Easiest to build?

K

Kathy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
205
Hi everyone, I'm getting ready to build a new computer and would like to know which is the easier of the two too build, Intel or AMD? Or are they about the same? I won't be over-clocking and want something that I won't have to run several fans to keep it cool.

It's been two years, but I did help my Dad build the computer I use now which is a Pen 4 2.26gig. But he did most of the work so you might as well say this will be my fist time and I'll be doing this one on my own and hopefully with some help from you guys! :)

I'd like to keep the cost of the CPU under $250 and the cost of the MB under $175. But I would go a little higher on either if it were a big improvement. I don't need the fastest thing on the planet but would like to see a nice difference from my 2.26gig. that I use now. Oh, and this one is going to work with me so I won't be using any of the parts.

I don't need Raid but will use two hard drives, one just for backup. I like to play games and I use it for Photo-shop,MS Word & Excel and music. I see some new things have come out and I don't know what they are or if I need them, like PCI express and SLI?

I'll get into HD,CDRW, DVD PS and case needs in my next post, I don't want to get too much info at one time, lol. But I'll answer any questions you need to help me. I want : Easy, fast and quiet! Thanks! :)

Kathy
 
well im about to build an AMD system, so I'm in the same boat ur in however Id never pick Intel over AMD
 
virtuexru said:
well im about to build an AMD system, so I'm in the same boat ur in however Id never pick Intel over AMD
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment!

I'm not picking one over the other and don't want to start an Intel/AMD fight. Right now I just want to know if one is easier to build then the other. I'd be happy to hear why you like AMD? Thanks!

Kathy
 
If you buy a intel motherboard, intel is a easier build, if you buy any board by any other brand, they are both the same difficulty. It looks like based on your budget, Socket 939 AMD would be your best choice
 
They are about the same, regardless of motherboard brand, model, etc since you have no interest in RAID and what-not.

Well, if you also consider a cost comparison, a complete AMD build is usually cheaper to build.


1. Uses a lot less power (and runs much cooler) than a comparable P4, so you can get a less expensive power supply (but never settle for a generic cheapo unit, regardless of what you are building).
2. Uses DDR1 memory, which is cheaper, and the performance is still better than a P4 because of the A64's integrated memory controller.
3. Choice of cpu socket, each having a good range of available processors from mild to wild (depending on how fast you want it and how much you want to spend).

I'm sure others will pop in here to add to the list...


From what you have stated, a Socket939 board with an nForce4 Ultra would be great.
For the CPU, if you want to overclock, a 3000+ or 3200+ would do ya just fine. If you don't want to overclock, then a 3200+ to a 3500+ would be good. For the money, get a 3200+ and overclock it (should reach 2.2 - 2.5GHz easily with no increase in core voltage and on the factory heatsink/fan).

3200+ Retail Box is roughly $190
Good nf4 Ultra board will run you about $125-$165, depending on brand and features.
 
Kathy said:
want something that I won't have to run several fans to keep it cool.

like PCI express and SLI?
Click to expand...

As for cooler AMD will take that but any system AMD or Intel can be quiet and cool. Check this place out.

PCI express is the "new AGP", currently it comes in two favors: 1x and 16x. 1x is to replace regular PCI slots and 16x is to replace the Accelerated Graphics port, or AGP. Neither of them are backward compatable so ensure that yu get the right Graphics card for your mobo.

An Intel board (for stability) and a 3Ghz(get a 6xx for 64bit support) would be good for the task you described although AMD you could get a 3500 for the same price, but AMD will lack in multitasking.
 
EnderXC said:
As for cooler AMD will take that but any system AMD or Intel can be quiet and cool. Check this place out.

PCI express is the "new AGP", currently it comes in two favors: 1x and 16x. 1x is to replace regular PCI slots and 16x is to replace the Accelerated Graphics port, or AGP. Neither of them are backward compatable so ensure that yu get the right Graphics card for your mobo.

An Intel board (for stability) and a 3Ghz(get a 6xx for 64bit support) would be good for the task you described although AMD you could get a 3500 for the same price, but AMD will lack in multitasking.
Click to expand...
EnderXC:
Well, keep in mind that a person might not want to increase the cost of a system and buy a $60+ heatsink or a $200 water cooling setup to cool a blast-furnace-of-a-processor.

PCI-e: the slots comes in anywhere from 1 lane to 16 lanes. There are boards out there with 4x slots....

