Hmm...AMD or Intel

[JayBee]

Don't think I am starting this thread to get people arguing etc, cuz im now. I know there are plenty of AMD vs. Intel threads. Im not lookin for whos better. I just want your guys opinion on certain things.

Now, I may be building a new pc for x-mas or following close after. I am running what is in my sig now (Intel). I haven't had any problems with it. Thing is I have had many people tell me AMD is going very strong right now, and that I should atleast give them a try (since I have never used AMD before). I was just wondering whether it would be better for me to go AMD now, instead of Intel again or...stay Intell. I concerned about the future as well as present day.

It would be used mostly for gaming. However I do A LOT of internet surfing as well as some photoshop stuff, maybe some video editing a long the lines, and a lot of muisc storage and playing music on the pc.

Secondly right now I have the ram listed in my sig, the hd listed in my sig, the speakers listed in my sig. What I was thinking of doing is getting a new cpu obviosuly, new video card, new case, a sound card since I am currently using onboard sound, a new CD-ROM/CD-R/CD-RW/DVD-R etc drive, and a new power supply.

Now I ask.. what do you guys think is good a long these lines.

CPU: Intel or AMD -- Which cpu?

Mobo: Which? I don't know if I am interested in SLi yet because of the expensiveness and it is still new (not out yet).

Video Card: nVida or ATi -- Which card?

Case: What do you guys think is cool, yet rather simple? Side Window is a must :D.

Sound Card: Goin with the Audigy 2 ZS

Optical Drive: Whats good? I want to be able to use it as a CD-ROM, burn cd's, and DVD's, and play both also.

Hard Drive: Was plannin on keeping my MAXTOR SATA 80gig, and then buying a Raptor...

Was hoping to keep it under a grand or a little above.

Thanks guys. Lookin forward to seeing some helpful replies.

[kram 2.0]

The first two questions: Intel or AMD and nVidia or ATI are purely self preference. I assure you members will pile up here and state their self-preference - it's all good. Intel and AMD are both good companies that both make good CPUs. Many may argue that because "AMD is a 64-bit CPU, it's better", when in fact, it is far from the truth - what makes them good is their 32-bit capability as competing with the Intel Pentium 4 CPUs.

Good choice on sound card.

Opticals - Lite-On, LG, or Sony - they're all good among other brands.

HDDs - Seagate, WD, or Maxtor - they're all good.


kram

[Redfallon]

I have had many people tell me AMD is going very strong right now, and that I should atleast give them a try (since I have never used AMD before).
Freakin AMD fanboys ;) I've never used 'em either, why mess with a good thing (intel) :D
It would be used mostly for gaming. However I do A LOT of internet surfing as well as some photoshop stuff, maybe some video editing a long the lines, and a lot of muisc storage and playing music on the pc.Any modern processor, from either company, will excel in ALL those tasks.

Case is completly up to you, whatever you like, as you'll have to look at it everyday, not us :). But, beware cases with cheap PSU's, and look for something with a swingable or removable motherboard tray. You can always buy a case you like w/ a cheap PSU in it, just toss the cheapie and get a real one form the good psu list.

Kram's comments are right on for the rest, and by the way, I'd go Intel ;)

[shadowbreaker513]

For gaming, I would definatly go AMD, it usually comes outnon top of intel in games. Also 64bit version of several big games, such as UT2004 and FarCry, and coming out soon. As for the video card, the 6800 Ultra and the x800Xt are about on the same level, but the 6800GT comes out on top of the x800 pro in almost all tests.

[kram 2.0]

Kram's comments are right on for the rest, and by the way, I'd go Intel ;)So would I go Intel (bet ya didn't see that coming). Gaming or not, the difference is innegligible - the nice thing about the Intel Processor, to me, is the Hyper Threading capability - it's an objective thing that most definately makes multitasking simply more pleasant.

kram

[digitalfreedom64]

Well Like kram said about the cpu, it's purely a matter of preference. I've been pretty loyal to intel for years. have had pentium 1,2,3,and 4. I'm not gonna lie and say I haven't tried amd but i've always stuck with intel although intel and amd are both great cpus. However, I'll probly be leaving the intel ranks sometime this next year and going for amd. from all the research I've been doing I've concluded that it would be better for the stuff I do and I'm gonna reccomend that you go with Amd 64.

[JayBee]

k, guess im gonna stick with Intel, Im an Intel person to begin with, just wanted some insight.

Now, what is a good chip now, besides the Extreme Edition... haha too expensive.

Then motherboard thats good with it?

..and what would u go with ATi or niVda (Im stuck between both).

[kram 2.0]

With Intel right now, you may want to go with the Intel Pentium 4 LGA775 sockets so a 3.2Ghz, should do. Along with that, I'd suggest the <a href="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-503&depa=0">Asus P5GD1</a> - a good PCI-Express included motherboard.

About your ATI vs. nVidia question - it's much the same as Intel vs. AMD - boils down to self preference. It also comes down to budget - how much are you willing to spend?

kram

[Tin]

For gaming, I would definatly go AMD, it usually comes outnon top of intel in games. Also 64bit version of several big games, such as UT2004 and FarCry, and coming out soon. As for the video card, the 6800 Ultra and the x800Xt are about on the same level, but the 6800GT comes out on top of the x800 pro in almost all tests.
only benchmarks show you the differences. to the unaided eye, you cant tell the difference. however, AMDs 939 is more futureproof than 775. no offense to Prescott owners here, but it is pretty much a dud processor for Intel. it runs much hotter than they had expected. they are going to be discontiuing them in the near future due to issues reaching the 4GHz mark. Intels next processor will be based off of the Pentium M architecture and be much more efficient than a P4. when Intel rolls out their next line of processors next year then you will see the performance gap close between Pentium its A64 competition. in a majority of benchmarks, a 2800+ socket 754 A64 even edges out the 3.4 Prescott. for AMDs on the other hand....socket 754 will no longer support the x86-64 architecture. the 3700+ was the last A64 754. then you have 939, which isnt bad, but should you get an AGP board or a PCI-E board? PCI-E is more futureproof, but a good PCI-E video card costs more than its AGP counterpart. if you go P4 with a 925x chipset, youll need to purchase the more expensive 24-pin ATX power supply. most current power supplies use a 20-pin ATX connector.

[Doopa]

Just to add my 2 cents:

I run a Intel, I'm not going to lie to you and say Intel runs better, or same AMD runs worse.

It is all self preference .

A few facts are:

Currently the best AMD is better then the best Intel. This will of course change back and forth as it always has.

To my knowledge Intels run cooler, AMDS are easier to overclock.

If you want to try a AMD to see how they run, go for it.

