Quick question: Building a new PC, AMD or Intel?

[quarkx]

AMD is best bang for the buck,
But stay away from El Cheepo motherboards like ECS and Foxcom  etc. 9 out of 10 fail in the first 30 days. Stay away from motherboards with "onboard" graphics also. Too many conflicts. I just built an entire AMD system with an AMD 5000+ and ASUS M2N Motherboard, and I built the whole thing for less then $700 Cad (including tax). that was with a Nvidia 8500 GT 1 gig graphics, 500 gig SATA drive, Upgraded case (I love to use the Antec Sonata cases) and 2 gigs for ram, SATA DVD burnner etc. Heck, without the XP license, it was under $600. :lol:

[quarkx]

Also, Remember that MOST software does NOT take full or any advantage of a Quad core CPU, so in 99% of the time you are wasting your money on a Quad core. In most cases a single core processor still runs circles around Quad cores because only a single core is being used, and no Quad core yet has reached the highest speeds of a single core.

[quarkx]

Piru wrote:
@quarkx

In most cases a single core processor still runs circles around Quad cores because only a single core is being used, and no Quad core yet has reached the highest speeds of a single core.

Which single core are you talking about exactly?

If you look at any quad core, each core speed is (and I could be wrong) I think the highest speed is around 2.6-2.8. IIRC the fastest single core speed was 3.8- 4 Ghz. When you are running a multicore CPU, unless the software utilizes it, it will only run on one core.

Be advised that I stopped paying any real attention to the intel processors since the Dual core change over, so my information may be out of date, But I would rather get a Phenom Black edition processor any day over any of the Intel offerings, even if the Intel's were given to me for free. But I AM AN AMD FANBOY and always will be.

[quarkx]

amiga_3k wrote:
Can't see any reason why not to use ECS. Over the past 8 years I've build a couple of ECS based systems, all at the low end of the market (read: cheapest AMD-motherboard without onboard video available) and all five are still up and running without trouble. I've read about ECS troubles but most came down due to trying to run the boards beyond specification speeds (extreem overclocking). You can't really fault ECS on that, afterall, if you want Ferrari performance you won't buy a Fiat Punto and try to stretch its performance to match the Ferrari's.

Just for the fun, you could build your PC and can proudly tell it has ECS and AAA. ECS for the mainboard, AAA being AMD, ATi and Antec.

 

I worked in a few computer shops and ECS IS bar none the WORST manufacture. At one time whole lots of motherboard had to be returned for RMA, our distributor doesn't even ask anymore, they just exchange them. In the last few years (since 2003) the Average is 8 out of 10 board fail before they even go out to a customer. My bosses buy them because the whole sale price is dirt cheap, and because returns are so easy. Trust me when I say that you are lucky if you got a working board.a $50 board cost about $10 wholesale so, most computer shops buy the buy the truck load, but I have seen over and over the problems with ECS, and when you are building and testing these systems, it is a huge headache. Just stick with ASUS, plenty of sub $100 board with no on-board graphics, and a lot less hassel.