As for multitasking: a P4 with HT will only outperform an A64 if there is some serious heavy multitasking going on (encoding a video and surfing with 20 open browser windows). Keep in mind the applications have to be hyper-threading aware to even utilize it. But for the most part, this statement is true. a P4 will generally "feel smoother" than a A64 when the user is doing multiple demanding tasks simultaneously. For playing a game while not having any other apps running, the AMD wins.

Stability: there are no stability issues with either intel or AMD granted the right motherboard and chipset are chosen.
 
In my opinion, a better question would have been: "Which motherboard has the easiest-to-deal-with BIOS?"
 
You stated $425 (maybe a little more for fast performance) for a cpu and mobo, so you could get this and outperform anything intel offers in gaming performance:

$105 EPox nf4 Ultra motherboard
$365 AMD 3800+ X2 dual core. (Price is approximation. They aren't released yet, but will be within the next 2 weeks. Preorder price-gouging cost is $399 right now)

Total: $470 for essentially a dual-cpu system.


Read a review of the X2 3800+ here. And check the power consumption and overclocking results.
There are other reviews listed in this thread, as well.
 
forumposter32 said:
In my opinion, a better question would have been: "Which motherboard has the easiest-to-deal-with BIOS?"
Click to expand...
They all are, if you "set defaults" and not mess with it. ;)
 
DejaWiz said:
Well, keep in mind that a person might not want to increase the cost of a system and buy a $60+ heatsink or a $200 water cooling setup to cool a blast-furnace-of-a-processor.
Click to expand...

I never said you had too. If you would read that site, it shows how to quietly cool any thing, from on a budget to bugdet less. I understand Presscotts are hotter, but not uncoolable.

PCI-e: the slots comes in anywhere from 1 lane to 16 lanes. There are boards out there with 4x slots....
Click to expand...

I stand corrected

Stability: there are no stability issues with either intel or AMD granted the right motherboard and chipset are chosen
Click to expand...

Intel boards are rock solid, I wasn't comparing them to AMD or anything else, it just would be easier for someone if they are looking for a good board, with less trouble.

As for multitasking: a P4 with HT will only outperform an A64 if there is some serious heavy multitasking going on (encoding a video and surfing with 20 open browser windows). Keep in mind the applications have to be hyper-threading aware to even utilize it. But for the most part, this statement is true. a P4 will generally "feel smoother" than a A64 when the user is doing multiple demanding tasks simultaneously. For playing a game while not having any other apps running, the AMD wins.
Click to expand...

She's using photoshop so I imagine HT will help, although AMD is more rating for your buck. Oh, and just as a Side note I run a A64 so don't think I'm all intel F.a.n.boy.lol

Oh and we forgot to answer the question about SLI, it's an Nvidia based board with 2 - 16x PCI-express slots that run to Gfx card together at the same time for more performance.

There all just different options for the OP.
 
EnderXC said:
She's using photoshop so I imagine HT will help, although AMD is more bang for your buck.

Oh and we forgot to answer the question about SLI, it's an Nvidia based board with 2 - 16x PCI-express slots that run to Gfx card together at the same time for more performance.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, too, that going with an intel cpu to notice an increase in performance over the 2.26, the cpu would be kinda costly. The cheapest model (630 - 3.0GHz) is $220 at the 'egg. However, the 3200+ is still $190, so it's kind of a toss up.


So, Kathy, between EnderXC and I, here is what we have come up with (EnderXC - feel free to add to/revise the list):

Higher gaming performance: AMD A64.
Better Heavy Multitasking: intel P4 600 or 800 (dual core) series or AMD X2 3800+
PCI-e graphics: Should be a feature you are looking for if frequent upgrading is not your thing. There are also SLI boards now for P4's. ;)


Based on your criteria, here is my recommendation:
Is this in your total price range so far taking into accoung what is still needed?

MOTHERBOARD: EPoX nf4 Ultra or SLI board ($105 and $138, respectively)
CPU: AMD 3200+ or 3800+ X2 ($190 and $365, respectively)
MEMORY: at least 1GB, but 2GB recommended ($81 and $188, respectively)
DVD/R: NEC 3540A ($46)
CDRW/DVD: Lite-On 52x CDRW DVD Combo ($32)
HDD: Seagate 160GB IDE ($86 - let us know if you were wanting a faster SATA drive instead)
CASE: Antec Super LanBoy ($79) or Thermaltake Tsunami ($104) - both are lightweight aluminum and offer exceptional airflow without much noise.
PSU: Antec NeoPower 480W ($99), Fortron 550W ($93), PCP&C 510SLI ($219), or Sparkle 460W ($84)
FDD: NEC Black ($9)

TOTAL: $712 to $1187 (not including Shipping Charges, Operating System + any other software you might need, Video Card(s), Monitor, Keyboard and Mouse)
 
Thanks everyone! I see not much has change in two years when it comes to Intel and AMD fans. :D I really don't care which one I end up with as long as it's the best for my needs.

