AMD versus Intel [Archive] - Official Neocron Forum

___T-X____

15-02-04, 19:13

Thermaltake Gaming Case
AMD 3200xp (400fsb)
pc 3200 Kingston 1gb hyper-x (2x512mb -matched-) (for Dual Channel)
22" CRT monitor (not TFT, they have slow refresh rates and give shit FPS)
Nvidia FX 5900 XT model (runs amazing, is the best in the range)
Asus A7n8x Deluxe - E (Toms Hardware Guide motherboard of the year winner 2003) (for wireless applications aswell)
Serial ATA Western Digital Raptor 10,000 RPM 36.7 gb (your main HDD, with your existing ones attached for storage)
Soundblaster Audigy
Swiftech MCX462-V Heatsink or Thermaltake watercooling box
this (http://www.thermaltake.com/coolers/aquarius/a1681.htm)
Q-Tec 550watt PSU
Microsoft Intellimouse
keyboard u like ^^

do above and be uber

dem0n

15-02-04, 19:25

ASUS motheboards [AI series or better]
^because of the awsome bios, where the bios itself resets to default if you've overcloacked beyond functioning. Also I'd suggest intel, because of overcloaking, upgrading.
nVIDIA grapich card
^they are the alpha and omega, no doubt about it. insane memory, fair price, easy flashing.
optical mouse
^it's a standard, you can't go against it
LCD screen
^LCD>CRT, basicly your eyes don't pop out as much on direct sunlight, LCD is cool, small, and they fit in any room :) [it is a debateable topic]
headphones
^better than speakers, and especialy when you get headphones with leather coating [!!!111!1]
MAXTOR SATA
^the leader in hdisks imo, has nice utilities for ultra fast format, can work very long. I also suggest you split a disk into a few partitions if you have large capacity [80,120,160GB<&larger], in any case avoid SeaGate HDD. Also don't forget to use NTFS file system.
KINGSTON memory
^just cause theyr kewl :P [be sure not to touch the connecting field with fingers, static electricity can do serious damage]
USB ports
^you can NEVER have to many. so much stuff goes over usb ports today, including the kitchen sink.

[EDIT]
It's not always the configuration that matters, I'm running on

AMD 733MHz
384 SDRAM
80GB/2 + 8GB
GeForce 2/3 Ti 64MB DDR

and I say I've ran into people with a much better computer, but it's always a matter of which file system you have, which system processes you yourself have removed from starting up, setting up a good IE security [to remove the chances that bogus spyware and dailer shit gets installed in the background], to run frequent spyware scans. if you have a good insight of your computer, then there is no need that you run a anti-virus program constantly to scan opened/executed files, because if you get a new unknown process you basicly know what that means :)

Candaman

15-02-04, 19:26

personally even though i'm running a Athlon i think Intel is the more 1337 chip purely from run speeds and FSB's

Intel Run Speed Max 3.6ghz atm i think
Intel FSB Max 800mhz

AMD Run Speed Max 2.4ghz (barton 3200xp)
AMD FSB Max 400mhz

___T-X____

15-02-04, 19:29

Amd chip architecture is better than Intels which is which they dont need to to run at faster speeds to get the same performance

Psycho_Soldier

15-02-04, 19:29

Originally posted by Candaman
personally even though i'm running a Athlon i think Intel is the more 1337 chip purely from run speeds and FSB's

Intel Run Speed Max 3.6ghz atm i think
Intel FSB Max 800mhz

AMD Run Speed Max 2.4ghz (barton 3200xp)
AMD FSB Max 400mhz

They are 2 different types of chips so you can't compare FSB just like you can't say 2.0 Ghz is the same as a P4 2.0 Ghz because the AMD would actually be alot better.