Also the ATI vs. nVIDIA question someone posted...
nVIDIA seems to be slacking! Once the x850 appears... My vote would have to go with ATI.

Sorry if I repeated any information, I find it tedious to read every post.

GL to you.

[sataraid0]

Hmmm, interesting comments.

I use Intel, no particular reason.

Mobo, like Asus or Aopen.

psu, get a good one, even if a little more expensive, will do you in good stead in future.

Graphics card like ATI, have Three of them and only one nVida.

Case, WOW, am really stuck on the X-Infinity. Has a place on the rear for a 120mm cooling fan which most cases don't have. Gives good cooling with place for 2 80mm fans in front for hdd drives and one on side window and one for the blow hole on the top. Plus it looks like a Merceades from the front. ha ha

It also comes with cheap 350w psu, just toss it and get a good one.

I own 3 of them and they come in colors, red black yellow etc. I posted a link to newegg that shows them all, hope the link works. If it does not just look for the Aspire case and type in x-ifinity to search and it will show all.

This case also has a removable Mobo plate so makes it easier to mount MB, memory, cpu etc.

Again as everyone says, its a matter of taste. Hope ya like it.



http://www.newegg.com/app/Viewproduct.asp?submit=property&catalog=7&propertycodevalue=0,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200&minprice=&maxprice=&mfrcode=1998&DEPA=1&order=PRICED&srchFor=x-infinity :)

[jimmyrules712]

heres my take, ive seen people here say why switch form intel if intel is working good, and others say 'the difference is negligable', and you cant notice the dif to the naked eye.

well if all of those are the case, then logic owuldsay go amd because the prices are quite a bit lower for the most part, youll save probably at least $50.

my point, it is true, they are about the same, a p4 2.8 will compete closely to a AMD64 2800, but the AMDs are cheaper all across the line, that is why i switched form intel to amd.

[shadowbreaker513]

To my knowledge Intels run cooler, AMDS are easier to overclock.
From what I've seen, AMDs are FAR cooler. My 3200+ idles at about 34C and under heavy load hits no higher than about 40C-42C

[HAL9000]

From what I've seen, AMDs are FAR cooler. My 3200+ idles at about 34C and under heavy load hits no higher than about 40C-42C

An Intel is by far better thermally protected... even with the COP feature of newer AMD motherboards, you can still fry one off in seconds, the Intel will throttle down.

As for which one is "better", I don't think one is "better" than the other, I just hold preference for Intel.

Now when choosing a motherboard... I still don't care what anyone says... VIA = garbage and gimme 5-10 minutes on your "stable" VIA system (Intel or AMD) and I can take it down... my feelings are the same for MSI motherboards which also tend to come highly recommended by AMD "radicals" ;) .. their quality control is substandard, I've sold them at a wholesale level and wouldn't let my ememies use them or VIA.

[kram 2.0]

From what I've seen, AMDs are FAR cooler. My 3200+ idles at about 34C and under heavy load hits no higher than about 40C-42C
My. Intel P4 2.8C idles at 35C - I don't see that as FAR hotter than 35C. Prescott Cores? Add 10C to that - it's still not enough to kill a CPU - especially as Intel CPUs has a thermal protection to always have your CPU stay at a safe temp. As HAL mentions, Intel to me is by preference.

kram

[Uber_Gamer]

Now I'm on the Nforce chipset. But up until very recently I was running an ASUS K8V-SE Deluxe which has the K8T800 chipset. And yes I always heard and thought that Via chipsets were substandard, but I have nothing but praise for the K8T800. I hate to say it HAL, but it was a very stable system.

[ric449]

VIA= Poor for all Intel and Athlon XP systems, great for Athlon 64. Up to now they have the best chipset for the Athlon 64 there is, until Nforce 4 arrives that is.

[JayBee]

k, I went ahead and priced up these specs. I wish it was a bit cheaper, is there anything of what I got that is cheaper, but the samething? Like the plextor drive, is there another good brand thats cheaper, for a similar drive?

I have the ram/case/80gig hd/and regular CD-ROM/CD-R drive.

Intel LGA 775 Pentium 4 540 3.2 GHz, 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache w/ Hyper Threading Technology – Retail

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-183&depa=1 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-183&depa=1)

ASUS "P5GD2 Deluxe" 915P Chipset Motherboard For Intel LGA 775 CPU -RETAIL

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-506&depa=0 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-506&depa=0)

Western Digital Raptor 36.7GB 10,000RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model WD360GD, OEM Drive Only (x2)

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-144-200&depa=1 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-144-200&depa=1)

Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS PCI Sound Card, Model "SB0350" –RETAIL

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=29-102-162&DEPA=0 (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=29-102-162&DEPA=0)

Pioneer Black DVD+RW/-RW Drive, Model DVR-108, OEM

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=27-129-157&depa=1 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=27-129-157&depa=1)

ATI RADEON X800 PRO Video Card, 256MB GDDR3, 256-bit, DVI/TV-Out, 8X AGP –RETAIL

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-363&depa=1 (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-363&depa=1)

-OR-

EVGA nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT Video Card With Free Doom 3Bundle, 256MB GDDR3, 256-Bit, TV-Out/DVI, 8X AGP, Model "256-A8-N349-AX" –RETAIL

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-130-208&depa=1

TOTAL: $1168.50 (I wish I could lower that a bit :confused:) w/o shipping

Are there any extra fans, accessories I will need? I have the X-Dreamer 2 right now, and those are the only fans I have (no extra).

[Moose on the Loose]

Between the GF6800 GT and the x800Pro, the GF6800GT is a better choice. If you have the money to buy an x800 XT platinum edition I would go for that, though :o

[kram 2.0]

Remember that the board you selected does not have a SATA controller onboard - you will need to get that seperately or get a different baord.

The Aspire X-Dreamer does have case fans. Just be careful - the powersupply that comes with it, the Turbolink brand, is very bad quality. I would suggest replacing should you be in need to power your system stably.

Also, don't forget memory - RAM.


kram

[HAL9000]

And yes I always heard and thought that Via chipsets were substandard, but I have nothing but praise for the K8T800. I hate to say it HAL, but it was a very stable system.

Gimme 5-10 minutes on it..... kaboom.

[palloco]

dude, if you wanted a cheaper machine choose AMD. You will have the same performance for less price. And I would bet AMDs would have lower temperature, since that intel is reaching its speed limits.

[JayBee]

I already have a antec 350w psu... is that good? Or should I consider getting a new one?

The x800 XT is expensive, and if I were to get the x800 I could just flash it to x800 XT right?

I already have a gig of geil pc3200.

What mobo is good for that chip?

[JayBee]

Just a question on AMD real quick...