Peach, if I understand you right, your saying Intel is only easier to build if I use an Intel board and not something like an Asus, right? BTW the PC I have now was built using an Asus and I've not had a single problem with it in two years. Are they still good boards? Thanks for your input!

DejaWiz, Thanks for all the info, it was a big help! I really don't think I'll get into over-clocking so I don't want to base my decision on needing to overclock in order to get a faster system. But if I end up with an AMD I just might try it. :D

EnderXC, thanks for that link, it looks like it will be a big help! So are you saying with PCI express you can run as many as 16 video cards? If so, why would I want to do that? Or anyone for that matter? Can it really make that big of a difference? Also, what does the (6xx for 64 bit support) mean? Thanks!

forumposter32, good point! So which one is easier?

Again, thanks to everyone, I really appreciate your help! I've not made up my mind yet but because I'm a women I can do that. lol

But so far it sounds like the Intel might be easier for me to build because I did help with this one. It seems things have changed too, two years ago everyone was saying Intel ran cooler then AMD but now AMD does, what happen? AMD only bothers me for one reason, I don't get the CPU size lingo they use. I know it's silly and I'm sure I could learn it, but I really like knowing the size without looking it up or asking someone. :eek:

Please keep the help and suggestions coming! I've was able to learn a little already and I want to learn as much as I can so I make the right choice. Thanks again!

Kathy
 
This Abit is a good choice too for an A64, I also wish to note that the NForce 4 Ultra mobos have the hardware firewall,I think, so that's a bonus.

BTW, kathy, What games do you play? It will be easier to recommend a Vid card if we know.

6600Gt would be good, but a X800XL if you want to spend more.

[EDIT] PCI-Express is called 16x for the same reason DVD drives are Called 8x, 16x, etc. it a measurement of bandwidth, as of currently you can only run 2 cards in SLI

[EDIT 2] Intel as moved to calling there chip by numbers like 550, etc. 5xx is a Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading, a 6xx is the same but it has 64-bit support, like the AMD64. It's for windows Vista when it comes out, a little futureproofing.
 
Kathy said:
1. So are you saying with PCI express you can run as many as 16 video cards? If so, why would I want to do that? Or anyone for that matter? Can it really make that big of a difference? Also, what does the (6xx for 64 bit support) mean? Thanks!

2. It seems things have changed too, two years ago everyone was saying Intel ran cooler then AMD but now AMD does, what happen?

3. AMD only bothers me for one reason, I don't get the CPU size lingo they use. I know it's silly and I'm sure I could learn it, but I really like knowing the size without looking it up or asking someone. :eek:

Kathy
Click to expand...
Yeah, not much has changed between the intel and AMD fans (I use both - intel in my laptop and AMD for my gaming and general use system).

To answer your questions:
1. No. You can run a max of 2 PCI-e video cards in SLI if the system has dual 16x slots.
2. Fabrication refinements. AMD is much better than intel right now. The A64 does more work with less MHz and power requirements.
3. Think of it as this (it's not really exact, but close enough for comparisons sake): an AMD 3200+ (runs at 2.0GHz) will be close to an intel 3.2GHz performance-wise.
 
EnderXC, that Abit board looks nice but I see it only has 3 pci slots. Is that usually enough? I can't remember for sure but it seems like the board I have now has at least 5 and it seems like there full. As for the games; my two favorite games are DeusEx and System Shock 2. I don't care for games about driving or where you have to build things, or really fast games like Quake. Is PCI Express using one video card still faster then AGP? Also, I don't know much about Sata hard drives, is that now the way to go? Thanks for all your help!!!

DejaWiz, Is the term SLI directly related to PCI Express? I'm still not sure what SLI means or if I need it? It soundslike it's more the way of the future, no? Sorry!

So now Intel is starting to confuse people with there CPU names, hey? Is there a chart for AMD and Intel that shows what it means in terms I can understand? (like 2.26gig) lol. Thank you so much for all your help!