Also check out cold hard facts here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-15.html

___T-X____

15-02-04, 19:34

Dont get a LCD monitor. They dont have a high Hertz refresh rate (max about 75) so your head will be hurting after 2 hours using one for gaming, plus your FPS on your Graffics card might be 126FPs but you lcd is shit so your getting much lower FPS displayed.

remember, you want a gaming machine...(100 hertz CRT)

Psycho_Soldier

15-02-04, 19:35

I also prefer CRT over LCD because the picture is much more clear and sharp imo and plus, its ALOT cheaper.

Judge

15-02-04, 19:39

I was probably going to go for a CRT monitor.

Psycho_Soldier, I don't get those stat things you posted. On one of the tables it seemed that Intel kicked AMDs ass... but in the other it was the other way round 0_o.

I had heard that AMD have problems with multitasking, so its good to get alot of RAM with an AMD to make up for it? Is that true, or a rumour?

BlackPrince

15-02-04, 19:41

Gonna have to wave the "Bullshit Flag" on those saying that LCD Monitors don't have a fast enough refresh rate. The newest Hitachi and NEC LCDs can do better than 15ms.

So for size, color quality, and power consumption LCD wins.

___T-X____

15-02-04, 19:43

Look at the graffics card they used...the same one i mentioned only the ultra version (which isnt worth the extra money)

and read the conclusion where it says the AMD 3200 chip beats the p4 everytime for gaming - the same chip i said to get...

Pentiums are slightly better for for creative professionals working with video. Your not going to be working with high-end video editing so...

dem0n

15-02-04, 19:45

yes you definitly have to put in the economical facts behind LCD monitors into the equasion... but it does come with a price ;).

___T-X____

15-02-04, 19:49

NEC 19IN LCD 1280X1024 Model - LCD1980SX-BK (LCD1980SX-BK)

Price: $899.00 for a 19" ? please....he wants to get a pc not a monitor without a pc.

dem0n

15-02-04, 19:57

CRT monitors do more damage to the user than LCD monitors. ofc, you don't notice it, but try not to directly look into your CRT monitor/tv, but look at in a 90 degrees angle, and you'll notice the flickering... where-as-you-wouldn't-be-able-with-lcd. but since I'm a down right frontal bum, I use CRT, and if I don't get a high refresh rate my head is going to explODE. LCD monitors DO NOT require a high refresh rate as CRT monitors do imo. other than that, if you think you'll be a better player with a 160 MHz refresh rate, or if you think you'll even NOTICE a difference with a 160MHz refresh rate and 80MHz refresh rate... be my guest and buy a CRT. let us not even mention, that any kind of external magnetic force can mess up the route of the crt electorns, and we know that near our PC you have a scanner, printer, a mobile phone, a wireless phone, your ISDN box, a printer, a tv, a vcr, and a screaming mother [ok well you don't have any of those things but still smoking/+tiredness+crt=headache(on any kind of refresh rate)]

Judge

15-02-04, 20:43

The thing is that I have limited money... I want a reasonable size screen and as UBER computer as possible.... So dishing out loads for a LCD monitor is just not going to work for me I'm afriad.

So basically AMD are better for gaming?

Can anyone tell me about multitasking?

Bragvledt

15-02-04, 20:50

AMD is better at gaming.
Intel is better at audio/video applications.
AMDs A64s are also more future-oriented.

dem0n

15-02-04, 20:51

I don't know exactly anything about the multitask bug. I suggest you really think about what cpu you'll take. you shouldn't worry about games supporting intel and amd because theyr the only 2 manufactureres that actuly rage the whole world. I suggest you take a pen & paper and visit your local OEM, and have a nice looooooooong talk with the employed geek overe there. we can all tell you fairy stories about hardware, but it smacks down to the fact, that when you pick the OEM where you'll buy your stuff, they'll know the best specs behind the hardware they'r working with, and they are the people which can give you the best answers to your question. about the LCD your right, it's dishing out heeps of cash, a good LCD screen can cost like a NASA computer I know :P, but if you ever win some extra cash on dog races, my hearts warmest suggestion would be to throw out that CRT can and install something more economical/healthier/fitting, cause we all know we now spend an additional 4h looking in that can since we've registered on NC :).

