, I share these
and similar programs with a friend who does not have hbo etc.).

That doesn't sound all that good though, maybe only 320 x
240 resolution? It's pretty hard to get full resolution
down to 400MB per hour without significant quality loss.

Now,
when I try & get the shows right off my own cable, a 3 gig file looks
like shit by comparison to these dl's. Looks great on the monitor (when
not recording), looks like crap when I play the file at anywhere near
400 meg per hour, burned to a disk or right on the pc. I've tried
various avi settings, mpeg 1, 2 & 4, etc. I can get good quality, but
only with files MUCH larger than these 300-400 meg avi dl's. if you
have any idea how they do that, or know where I might look, PLEASE pass
it on.

The most obvious answer "could" be that your source is
noisey. Even a little bit of noise will GREATLY increase
the compression data rate needed. It's also possible they
used a different codec, or multi-pass encoding, or
filters... again this is a topic with a broad expanse and a
video editing oriented forum might have the most help for
you, but one thing you could do is take a file that looks
VERY good, and see if you can recompress that and get same
quality (it will be worse quality due to being recompressed,
but the point is to start out with a known, fixed source and
try different settings, codecs, etc, comparing the outcome).

Tried posting in several dvd-video related ng's, no help. I'm
using the software that came with the card, ATI Multimedia Center 9.01
for obtaining the video, for burning I'm using Nero Ultra 6.6.0. Is
there something beter?

Well you wrote about the time it takes to recompress it, I
presume that is done by Nero? If so, what's it being
recorded as by ATI multimedia center?

I try to avoid ATI software, so I dont' have much help there
but if you're going to recompress the video anyway, (and you
have the spare HDD space) you might see if it'll support
using a lossless compression codec. Google for some
"lossless video codec", I dont' know what the ATI software
will do.
 
Kony-Thanks for the suggestions. With at least some of the dl'd small
files they user indicated they had digital cable, which I do not,
probably makes a difference. I'm sure side by side with an original you
can see these files are lossy, but just using as a "digital vcr" for a
one time viewing of a "tv show" they're good enough for me. I recently
dl'd new software from ati to update the program, this one has a 640 x
480 mpeg 4 avi format that looks promising, a test gave me the quality
I'm looking for at about 400 meg/hour. Compression has been by Nero, I
do use the 2 pass encoding, which slows things down a bit. I'm guessing
the new format I just mentioned should work better at burn as well,
requiring minimal compression.

Thank you again, I appreciate your help. I did try asking these
questions on a more appropriate forum, got little or no reply.

Dan
 
Kony-Thanks for the suggestions. With at least some of the dl'd small
files they user indicated they had digital cable, which I do not,
probably makes a difference. I'm sure side by side with an original you
can see these files are lossy, but just using as a "digital vcr" for a
one time viewing of a "tv show" they're good enough for me. I recently
dl'd new software from ati to update the program, this one has a 640 x
480 mpeg 4 avi format that looks promising, a test gave me the quality
I'm looking for at about 400 meg/hour. Compression has been by Nero, I
do use the 2 pass encoding, which slows things down a bit. I'm guessing
the new format I just mentioned should work better at burn as well,
requiring minimal compression.

Thank you again, I appreciate your help. I did try asking these
questions on a more appropriate forum, got little or no reply.

Dan

Ideally you dont' want to capture in any (lossy) compressed
format (including MPEG4) then recompress with Nero, which'd
be turning it into MPEG2, presumably. As I briefly
mentioned previously, the needed final format could matter.
If the player can do MPEG4, you may not need recompress with
Nero, only burn the file. I don't think most older
standalone DVD players will support that though. Otherwise
if Nero's going to be converting it to MPEG2 anyway, you
might look into capturing in MPEG2 and what it'd take to
keep it intact rather than having Nero (reMPEG2) recompress
it, as I dont' know why it would/does.
 
Kony-I see what you mean about re-compressing. Actually I've gotten my
best files by capturing at large file size in ATI, then compressing to
fit in Nero, but again it takes forever. Plus the thing is, I'm not
sure what the player on the other end will play. It belongs to my
grandfather, who lives 2000 miles away. I basically bought it locally,
tried a disk I burned in dvd format using Nero, when the disk played in
the machine I burned him some more & sent disks & player out to him. So
I don't know if it will play mpeg's, avi's, whatever. It was new, but
cheap, about $40 at Walmart. The thing I really can't figure out again
is how these dl'd files are so damn good at only ~400 meg/hour. Using
them, (burning in dvd format) I get more on a disk, they look great,
good for shipping etc. No kidding, these avi's are just about perfect,
some very brief "freezes" now and then, but WAY better than what I've
been able to do at anywhere near the file size. But dl'ing is a pain
(hit & miss, uses up all my ng bandwidth) and I get the shows in
question myself. I just looked at the file name of one of the dl's for
a clue (duhhhh) I knew it was an avi, but in addition it says "(show
episode info).hdtv_xvid-fov.[BT].avi" So I'm reading up on the xvid
codec on doom9.org, then I'll try to figure out what the hell "fov" is.

Dan
 
Back
Top