You guys have been great and while I may not understand everything you've told me, I do feel I'm learning a lot and I appreciate it so very much!!! :)
 
1. PCI Express is not faster than AGP, it is merely a newer format. As such, you'd be better off getting a motherboard that supports PCI Express, because it offers more upgrade options.

2. SLI means "Scalable Link Interface," which is nVidia's marketing term for dual video cards. They offer this ability on motherboards that support them (nForce 4 SLI motherboards). ATI's term for the same thing is Crossfire, although it's slightly different. With SLI, you can use any two cards together as long as they're the same type (i.e., two 6800GTs). With Crossfire, you have to use a "master card" and then a regular card (i.e., X800 Master Card, paired with an X800). Dual video cards will obviously be faster, but they'll definitely be overkill for the games you've listed. A single current-generation video card will still run those games extremely fast. The motherboards that support this are also more expensive, generally.

3. Yes. Get a Serial ATA hard drive. At the very least, the cabling is better, because the SATA cable is much smaller than an IDE ribbon.

4. Most systems don't use more than two or three PCI slots; sound card, possibly an additional controller card for hard drives (not too common), and possibly an expansion card to provide more USB ports. I can't imagine why you would need to use more than 3 PCI slots.
 
finalgt said:
1. PCI Express is not faster than AGP, it is merely a newer format. As such, you'd be better off getting a motherboard that supports PCI Express, because it offers more upgrade options.

2. SLI means "Scalable Link Interface," which is nVidia's marketing term for dual video cards. They offer this ability on motherboards that support them (nForce 4 SLI motherboards). ATI's term for the same thing is Crossfire, although it's slightly different. With SLI, you can use any two cards together as long as they're the same type (i.e., two 6800GTs). With Crossfire, you have to use a "master card" and then a regular card (i.e., X800 Master Card, paired with an X800). Dual video cards will obviously be faster, but they'll definitely be overkill for the games you've listed. A single current-generation video card will still run those games extremely fast. The motherboards that support this are also more expensive, generally. But there is truth here, the new standard for graphics card interface is PCI-e, so it does offer more upgrade options.

3. Yes. Get a Serial ATA hard drive. At the very least, the cabling is better, because the SATA cable is much smaller than an IDE ribbon.

4. Most systems don't use more than two or three PCI slots; sound card, possibly an additional controller card for hard drives (not too common), and possibly an expansion card to provide more USB ports. I can't imagine why you would need to use more than 3 PCI slots.
Click to expand...
1. Not true. PCI-e is faster than AGP, by a very large margin (8Gb/s bidirectional vs 2.1Gb/s unidirectional). It's the current generation of graphics cards that do not yet utilize the available bus bandwidth.

2. SLI might be overkill for you. It is for me right now, but I do have a motherboard that has it, despite only running 1 video card. I see it a an upgrade path in case I need more oomph with my graphics, I can install a 2nd card relatively inexpensive (I use a 6600GT). ATI's Crossfire is a similar method, but it's not been released yet, and there is no official date yet of when it'll hit the market. This might be advantageous to you to wait a bit and see what current prices do when viable competition for nVidia arrives.

3. True. SATA is cabled better. However, there is a drawback. Currently you have to manually install the SATA drivers from a floppy disk during the Windows installation or it won't even detect the hard drive. This can be a pain for some users.

4. Things have changed over the past few years. Most on-board devices are of rather high quality compared to what they used to be. Many motherboards now offer gigabit LAN (10/100/1000) , 7.1 Dolby surround sound, lots of USB 2.0 (generally 6-10 ports total), Firewire, and sometimes a plethora of other devices built onto the motherboard. For example, when I upgraded to my S939 based board and cpu, I didn't bother installing my Audigy because I wanted to see if the new onboard audio codec was as good as some say it was (SoundStorm 2 - new nForce 4 chipset). I am not disappointed at all and still have not installed my Audigy - 4 months later. Generally there are enough onboard devices now that a user isn't even required to buy additional PCI cards.
 
DejaWiz said:
3. True. SATA is cabled better. However, there is a drawback. Currently you have to manually install the SATA drivers from a floppy disk during the Windows installation or it won't even detect the hard drive. This can be a pain for some users.
Click to expand...

Thats not necessarily true. I have installed windows XP on a sata hdd on a MSI K8N Neo2 Plat and an Asus A8N-SLI without having to install any sort of driver first.