THIS (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-484&depa=1) processor would run at 2.4ghz, or 3.4? Thats what confuses me about AMD. I am bringing this up because this chip is the same price as the Intel 3.2ghz.

[WhatsThisBoxFor?]

Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz 2.4GHz, although these days, the megahertz is not the only factor to consider. I normally use this page: http://tech-report.com/cpu/ for finding CPU clock speeds.

[JayBee]

So in other words the Intel is faster? Thats why I stick with Intel, just so much easier...

[kram 2.0]

dude, if you wanted a cheaper machine choose AMD. You will have the same performance for less price. And I would bet AMDs would have lower temperature, since that intel is reaching its speed limits.
Not necessarily. Just because Intel is reaching its speed limits doesn't mean that its lower clocked processors are any hotter or worse performing. Although the Prescott Core LGA775 aren't as bad as the PGA478-pin Prescott Core, they do have a slight above average temeprature - that which has no effect to my knowledge on its performance if installed and maintained well (like you would with any processor).

I don't see how temperature is relevant in this scheme - unless, of course, you are overclocking the Prescott Core processors or such when THEN you might look after a better cooling solution - Prescotts are very famous for their extreme overclockability with good cooling. It used to be that AMD had the temperature problems that scared me away from AMD when making a first purchase - I went Intel and it has never let me down - it works, why not stick to it?

kram

[Moose on the Loose]

The x800 XT is expensive, and if I were to get the x800 I could just flash it to x800 XT right?


It *used* to be easy. Lately X800 manufacturers have been replacing the memory. The first generation used samsung 1.6ns memory. If you would buy an x800 pro Vivo (12 pixel pipelines), you would basically have an x800 XT (16 pipelines) with 4 pipelines disabled. So you could just overclock it, then flash the card and get the extra pipelines. This is what I did on my x800pro ViVo. If you decide to go for it, and you succeed in unlocking the 4 extra pipelines but the core and memory arent getting to XT speeds, you can also do the pencil mod (google --> x800 pencil mod) which will let you get insane clocks.

To put it short : if you want the easy way : buy an x800 pro VIVO edition, hope it has 1.6 ns memory on it and simply overclock it (Arctic Cooling rev.4 is probably a good idea to reach higher clock speeds).

Lately manufacturers are using 2.0 ns memory on the boards, which makes it impossible (for as far as I know, that is) to unlock the 4 extra pipelines since the BIOS'es are written for 1.6 ns memory.

It *is* possible to hardmod an x800 pro to XT, but that would require some reading. And probably some silver paste or something.

If you need further information feel free to PM, or reply here. I'm kind of in a hurry so sorry for the incomprehensible post, it's probably a lot of information for you to process :)

Kind regards, Moose.

[JayBee]

What if I were to just go with a new vid card? Would the 6800GT/x800 Pro work with my current system (listed in my sig).

[palloco]

Well, intel for some reason cancelled his 4ghz project, and it was the extrem heating the processors had when reaching that speed. Certainly high temperature should not been relevant, but for some reason people tend to incorrectly relation heating problems with AMD. Only Thunderbird series had problems with it, while if we google we can quickly find that intel had heating problems in some versions of every any pentium mobile series (not the centrino ones) and in their latest p4 chips.

[speeddude2000]

ok, jaybee, about your 3400+amd 2.4ghz/3.4ghz question:

the "3400+" is the mhz equivalent. however, it operates at 2.4ghz. its able to be equal to 3.4ghz because it performs more operations per cycle than the intel, which gives it the equivalent. hope that made sense to you.

anyways, the card wont work because you have to have a pci express slot available(new technology, not available on your mobo. im not sure if theres an AGP version of that vid card, dont think so though)

[JayBee]

Hmm...that sucks. I think upgrading my full pc is too expensive for a x-mas gift, which is why I wondered about the vid card...

Now Im stuck.... :eek:

[Moose on the Loose]

Hmm...that sucks. I think upgrading my full pc is too expensive for a x-mas gift, which is why I wondered about the vid card...

Now Im stuck.... :eek:

You can just buy a new AGP graphics card yes. Between the x800 pro and the 6800 GT, the 6800GT is probably better value, unless you use the pipeline-unlocking method I pointed out for the x800. However, I don't know if you will be able to run a 6800GT on a 350W PSU. An x800 would probably work on that, but 6800's are known to be large power hogs.

Just my 2 cents.

[Doopa]

dude, if you wanted a cheaper machine choose AMD. You will have the same performance for less price. And I would bet AMDs would have lower temperature, since that intel is reaching its speed limits.

Do your research before you post. Look at the bench marks, it is a proven fact Intel Processors run at coolor temperatures.

Are you willing to make tha bet.

And when choosing a mobo, I highly reccomend ASUS as the manufacturer. I have built 4 machines with ASUS motherboards and satisfied would be a understatement.

Are there even PCI Express 16x motherboards for AMD yet???

[Moose on the Loose]

Yes there are motherboards with AMD and PCI-E. Just out, nForce4.

[JayBee]

Well guess I have some thinking to do... on whether or not I will upgrade most of my parts now, or just upgrade one or two things :rolleyes:

[vadim]

GO AMD 64 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i got
AMD 64 3200+
1GB PC3200
250GB+80GB+80GB=410GB SATA HDD :D
256MB 6800GT
K8NS-PRO GIGABITE MOBO

AND ABOUT TO GET SOUND BLASTER WITH 5.1 SURROUND (520W) :eek:
GOTTA LOVE MY PC

[JayBee]

How much did that all cost ya? :eek:

[Moose on the Loose]

GO AMD 64 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i got
AMD 64 3200+
1GB PC3200
250GB+80GB+80GB=410GB SATA HDD :D
256MB 6800GT
K8NS-PRO GIGABITE MOBO

AND ABOUT TO GET SOUND BLASTER WITH 5.1 SURROUND (520W) :eek:
GOTTA LOVE MY PC

What exactly is the point of this post?

[JayBee]

Couldn't tell ya, but I was interested on how much that build cost him. :)

[palloco]

Well doopa, I cannot know if that is a proven fact, but googling a bit (again...) made me reach the conclusion that around 20% agree with you and that 80% dont. Maybe intel is selling some wrong chips or whatever but most people out there says prescott reaches around 70ºC while amd64 stays on 52ºC in same conditions.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/pentium4-3.4ghz/index.x?pg=15
http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?t=117667&page=2
http://www.bytesector.com/data/bs-article.asp?ID=278&page=4
http://forums.devhardware.com/t29703/s.html
http://forums.devhardware.com/archive/t-29703

[HAL9000]

I am an Intel guy and I will verify that yes, the high end Intels run hot, yes, they're reaching the end of the speed limits with their current technology.... BUT, the thing to keep in mind with an Intel is that it has a far superior thermal protection than an AMD. AMD has made strides in thermal protection, but it isn't foolproof and you can still fry their chip with something as simple as the heatsink not sitting quite flat. The Intel will simply throttle down to cool off.

