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

[InTheSand]

Retro_71 wrote:
... Gigabyte MB (all solid state but shut done the Dynamic Energy saver) ... Intel Core 2 or Quad

Couldn't agree more!

Aside from my olde P4 (for legacy 32-bit stuff and the Catweasel), I have two Core 2 machines on Gigabyte boards, one running Ubuntu 64-bit and the other running Vista 64-bit. Really can't fault them - and pretty much everything just flies along, especially on the Ubuntu machine.

The 3.17GHz Core 2 was the best value the last time I looked a few months ago, at least here in NZ.

 - Ali

[pixie]

An Intel Q6600 has a good if not better buck for speed ratio then AMD Phenom.

[redrumloa]

I've placed my order. After being an AMD buyer for 10+ years, I have gone Intel. Here's what I got, feel free to critique.

ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe (Intel P45 Dual DDR3 2000, SATA 3Gb/s, RAID, CrossFireX Ready, PCI-E 2.0)
Intel Core 2 Quad 2.66GHz
Patriot Viper 4GB (2 x DIMM-PVS34G1333LLKN 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 Dual Channel)
CoolMax 700W ATX PSU (20+4 pin, Supports SATA, SLI and Cross-Fire)
1TB HD (Perpendicular Recording, SATA 3Gb/s NCQ, 7200 RPM, 32MB Cache, Model: ST31000340AS)
Diamond HD4870 (512MB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 Video Card.)

Oh yea and let's not forget the 28" wide screen LCD I picked up last night. Good heavens.. That thing is like looking directly into the sun!
 :-o

[ZeBeeDee]

No criticism here red ... If what you brought feels right for you and you are happy with your decision, then who are we to judge?  :-)

[terminator4]

@redrumloa

I'm using an AMD 2600 (~2.13Ghz), 512 RAM, Radeon 7000.  I picked it up used last year for <$150 on you guessed it, ebay.  Running Linux/Windows XP.  It does the job for me (graphics, internet, office suite, mp3/dvd and all normal use stuff).
Added a cheap 80gb hard disk, DVD-RW and of course catweasel!
In the past i spend money on new systems, but I am unconvinced why i should invest $ again in PC as new (especially since its value drops so fast).  Better keep the $ for your Amiga / Commodore hobbies !!! :-D :lol:

edit: just realized you already placed your order.

[Trev]

Patriot Viper 4GB (2 x DIMM-PVS34G1333LLKN 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 Dual Channel)

Unfortunately, you may or may not see all 4GB, depending on how the motherboard allocates memory resources and whether or not you're running a 32-bit operating system. Don't get mad at the motherboard or operating system, though. It's normal. (If the motherboard and operating system support PAE, you can reclaim it.)

[redrumloa]

Trev wrote:
Unfortunately, you may or may not see all 4GB, depending on how the motherboard allocates memory resources and whether or not you're running a 32-bit operating system. Don't get mad at the motherboard or operating system, though. It's normal. (If the motherboard and operating system support PAE, you can reclaim it.)

The motherboard darn well better for $225  :lol:

http://www.directron.com/p5q3deluxe.html

# Memory: - 4 x DIMM, max. 16GB, DDR3 2000(O.C.) / 1600 / 1333 / 1066 MHz, Non ECC, un-buffered memory - Dual channel memory architecture - Supports Intel Extreme Memory Profile (XMP)

I will be dual-booting WinXP 64bit and Ubuntu 64bit.

[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.

[Trev]

Supporting 16GB of memory doesn't mean 16GB will be available to 32-bit operating systems (XMP is a user-friendly overclocking aid). If your peripherals are 32-bit, they get mapped into the lower 4GB of memory. The leftover physical memory is then remapped above the 4GB boundary, inaccessible to 32-bit operating systems without some means of accessing it, like PAE.

Anyhow, you're running 64-bit operating systems, so it shouldn't matter. If you do decide to go 32-bit, use Windows Server 2003 Enterprise and add the /PAE switch to the appropraite boot.ini string.

I don't run 64-bit Windows for two reasons: 1) no DOS virtual machine (I know, I could use Virtual PC, VMware, etc., but I like NTVDM); 2) no 64-bit Catweasel drivers.

I use Cygwin and Microsoft Services for UNIX (the descendant of Interix, a replacement for the POSIX subsystem bundled with Windows) for most of my UNIX-like needs. Cooperative Linux (coLinux) is great, too, and I prefer Gentoo when I actually run Linux on x86.

[HopperJF]

Argo wrote:
Really, you don't need to spend alot to get a great working PC. Oh, I'm running Vista x64.

Definitely.
I buy my machines off a company who do ex-business. I got a fantastic IBM Thinkcentre with a 2.6GHz Celeron, CD/DVD-RW, 80gig internal HD (I had an external 160gigger anyway), on board graphics and sound, 1gig RAM all for £80 with genuine Windows XP Service Pack 2.

It is as fast as any computer I've owned and zero problems. My previous machine a 2.6GHz P4/512mb/40gb cost £60, again with genuine XP

[Trev]

@quarkx

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.

Speed in terms of MHz doesn't necessarily correlate to real world performance these days, even when comparing like architectures.

The operating system's scheduler will make use of the extra cores. Even if your software is single-threaded, you can still benefit from other bits (interrupt service routines, antivirus software, etc.) running on different cores. You could, in effect, see a performance gain simply through a reduction of context switches on the active execution unit. Cache coherency can hurt performance regardless, but in most cases, not so much. Productivity software spends most of its time waiting for user input.

[Zac67]

Win XP 64 bit won't give you too much fun - unless you're very lucky it's very thin on the drivers side...
Vista 64 is pretty OK in that respect - but it's Vista.  ;-)

[Dr_Righteous]

Well good luck with it Red... There isn't a single component in your list I would recommend to anyone. Might as well have bought something off the shelf.

[pixie]

Dr_Righteous wrote:
Well good luck with it Red... There isn't a single component in your list I would recommend to anyone. Might as well have bought something off the shelf.

Aren't those off the shelf?

[Dr_Righteous]

No, they're off the rack. LOL!

I meant a pre-assembled system. HP/Compaq, Sony, etc.

[Piru]

@quarkx

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.

Single C2Q core at 2.66 GHz runs circles around single core P4 CPU at 3.8 GHz.

And you have 4 such cores, running much cooler and with less power usage.

I stopped paying any real attention to the intel processors since the Dual core change over

That's exactly when intel crushed AMD.