I think what you are thinking about is if he wants to install raid.
 
justin82 said:
Thats not necessarily true. I have installed windows XP on a sata hdd on a MSI K8N Neo2 Plat and an Asus A8N-SLI without having to install any sort of driver first.

I think what you are thinking about is if he wants to install raid.
Click to expand...
I've never not needed an install disk, standard or RAID.

Can you tell me what version of Windows (32bit/64bit, which service pack, etc) you installed? Also, what SATA controller are you using that didn't require the driver disk?

Thanks.
 
The current generation of video cards don't even utilize all of AGP's bandwidth. She asked if it was faster, not if it offered more bandwidth. By the way, I think it's funny that as soon as a girl asks a question in here, 3 different guys jump up and try to help her as best they can, heh.
 
finalgt said:
The current generation of video cards don't even utilize all of AGP's bandwidth. She asked if it was faster, not if it offered more bandwidth. By the way, I think it's funny that as soon as a girl asks a question in here, 3 different guys jump up and try to help her as best they can, heh.
Click to expand...
True. For comparisons sake, all graphics cards are still on par with the performance offered by the AGP 4x bus. Odds are better that future PCIe video cards will surpass this, though. That's the point I was trying to make ;) .

And why do you find it funny that 3 different guys jump up and try to help a girl? I help everyone if I can provide information and advice, regardless of the OP's gender...
 
Thanks finalgt! It sounds like SATA might be the way to go then. First I'll see how hard they are to install. If it weren't such a pain to get to I'd pull the cover off my PC when I got home and tell you what all I have on my PCI slots now. But from memory I know I have a sound card, LAN card, Promise controller card and a USB 2.0 card. But it looks like most of this stuff is built into the MB now, hey? I know when my Dad and I built our first PC the on board stuff wasn't all that good but I guess now it's better from what I've been reading here, so maybe I'll be OK with just 3 slots. Thanks!

Thanks DejaWiz! OK, I've decided to throw my budget out the window and go a little crazy. So I'm going for the SATA hard drives, PCI express and SLI MB. It sounds like your saying in the long run it could save me from needing to upgrade again in the near future or at least being able to keep up with it if needed which makes sense to me.

About the SATA drives; If I remember correctly when we built my other PC at some point we had to hit F6 during the install to add drivers for something, just can't remember what it was now. But is that what your talking about that's needed to install a SATA drive? If so, I think I can do that, or is it harder then that? Also does that mean I couldn't add Sata drives to the computer I have now? Is it the MB that has to be SATA ready? I'm starting to get really geek-ed over this. lol. Thanks again!!
 
DejaWiz, did someone really say that about helping me because I'm a girl? I can't find it so maybe they took it back. I hope so because I think it's silly and I don't feel that at all. Now I might think so if you knew how beautiful I am. lol, J/K Thank you for your help!
 
I was just kidding; I'm not accusing you of being less helpful to anybody else. I'm just sayin'. :p
 
Kathy said:
DejaWiz, did someone really say that about helping me because I'm a girl? I can't find it so maybe they took it back. I hope so because I think it's silly and I don't feel that at all. Now I might think so if you knew how beautiful I am. lol, J/K Thank you for your help!
Click to expand...
You are in Michigan.... my real home sweet home! ;) I'll be there visiting family the middle of this month.

And yes, finalgt said that in post #21, but he changed the text to match the background color. If you check my reply in post 22, you can barely make it out...


As for the SATA drivers, yes, pressing F6 during Windows setup is exactly what you do, so you should be a-ok there!
 
finalgt said:
I was just kidding; I'm not accusing you of being less helpful to anybody else. I'm just sayin'. :p
Click to expand...

OK, I'm glad you were just kidding and I'll put the voodoo doll away now. But don't get mad if your right arm starts to hurt. lol

DejaWiz, well there goes the neighborhood. lol Yeah I'm in northern Mi near Alpena.

Thanks for the info on the SATA drives! When is that new Windows OS due out? Anytime soon? I really like WinXP so there would have to be some really good stuff in it for me to change, whats the general feel for it?

Kathy
 
Kathy said:
OK, I'm glad you were just kidding and I'll put the voodoo doll away now. But don't get mad if your right arm starts to hurt. lol

DejaWiz, well there goes the neighborhood. lol Yeah I'm in northern Mi near Alpena.