[ric449]

The argument on heat isn't really necessary. Prescotts are hot, simple fact, and the Athlon 64s are cooler. Are you overclocking? If not, it doesn't matter.

Now, AMD or Intel. You said its mostly games you wanted to do with the machine. In this case the best choice would be an AMD Athlon 64. But, make sure you wait until Nforce 4 appears. It has PCI Express, which is the next technology. You don't want to be left behind. It also has higher performance than any other A64 chipset.

[kram 2.0]

Now, AMD or Intel. You said its mostly games you wanted to do with the machine. In this case the best choice would be an AMD Athlon 64. But, make sure you wait until Nforce 4 appears. It has PCI Express, which is the next technology. You don't want to be left behind. It also has higher performance than any other A64 chipset.
I don't see how this comes to play - how can one establish that the AMD Athlon 64 will play better in games. How do we figure that out? Synthetic Benchmark numbers that the computer feeds us?

To me, I agree with HAL - another nice thing about the Intel processor is that even if you try, it won't catch on fire, at least unintentionally. I have built with the AMD Athlon XP before (I admit it - it was better than the Celeron non-D), and one thing I DID tell my customer to do as he used his processor is to keep a periodic watch on his processor temperature. Although Barton Core CPUs didn't run particularily hot, I WAS worried of that instance where it might malfunction somehow.

Not many people here are going to state as a given fact that one is better than the other thorugh a series of just facts and no personal judgements. What was all posted from here up have been personal preference - each processor has its arguments. The phrase "Athlon 64 run better in games" and "Athlon 64 is better because it supports 64-bit extension" drives me nuts...as an Intel guy, I feel those are not doing justice to the other side, which is simply that the former statement, you won't know for sure, the latter, it's worthless now.

kram

[ric449]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=9
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-16.html#opengl

I know you like Intel, but you can't deny that games favour the A64. Its just the way it is, Intel have the lead in prfoesssional apps, AMD are leading the gaming front.

[HAL9000]

This is a situation of only seeing "better" in synthetic benchmarks. I'm sure I could find a LOT of posts from AMD users on this board where when Intel was better performing in games, they argued about synthetic benchmarks and that your eye can only see 60fps.... well... when the synthetic benchmarks show AMD ahead, does the same no longer apply?

Be realistic... either CPU combined with a high end video card is going to perform VERY well in today's games.

[ric449]

Looks at this from a price point of view. Right now, there isn't much difference between the P4 and the Athlon 64s in gaming. Theres a difference, but its not earth shattering. Now, look at prices. From these benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=7

I would say in gaming, a skt 939 3500+ A64 is around equal to the 3.6GHz P4, with the A64 usually coming out on top. Lets look at prices now (Newegg):

3500+: $259 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-460&depa=1)

3.6GHz P4: $450 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-181&depa=1)

Now, consider that the price difference is huge, and the A64 usually performs better. Its obvious what the wise decision is.

[kram 2.0]

This is a situation of only seeing "better" in synthetic benchmarks. I'm sure I could find a LOT of posts from AMD users on this board where when Intel was better performing in games, they argued about synthetic benchmarks and that your eye can only see 60fps.... well... when the synthetic benchmarks show AMD ahead, does the same no longer apply?

Be realistic... either CPU combined with a high end video card is going to perform VERY well in today's games.
Well said. I guess it is a true paradox to say that benchmarks are the insufficient measures of performance. I've personally ran an Intel System, played games on it, and multitasked on it, and all of the above were perform very well (except for the multitask, which ran out of memory :p). I guess to go back to my second to the last post before this - my point proven. Intel and AMD compete in a capitalistic society, where the measure of success is directly related to their efforts to try to outpass the other. In such case, both sides will try very hard to be its best - I can say both are very good. It's personal preference - HAL and I, as seen, prefer Intel due to what we think. Ric and Vadim obviously prefer AMD Athlon 64 - it's what they think. It's all personal preference.

Now, never have I ever said that Intels are better than AMD processors...I have to say that I've never tried an Athlon 64 processor so honestly, I cannot say anything from first hand. I'm sure the same applies to a sizable majority of us - not many people have both the Athlon 64 and an Intel P4 CPU that corresponds to each other.

At the same time, I consider the benchmarks to only show a general direction of how they will perform - in such case, we can say that all of them will perform well. What I meant in my previous post, Ric, is exactly as HAL stated in his second paragraph.

EDIT:
I would say in gaming, a skt 939 3500+ A64 is around equal to the 3.6GHz P4, with the A64 usually coming out on top. Lets look at prices now (Newegg):

3500+: $259 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-460&depa=1)

3.6GHz P4: $450 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-181&depa=1)

Now, consider that the price difference is huge, and the A64 usually performs better. Its obvious what the wise decision is.
That's the OEM processor of the older 754 compared to the Newer LGA775 3.6Ghz processor. Obviously, the older 754 socket would be cheaper. And if you accord the "around equal" to mean according to the benchmarks you posted about THG, the AMD corresponding CPU would be the AMD Athlon 64 3700+ Socket 754 (there is no Socket 939/940). Look here - take the link from the LGA775 Intel CPU compare them to this.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-464&depa=1
That one, retail, is 461 USD. Intel P4 560 is 450 USD. How is this a scaled price?



Hope that ties things together...

kram

[HAL9000]

Now, consider that the price difference is huge, and the A64 usually performs better. Its obvious what the wise decision is.

Well... like I said... "performs better" is a relative statement... why is it acceptable when AMD proves better in synthetic benchmarks than Intel, but not vice versa? It's a moot point really.

As for it being a "wiser" decision.... I don't think so either... am I not wise because I prefer an Intel over an AMD? It does everything I need it to do and it's my preference.

I've always liked "selective" price comparisons... you easily found a $200 USD difference... but I look through my price lists and find a 3.4 and a 3400 and it's only $70CDN difference... about $50USD... not such a huge difference anymore.... and comparing a 3.6 to 3500? Turn the scales and compare 3.6 to 3800... the Intel is clearly a price winner.

[Yuanji]

kram, the 3500+ Socket 939 retail is selling on newegg for 260. while i am an avid intel fan, this is how i see it in terms of gaming: a64 > northwood > prescott. now you take a 3500+ and you see 70 FPS then you take a 3.2ghz P4 at roughly the same price +- 30 dollars, and you only get mabye 62 FPS. the difference is 8 frames in synthetic benchmarks but what are you honestly going to get? probably around 50-65 in the end. i have found synthetic benchmarks almost always give higher frames then real life performance gives. is that a huge difference between the 2? no is there a difference in the numbers? yes. it is human to want the highest number possible but you have to take into account that you won't see a difference, you just will feel like you have one.