Thanks for the info on the SATA drives! When is that new Windows OS due out? Anytime soon? I really like WinXP so there would have to be some really good stuff in it for me to change, whats the general feel for it?

Kathy
Click to expand...
I'll be in the SW area, in South Haven/St Joseph right next to the lake! :D

Windows Vista is scheduled for the later part of 2006 (probably Aug-Oct like with past releases). There's going to be a newer GUI (supposedly fully 3D hardware accelerated and a bunch of other features, but time will only tell).
 
OH the rich side of town, I might have to re-think that neighborhood crack. lol

I sure hope by then they come up with a better name for it, Vista sounds more like a car then an OS. :D

Kathy
 
Well I still havent seen any apps that require this amount of hardware. So far only Office apps have been listed and some gaming but unless were talking WoW, BF2 or EQ there is no need for the stated hardware and then u could save some money.

SLI is not such a good idea its expensive and a bit difficult. There are two reasons for going with SLI at all.

1: U want tomorrows speeds in your games today - means U have to but 2 * the fastest GFX out there = a bit more then 1000$ just for graphic. I dont belive this applies for U.

2: U get one high end card today and one when they become cheaper instead of upgrading to a new Top card. - This is why I got it I got me one 6800gt and Im looking at another now but Im also wondering for what Ill use it since my monitor doesnt do more then 1600*1200 at 85Hz i dont need more than what I have :p

Sata is a yes if not for any other reason then for PATA going out of service..

For your documents that U need to have backed up get 2 80Gb HDs and RAID1 them. That way U will be protected against hardware failour (U will be able to delete the wrong things tho ´;) ) cost about 110$

Then get a fast large File HDD where U have games and OS. cost 100-150$

Graphicscard i cant really say since U haven't told what U play.

Same with CPU. For what U stated as apps U dont need anything faster then your 2.2 GHy P4 U might want to upgrade the GFX and memory tho.
 
Frallan, thanks for the info! But I'm not keeping this computer, as stated above I'll be taking it to where I work and using it there. So I need a new computer for my main home computer. So I think building something that's ready for the future is a good idea.

I only listed my two favorite games but I (and my brother) play other games as well, like FarCry and Doom3 just to name a few. My brother plays some of the the games you listed but I don't.

I'm in Real Estate and work a lot with photos. I almost always have Photo-Shop and Photo-Impact running at the same time because theres some things I know how to do in one and somethings I know how to do in the other. Also, running at the same time would be MS Office & Excel, Internet ExP. at least 2 web sites at a time is always running and then Windows Media Player too. So I do see lag with all that running at the same time.

I don't want Raid, I use Norton Ghost and like it very much! I use two 80 gig hds now and it works out good for me. I backup my whole system about once a week and it only takes a short time to do it, so I'm sticking with what works for me and what I'm used too.

If it's not to much trouble can you explain to me why SLI is difficult? Is it so hard that I couldn't get help here to set it up? Or is it just hard to keep it in tune with the system or something?

Thanks for your help and input, I appreciate it!

Kathy
 
Kathy said:
If it's not to much trouble can you explain to me why SLI is difficult? Is it so hard that I couldn't get help here to set it up? Or is it just hard to keep it in tune with the system or something?
Click to expand...
It's not hard at all. It was iffy when SLI was first intoduced, as there were only a handful of games that could benefit from it. But now that it has matured, there are many premade profiles built into the newer drivers for lots of games. Coincidentally, if a game is not listed in the drivers, you have the option of making your own profile. ;)
 
Thanks DejaWiz! I'm not sure what a profile is or how you go about making one, but if you say it's not hard then I'll take your word for it. :)

BTW, I've been window shopping and doing a lot of reading up on what we've discussed here and want to know what you think about this CPU; http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116211&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch&ATT=Microprocessors+PC and is it a big deal that it doesn't have Hyper-Threading support? Also is there a SLI MB for this? I like Asus and Intel MB's because I've had both and never had a problem with either. But from what I understand the Intel mb can't be OC, is that right? Like I said before I don't think I'll get into it but I may as well have the option just in case I want to try it. I know it's more money then I said i wanted to spend but hey, this will be my last pc for at least 3 or 4 years. ;)

Sorry the link didn't work! But this is it; Intel Pentium D 840 Smithfield 800MHz FSB 2 x 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Dual Core, EM64T Processor 3.2ghz

Kathy
 
The Smithfield cpu does have hyperthreading.

There are Socket T SLI motherboards available for it, as well.


My recommendation:
In comparison to the AMD dual cores, the intel dual cores are pretty weak, run much hotter, and draw more power. Hyperthreading is no longer an advantage.

For almost $200 less than the intel 840 D you linked, you can get an AMD X2 3800+, which outperforms it in most every aspect. This article has some great performance comparisons between a plethera of AMD and intel dual core cpus.

If you want to save money and go with an intel dual core, this 820 D is way more affordable. (Keep in mind the performance difference you'll be giving up in contrast to the X2 3800+ as depicted in the article I linked).

For the money and performance, it's obvious that AMD has the advantage. Even more so when looking into the realm of a multicore cpu. I hate to sound like a repetitve AMD fan, but believe me I'd be using and recommending intel if the tables were turned... ;)
 
Thanks DejaWiz!

OK, I just want to be clear on something. It seems that the AMD is by far a better buy and even a better performer. But it seems to me that the people that buy it are people that OC and like to play with it (tweak) to get the most out of it. Is this really the best choice for someone that may never OC and doesn't know much about computers in general? I really want something that out of the box is solid and I don't have to OC it to get it to where most AMD fans can do with there eyes closed. But on the same hand having the option to OC would be nice, but I don't want to buy a cpu for that reason. Do you understand what I mean? I'm not knocking AMD and I think in the right hands it's the best you can get, I just don't know if it's the best for my hands? Thanks!

Kathy
 
Kathy said:
Thanks DejaWiz!

OK, I just want to be clear on something. It seems that the AMD is by far a better buy and even a better performer. But it seems to me that the people that buy it are people that OC and like to play with it (tweak) to get the most out of it. Is this really the best choice for someone that may never OC and doesn't know much about computers in general? I really want something that out of the box is solid and I don't have to OC it to get it to where most AMD fans can do with there eyes closed. But on the same hand having the option to OC would be nice, but I don't want to buy a cpu for that reason. Do you understand what I mean? I'm not knocking AMD and I think in the right hands it's the best you can get, I just don't know if it's the best for my hands? Thanks!

Kathy
Click to expand...
I totally understand where you're coming from.


For out-of-the-box performance, the rundown can be simply put like this:

1. If you want a single core cpu and perform moderate to heavy multitasking (video or audio encoding while performing other tasks), an intel P4 with Hyperthreading might be best for you. I use a P4 in my work system, as I need the multitasking power when I have multiple Excel spreadsheets, Outlook email, Powerpoint, and numerous other apps open simultaneously. I can't recommend an intel dual core with an honest face, the considerations of price, performance, power draw, and heat output compared to the competition makes it an unwise choice.

2. If you're primary interest is gaming and you're looking for the best solution while keeping costs down, an AMD A64 single core is the best option. I use a 3000+ Venice core cpu in my primary home system.

3. If you want to do all of the above, and can sacrifice a little more on the cpu purchase, an AMD X2 dual core is by far the best option. My next cpu upgrade will be an X2. I want the "smoothness" I experience from my work system and the killer performance for gaming I have in my home system all wrapped up into one package.

All 3 options can handle apps and gaming just fine, but I hopefully layed out as best I could the strength of each option in a manner to easily understand.

For overclocking, the AMD would likely be a better choice for the fact that they do draw less power and put out less heat, which will help extend the life of the processor under those conditions.
 
Not all Smithfields have hyperthreading turned on. Only the 840 does.

Despite some performance benefits, I fail to see the reason to spend nearly twice the money on a X2 ($530) over the 820 ($260). It might be a more elegant design, but it's still pricey.

The next argument might be to stick with a single core intel, but two full processors (in the 820) is better than hyperthreading any day. Especially if you're using stuff that takes advantage of the dual core. The 820 might be a little slow (in games) compared to the competition, but it's more cost effective. It's great for day to day work, and it does decent enough in games.

Oh, BTW. the Intel D955XBK does allow full overclocking, but only when the 840 D is installed. Dumb, but it works very well.
 
And I don't have to be a computer geek to use that X2 out of the box? It scares me because on one site it said before the X2 would even post you needed to to upgrade the Bios. How do you do that without having the computer running first? See what I mean? I just don't know a lot about this stuff. But you are right and I think it would be a good way to go, but I just want to make sure I'm not biting off more then I can chew? Thanks again and don't give up on me, I just want to make the right choice. :)

Kathy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top