[kram 2.0]

kram, the 3500+ Socket 939 retail is selling on newegg for 260. while i am an avid intel fan, this is how i see it in terms of gaming: a64 > northwood > prescott. now you take a 3500+ and you see 70 FPS then you take a 3.2ghz P4 at roughly the same price +- 30 dollars, and you only get mabye 62 FPS. the difference is 8 frames in synthetic benchmarks but what are you honestly going to get? probably around 50-65 in the end. i have found synthetic benchmarks almost always give higher frames then real life performance gives. is that a huge difference between the 2? no is there a difference in the numbers? yes. it is human to want the highest number possible but you have to take into account that you won't see a difference, you just will feel like you have one.
What I mean, though I overstated it in my previous post, is that in the end, what matters most if the graphics card - in this case, get a ATI Radeon X800 XT PE and any one of those processor would do very well on gaming. I was just posting to prove the point that even with benchmarks, they can be equal - THG, in the benchmark perspective as was repetitively mentioned here, gives the Intel P4 560 (3.6) the lead even over the AMD Athlon 64 3800+ in some cases. The prices look in the favor of Intel there if you want to use price as a reason to get Athlon 64. I don't think that is a fair way to measure things - if yes, doesn't Intel have a pretty good hand at it there?

Looking at the OpenGL measures, which I would presume is more gaming oriented benchmarks, it has the processor as performing very well. Now, my point in comparing them is to try to come to a statement stating that they are all good - the phrase "better" is very ambiguous as you can see through the varieites of benchmarks in many measures.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4_570-11.html#opengl

kram

[kram 2.0]

What if I were to just go with a new vid card? Would the 6800GT/x800 Pro work with my current system (listed in my sig).
That migiht be the best idea. This discussion over Intel or AMD has turned into a debate, which I am part to blame, and you can clearly see that we have preferences. In the case of Radeon X800 Pro or GF6800GT, I might suggest the latter - the GeForce 6800GT. Clearly, ATI has figured out that the X800 Pro isn't very matched up with the GF6800GT - hence their release of the X800 XL at the beggining of next year.

EDIT: Sorry about the double post - I thought someone already replied when I saw the first page instead of the second...my apologies.

kram

[HAL9000]

Personally... I think people are spending WAY too much time worrying about a synthetic number than enjoying their computers.

[kram 2.0]

Personally... I think people are spending WAY too much time worrying about a synthetic number than enjoying their computers.
That reminds me of the phrase relevant here, that glc has stated so well. "Benchmarks don't play games...YOU do". I like my processor, and I will go play HL2 on it now. Good day to you all...and thank you for dealing with me on this debate/discussion.

kram

[Moose on the Loose]

Wow, cool down.

Every benchmark proves it, its pretty much unanymous : As far as gaming is concerned, right now at this point in history, the AMD is better value than Intel. The fact that Intel CPU's throttle down when they are overheating is true, but unless you're overclocking it doesn't matter anyway. Everyone here agrees that Intel makes great CPU's, but - RIGHT NOW - if you buy an AMD CPU that is the price equivalent of an Intel one, you will get higher FPS with the AMD CPU.

[HAL9000]

Ya... exactly as we have stated.... higher FPS in SYNTHETIC benchmarks... an argument AMD users use against Intel when they are ahead in the game. Visually, you're not gonna see it.

[nubbler]

Ya... exactly as we have stated.... higher FPS in SYNTHETIC benchmarks... an argument AMD users use against Intel when they are ahead in the game. Visually, you're not gonna see it.


I agree, the human (who is gonna be using the computer BTW) is not gonna notice this difference.

[JayBee]

Well all I wish is pc componets weren't soo expensive :D.

Anywayz, so if I were to get a new 6800GT for this mobo (system I got now) it would be compatible? What if I were to upgrade everything else in the time to come, and I just wanted to take that card and put it with the new system, would that work? Or would I find myself getting a "not so new" motherboard so that vard will work, rather than going with a new mobo with PCI-e, etc.?

Last question... someone wanna help pay for a new system :).
hehe, just kidding. :eek:

[Yuanji]

6800Gt comes in 2 flavours, AGP and PCI Express. PCI Express one costs 500 and AGP one costs 400 simply because PCI Express is the newer.

[nubbler]

someone wanna help pay for a new system

Sure, how much do you want?

j/k of course.

[JayBee]

darn nubbler :(

Im just debating on whether or not I should get a AGP vid card, or just wait to get a vid card when I am able to upgrade everything else as well. For the fact that I don't want to get a AGP card now, and then when I upgrade later have PCI-E capibilities.

Also, would buying 1-2 Raptors really increase performance? What if I were to buy one? Two? If I cut those off my list and just went with my 80gig SATA I have now, I would be cutting off $200+...

[Doopa]

I read somewhere the human eye can only see 30fps?

Anyone know of this? If this is the case why will 8FPS in the high 60's range even matter.

I have built several machines using Intel. I have NEVER had a problem. My computer idles at 30C after being on for several hours and only in the mid 40's after hours of gaming.

Let it also be noted I am using the CPU Fan that Intel supplied me.

I really don't think it matter what processor you get. (as long as you stay away from those XEON things)

Just remember it seems like the PCI EXPRESS technology is more prevailent on Intel MOBO's. Like someone stated previous; There is only 1 manufacturer for AMD/PCI Express compatibility...

[JayBee]

k, umm... is there much of a different between the regular 9800 Pro and the 9800 Pro XT? Then how much of a difference is there between those and the x800 Pro, and 6800's?

[kram 2.0]

Yes. The Radeon 9800 Pro is the sweet spot card right now - at around 200 USD, you get a really nice 256-bit card that I consider to be one of the best buys I've made. The image quality is fantastical - 3D quality is no worse. The Radeon 9800XT is a 8% increase in performance from the R9800 Pro - IMO, it's not worth getting that since it is priced very unusually - the same price as ATI's Radeon X800 Pro which is simply a new generation of graphics. My recommendation? Either the Radeon 9800 Pro or go all the way up to the X800s or 6800s.

kram

[JayBee]

Hmm...heres comes the decision making...hmm :rolleyes:

[JayBee]

Ok heres what I got so far for an AMD build/upgrade. Keep in mind, I already have memory, hard drive, case, 350watt psu (big enough?), and CD-ROM/CD-R drive. Was wondering if out of those things I just listed (in my sig) would work with these upgrades?

Secondly, I could maybe spend an extra $100-150 ... any suggestions (if any) on what I could use that on?

Lastly, is the 6600GT better than the 9800 PRO 256mb? If so what is a good brand to go with on that?

AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 2.2 GHz, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Socket 939 Processor - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-498&depa=1

MSI "K8N Neo2 Platinum" NVIDIA nForce3 ULTRA Chipset Motherboard For AMD Socket 939 CPU –RETAIL
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-130-468&depa=1

ATI RADEON 9800 PRO Video Card, 256MB DDR, 256-bit, DVI/TV-Out, 8X AGP –RETAIL
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-361&depa=1[url]

Plextor 12X DVD+/-RW Drive, Model PX-712A Black, Retail
[url]http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=27-131-327&depa=1

Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS PCI Sound Card, Model "SB0350" –RETAIL
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=29-102-162&DEPA=0

TOTAL: $869 w/o shipping

[Moose on the Loose]

Looks good to me. If you really want to play with all the lights and bells on you might want to consider upgrading to 6800GT, or even better (but even more expensive) x800 XT.

[JayBee]

Yea, maybe I will. Still deciding.

How long before nForce4 comes out? And any ideas on price? If its soon, and not too expensive I may just wait for that also.

[Yuanji]

i think the ASUS Nforce4 board is due out by holidays. i think it's 180-220 for the SLi board and 140-170 for the normal Nforce4 ultra board. really expensive motherboads...

[JayBee]

So if im not gonna go SLi should I just go with the Neo2 ULTRA nForce3? Or get the nForce4, or will the SLi be that beneficial to me (now/future) to go with it?

Whats the best way to go?

[Yuanji]

SLi = overcosted and Nforce4 SLi is only good for Geforce chips. totally a waste of money IMHO. if you want a PCI express card, go for the Geforce4 chipset. if not, there is no other benefit. (mabye native SATA appeals to you but i'd probably be fine just installing a driver)
EDIT- i meant nforce 4 ultra instead of geforce 4 ultra

[kram 2.0]

SLi = overcosted and Nforce4 SLi is only good for Geforce chips. totally a waste of money IMHO. if you want a PCI express card, go for the Geforce4 chipset. if not, there is no other benefit. (mabye native SATA appeals to you but i'd probably be fine just installing a driver)
A bit off topic, but what seemed interesting was there was a THG article where at the very end, they connected the Radeon X800 XT PE and a GF6800U together on dual graphics mode (not SLI) on an SLI board and found it to actually work...but I do agree with you there. SLI is a very powerful technology, but with the resources available with the Processor and all, bottlenecking is surely a huge problem there.

kram

[Yuanji]

what most people don't understand is that by the time that he/she will need to buy a card to replace the 9800Pro, 6600GT, 6800GT, or X800s because they run too slow, you will probably also have to buy a new motherboard, CPU, RAM, and almost everything. buying for the future is kinda a convoluted idea as we live in the present.

[JayBee]

So wait till the nForce4 board comes out (non SLi)? Or go with the nForce3 Neo2 ULTRA?

[Yuanji]

unless you are getting a PCI express vid card, i'd stick with the neo2. it's an amazing OCer to boot.

[JayBee]

Well what would be the difference between the 8x AGP, and PCI-E? Not much is there?

[digitalfreedom64]

I think at this point in time that since PCI-E is such a new technology that they aren't much better than AGP 8x. I may be wrong someone else may be better suited to answer that question

[nubbler]

Well what would be the difference between the 8x AGP, and PCI-E? Not much is there?

Faster transfer speeds. More bandwidth.

[JayBee]

Hmm guess ill wait for the nForce4 boards to pop up, then make my decisions. :)

[glc]

I'll start building with AMD processors again as soon as AMD comes out with their own modern chipset or Intel comes up with a supporting chipset (fat chance). I just have not had good luck with anything that says Via, SiS, or ALi on it. Yeah, I know Nvidia has a decent chipset, but they are not without issues either - and ATI hasn't figured out how to do motherboards right yet.

If I'm going to build a pure gaming box, it will get a top end Nvidia graphics card, and it will be made by Asus, and it will cost over 400 bucks. Otherwise, it's ATI all the way for a general purpose machine and Matrox where no game will ever touch the machine.

[Avenger]

I'll start building with AMD processors again as soon as AMD comes out with their own modern chipset
And who said Intel chipsets are stable?????? :confused:

You guys look to be biased towards Intel chipsets but the fact is that they're not worst or better than VIA or Nvidia.

I had a KT4 Ultra mobo (VIA KT400 chipset in it) and I had my PC working 24/7 all the time without a hickup. Currently, I'm using an Nforce2 mobo and I love how it performs just as the KT4 Ultra did.
Some of you may be asking why he changed his mobo if it was stable?; well, the answer to that is SoundStorm and Dual Channel. :D

JAYBEE:
If I were you, I'll wait for the Nforce4 SLI and buy the best video card that money can buy. In that time, you could save more bucks till you buy all the components needed for your next rig.

350watt psu (big enough?)
Don't even try this. :eek:
Get a better PSU (550W-600W). Thermaltake, Antec and OCZ have good PSUs in that range. Always look for rails with 32Amps in the 12V line.

My dream rig would be the following:

Nforce4 SLI mobo (Asus, MSI or GigaByte)
Athlon 64 FX 55 :D
4 gigs of Corsair TWINX1024-3200XLPRO
2 NX6800GT-T2D256E in SLI mode
2x74 Western Digital HDD (10000 RPM and 8MB cache)
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum (or onboard sound)
LiteOn 16X DVD-RW
LiteOn 16X DVD-ROM
Thermaltake Silent PurePower Series (680W PSU)
Thermaltake Shark Full Tower Aluminum Case
Nec floppy drive
Windows XP Proffesional and Linux SuSE 9.2 (64 bit) in dual boot mode

That's all and take care.

[HAL9000]

And who said Intel chipsets are stable?????? :confused:

You guys look to be biased towards Intel chipsets but the fact is that they're not worst or better than VIA or Nvidia.



You gotta be joking right? Intel chipsets are bar none the most stable chipsets available... and tis a shame that you classify them in the same ranking as VIA. I'll give nVidia benefit of the doubt as I have used them with FAR greater success than VIA which always seems to be flakey somewhere, not to mention hot.

[ric449]

I hate it when people make it look like they know what they are talking about.

VIA have a long reputation for poor chipsets. Even look at AMD Zone, a full site of AMD fanatics, and VIA build a lot of chipsets for AMD processors. A lot of them still say keep away from VIA because of their poor P4 and Athlon XP performance. They are only just getting some sort of reputation back because their Athlon 64 chipsets are actually pretty good. As far as I know Intel have the most stable chipsets, because they make the processor to go with it.

Power supplies. I don't know where you got 550W-600W from. Also, 35A+ on 12V is way overkill. You just don't need all that. A good 400W unit would be fine, 450W if it is a very powerful system.

[Avenger]

You gotta be joking right

No. I'm not joking. :)

If you guys had a bad experience with VIA chipsets, that doesn't means that ALL the rest of the world had the same issues you guys had (Well, I never had an Intel platform, maybe, that's why I never had those problems)

If you say how unstable VIA chipsets are (or were, because they learned from their previous mistakes), why don't you mention how BADLY and HORRIBLE the first chipsets for the PII/PIII were?
Ohh, of course, we can't bash Intel, sorry for that. :p

As I said before, there's not a perfect chipset in the world. All have their Pros and Cons.

Regards.

[digitalfreedom64]

I've worled with all 3 chipsets at one time or another. Via has some good one here and there but over all they're pathetic. As for the nforce chipsets from what i've seen for the most part they are just as stable as intel chipsets. I'm not claiming to know everything. This is only from my experience and the research i've done on the chipsets.

[Avenger]

I hate it when people make it look like they know what they are talking about
Hey, come on, chill out. I'm just saying the thruth. :p
VIA had their little problems at the beginning (also Intel, Nvidia and a lot more).

If you look at current benchmarks (VIA K8T800 Pro vs Nforce3 Ultra...), the K8T800 Pro is the performance king. Anyhow, I like the idea of SLI, that's why I'm switching to Nvidia (as I did before).

You just don't need all that. A good 400W unit would be fine, 450W if it is a very powerful system
My current rig has a 500W PSU on it. :D
Come on dude, if you invastigate a little more, SLI chews a good amount of Amps (including the FX 55 processor). That's why the need of a bigger PSU to keep things running smooth and stable.

Regards.

[digitalfreedom64]

I agree with avenger there really is no such thing as "the perfect chipset". Intel, Via, and Nvidia al have their flaws and there good points. While none of the chipsets are perfect all we can do is to try the one with the least imperfections for what we need the system to be able to do. To me it seams that people take their loyalty to a certain chipset or a CPU to a too high of an extreme that when a company does release a hipset does put out a chipset tat may have a flaw in it that we allow it to vloud our judgment.

[HAL9000]

No. I'm not joking. :)

If you guys had a bad experience with VIA chipsets, that doesn't means that ALL the rest of the world had the same issues you guys had (Well, I never had an Intel platform, maybe, that's why I never had those problems)

If you say how unstable VIA chipsets are (or were, because they learned from their previous mistakes), why don't you mention how BADLY and HORRIBLE the first chipsets for the PII/PIII were?
Ohh, of course, we can't bash Intel, sorry for that. :p

As I said before, there's not a perfect chipset in the world. All have their Pros and Cons.

Regards.

The first chipsets for the PII being the LX... ya.. nothing to rave about, but still VERY stable.. much better than the VIA anyday.. the next being the BX, quite possibly the BEST chipset EVER made by ANY chipset manufacturer.

I can say that I have dealt with a "few" chipsets.. having 5000+ builds under my belt having worked for a distributor for a few years as their primary assembler/tech... I'm sorry, I can't take the word of somebody who has built a "few" systems and called the VIA stable. Like I've told many people here... gimme 5-10 minutes on one and I will make it crash... the Intel, nForce, and recent SiS/Intel chips stay stable... the rest go down in flames with VIA first to flake out.

I wish Toaster were still here to talk about stability.... any guy that can mod a board to make a RISC processor go from 800Mhz to 2Ghz+ and stay stable knows what stability is all about.

[Avenger]

I'm sorry, I can't take the word of somebody who has built a "few" systems and called the VIA stable
Sure, of course :rolleyes:

Building 2000 PC's (and numbers are growing) will not equal 500000...+ or whatever. Half of those builds were PIIIs with the faulty chipset and sake of that I lose my first job because a customer blamed us for selling them faulty equipment. But how the hell a customer knows that was Intel's fault and even worst, how to convince your boss that doesn't have the idea how a computer adds 1+1?
The answer I got was: Don't blame Intel, come tomorrow for you liquidation.
For that reason, I work for myself and ALL my builds are AMD-based PC's with VIA, SiS and Nvidia chipsets AND without ANY problems reported (from my customers). oops, sorry, I lied, 2 customers had problems with one PC I build for them with the VIA KT133 and KT266 Apollo faulty chipsets (you know...).
The other problem was that one customer reported his machine been burning like hell because of a burned Thunderbird processor. What he didn't told me is that they tried to remove the HSF to put a high-end coolermaster HSF on it (but they failed) and it looks like they reused the same thermal pad that came with the retail HSF and burned the processor. Well, they voided the warranty and the worst of all is that they didn't finish pay the machine. :mad:

Regards. :cool:

[ric449]

I fold. If we carry this on we all know whats going to happen.

[HAL9000]

Ummm... what Intel chipset was that that is allegedly so horrible... cuz if it was a PIII, it would be the BX... again.. best chipset out there to date.... if you were having problems with those, I would say it was due to a poor quality motherboard manufacturer such as PC Chips or similar knockoff... not the chipset.

[digitalfreedom64]

Can we please not turn this into a chipset war? Because I really don't think this is what this thread was started for. I'm not trying to be rude HAL i'm just saying that everyone has just started arguing over which chipset is better.

[timbit]

Don't think I am starting this thread to get people arguing etc, cuz im now. I know there are plenty of AMD vs. Intel threads. Im not lookin for whos better. I just want your guys opinion on certain things.

ahem.
The first two questions: Intel or AMD and nVidia or ATI are purely self preference. I assure you members will pile up here and state their self-preference - it's all good. Intel and AMD are both good companies that both make good CPUs.
wow. you talk about your degenerating threads. it started off so well. anyways guys, remember why we are here -- to help people with their questions. some newb reading this could be totally turned off of building his/her own after reading this, or if they got replies like this. and i wouldn't blame 'em.

ok, now for JayBee's questions...
first off, are you not liking the performance you are getting out of your sig rig? that's a pretty decent machine, and you could save a lot of money by doing some upgrades to that, as opposed to getting a new rig (ie: new vid card for gaming.... and maybe a dvd drive.)
if you really don't like the performance you are getting, then here is what i suggest. i have only had experience with amd, so i will post an amd build that would be acceptable for the tasks you said you would be doing. i would hope that one of the respected intel enthusiasts around here (maybe kram??? :) ) would do the same.

It would be used mostly for gaming. However I do A LOT of internet surfing as well as some photoshop stuff, maybe some video editing a long the lines, and a lot of muisc storage and playing music on the pc.


all right then. the ram you have is great, it will do fine. 1 gig should be enough. your hdd is ok. i don't use maxtor personally, but it should work. it is a little small though. believe me, 80 gigs is nothing if you get into video editing. that, however, is something that can be dealt with later.

mobo: asus and msi will both be releasing sli boards in the next 2-5 weeks. they want them out before christmas. however, unless you are a really heavy gamer, i'm not sure sli is right for you. you'll pay a lot more for sli boards, esp at the beginning. so, i'm going to suggest the Asus A8V Deluxe (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-510&depa=1) $130
if you feel that pci express is an important future proofing option, then i would wait for the Asus A8V-E. It's the same as the mobo i mentioned, except with pci-express. it hasn't been released just yet, so i don't know the price, but it shouldn't be too bad, as it does not have sli. link here (http://www.asus.com/products/mb/socket939/a8v-e-d/overview.htm). now these are both via based boards. i realize that hal does not like any via chipsets, and i respect his opinion. to be honest, i don't like via chipsets either, except for the k8 versions. i have not been hearing the complaints on the net that are normally associated with via, and mine is exceptionally stable, running f@h 24/7.

cpu: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ at 2.0 ghz (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-500&depa=1) $194. it's oem, so you need a heatsink. i suggest the Zalman CNPS7700-CU (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=35-118-115&depa=0) at $51. it is very quiet, and will keep that proc very cool. incidentally, since you seem to be an oc'er already, this is a 90 nano proc. don't want to make any promises but: i've heard they can oc pretty well. 2.4 shouldn't be out of reach...

optical drive: NEC ND-3500A (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=27-152-034&depa=0) $67
burns dvd+ or - at 16x and it does dual layer. comes highly recommended by anandtech.com. and it's got a great price. only prob: good luck finding media that burns at that speed or dual layer media. but that will come in time, and it will burn slower media in the meantime.

video card:
budget agp:
ATI 9800 Pro 128 mb, 256 bit (http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=AA21610) $215
expensive agp: Leadtek GeForce 6800GT (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-122-195&depa=1) $390
budget pci-e:
Albatron GeForce 6600GT (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-170-072&depa=1) $190
expensive pci-e:MSI GeForce 6800 (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-127-149&depa=1) $365
none of these video cards are the best you can get, but they are reasonable.

case... i like the more "minimalist" cases, so i'm not going to say anything lol. just go to newegg.com and see what they have. or go to the websites of antec, thermaltake, raidmax.... there's lot's of them out there. just make sure that either a: it comes with a good psu, or b: you replace the psu in it.

total cost: $657-$832 depending on agp vid card. (plus case). it will be a bit more if you go with pci-express, just cause it's newer tech.

now that i've posted all of this: intel will do just as well, and probably at close to the same price point. so it really is up to you. ignore anyone who says that there is no contest, because there is. here in the tech community, we tend to forget that it's not always about the decimals and fractions of frame rates. JayBee, you were comfortable with intel before, so why switch? unless you, yourself, want to give amd a try. and if that's the case, then that's a decision you have tg make.
i really hope this helps. and if anyone feels the need to critique my build, or anyone elses, don't let it be that intel or amd will do "far better." we all know, deep down, beyond our fanboy hearts, that that's not true lol. we're all fanboys, we just gotta learn how to accept that and get along.

[JayBee]

Thanks. Nice to see you went into depth to try and help out.

Anywayz. I am happy with my build right now .. actually haven't had a single problem. I think I was just thinking "Yay, something new..." when I thought I would build a complete new system.

Now, if I can upgrade somethings I am going to that, as though purchasing all the stuff all over again is just too expensive.

What I think I need:

Sound Card. Audigy 2 ZS. I have 5.1 Logitech 5300's and I have on-board sound. So I want to be able to get everything I can out of those speakers. :)

Anybody recommend something different?

Video Card: I have a 9600 Pro right now, it does fine... but I want something new/better. When I built this pc I kinda went on a budget so I couldn't go all out like some people do... and my brother just built his and hes got a 9800 Pro 256, so I gotta upgrade :)

I don't want THE best, but I want something good and something that isn't going to be completly old in a year or two. It won't be long for I will build a new pc, maybe middle of next year... and I am also still debating on whether or not I should go with the 9800 Pro 256, or go something newer? How much of a difference is there between the 9800 Pro and the newer cards? I want something I can put into my next build and not have it be old..

So whats good/not too expensive?

Monitor? Not for sure, just wondering what some good/cheaper side 20" monitors are .. whether it be CRT, or Flat. Since I game a lot, I figured something bigger than 17" would be cool! :D

So whats good here?

I think that about does it... anything else you guys would recommend?

[Panama Red]

Take a look at this review of 19" LCD monitors. You'll be surprised at the outcome.

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2289

[timbit]

for the vid card, i would go with one of the GeForce 6800 gt class cards. i don't think i can safely say that the 9800 pro will "play tomorrow's games" anymore.

also, consider another hard drive, pref one with a good chunk of space, if you are seriously going to be getting into vid editing.

[Avenger]

Ummm... what Intel chipset was that that is allegedly so horrible
It was sake of those i-820 chipsets (the first ones were faulty). And about the mobos, we only used Intel retail mobos for Pentium II/III builds. :rolleyes:

Regards.

[Panama Red]

Watch the language, Avenger.

--------------moderator-----------------

[JayBee]

Back on topic please.... :rolleyes: :)

[Avenger]

Ooops, sorry. :p

Next time, I'll be careful.

Cheers.

[wutzu]

don't buy the 9800 pro 256 unless you're going to flash it to 9800xt, because it performs exactly as well as the pro 128

[MrAustin]

My advise is to go with the 9800 Pro 256-bit Interface, and use that for a while. Save up your cash throughout the next year, and then splurge and get your dream system (or a realistic variation of it :)) I just got a 9800 Pro (make it is 256-bit) and it runs HL2 on my system below at 65FPS, so I'm sure it'll handle business until your next build.

Just my 2 cents.

[ric449]

Guys, you're a bit late replying.

[Propain]

Guys, you're a bit late replying.
maybe the guy who made this thread hasnt built it yet since its only been a month :rolleyes:

[faint545]

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed but with using dial up I've done about a good two hours of searching and reading up on different threads that address the AMD and Intel debate and I think i've become frustrated with my dial up. Now my question is (coming from a neutral point of view) is it proven that AMD runs cooler than Intel using the same speed CPUs? My friend tells me his friend did a test with 8 different clocked CPUs, both Intel and AMD (so 16 total) and his results were, AMD were generally cooler.

[Lespaul20]

This thread is kind of old. You probably could have started your own. But to answer your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_power_dissipation

[faint545]

thanks