Jadin Eleazar

15-02-04, 21:36

The problem is: There is no anwer to your question. The AMD64 may be more future oriented, but currently runs only in 32bit mode and without a 64bit OS and applications you don't get more future than with the Intel chips. Intel's P4 + a motherboard with an Intel chipset (i865 or i875) are equal in performance and are IMHO more stable (since AMDs run with VIA or NVidia chipsets).

I had heard that AMD have problems with multitasking, so its good to get alot of RAM with an AMD to make up for it? Is that true, or a rumour?
It's always good to have plenty of RAM regardless of the CPU you are using. The newer P4s and its newest incarnation "Prescott" also support Hyperthreading which favors multithreaded/multitasking software (Prescott also supports new commands). To take full advantage of these features the programs must support them, however.
With DirectX9, ATI seems to have an edge over NVidia, for in most benchmarks ATI performs better (if u want NVidia buy the FX5700/5950 series instead of the older cards). NVidia's high-end chips have the ending Ultra (not XT), whereas ATIs flagships carry the ending XT or Pro.
LCD or CRT?
Hardcore games prefer the older CRTs not only because of price, but because even the best LCDs react slower than a CRT. Another problem is the fact that LCDs run best in their native resolution (e.g. 1280x1024 for 17" LCDs) and when your game runs @ 1024x768 the image is scretched and you'll lose some quality/sharpness.

So for size, color quality, and power consumption LCD wins.
That's only true for size and power consumption. IMHO a CRT is still better when it comes to color quality (just watch a DVD or do some photo editing on a LCD). Larger (17+") LCDs often use an IPS panel which offers good image quality but has a slow reaction. MVA panels offer better reaction times and also good image quality, but the best thing about LCDs is the fact that you can look at texts for hours without getting a headache.

QuantumDelta

15-02-04, 21:38

I do personally prefer AMD, but at the moment I see P4 is superior in the areas I actually need (software apps) power in.
My gaming machines however will always be AMD+Nvidia Cards (unless ATi start putting out stuff that works better with AMDs...)

msdong

15-02-04, 21:51

ill upgraded to AMD3k64 this month ant tbh all i looked for was the prize of the chip and the mainboard.
i compared my old AMD2.5 to tests i found on the net of the chips near that prize ill would spend and found the AMD3k64 is about 40€ cheaper tham the compareable INTEL3k

the mainbord prize is even for both chips.

i dont give a shit about amd>intel or the other way. its just that i buy the next board in 14 month and for the 40 euro ill save ill have 2 nice evenings with a girl in a cinema :)

edit:
@quantum
what modern app need 3k CPU ? else them video/render stuff ....

QuantumDelta

15-02-04, 21:58

Originally posted by msdong
ill upgraded to AMD3k64 this month ant tbh all i looked for was the prize of the chip and the mainboard.
i compared my old AMD2.5 to tests i found on the net of the chips near that prize ill would spend and found the AMD3k64 is about 40€ cheaper tham the compareable INTEL3k

the mainbord prize is even for both chips.

i dont give a shit about amd>intel or the other way. its just that i buy the next board in 14 month and for the 40 euro ill save ill have 2 nice evenings with a girl in a cinema :)

edit:
@quantum
what modern app need 3k CPU ? else them video/render stuff .... Stuff like Maya, some adobe prem stuff too.

P4 means I don't have to wait a year and a half for it to finish but AMD are still superior for gaming..
An' call me QD dude :p

KuifJe

15-02-04, 22:14

Originally posted by dem0n
CRT monitors do more damage to the user than LCD monitors. ofc, you don't notice it, but try not to directly look into your CRT monitor/tv, but look at in a 90 degrees angle, and you'll notice the flickering... where-as-you-wouldn't-be-able-with-lcd. but since I'm a down right frontal bum, I use CRT, and if I don't get a high refresh rate my head is going to explODE. LCD monitors DO NOT require a high refresh rate as CRT monitors do imo. other than that, if you think you'll be a better player with a 160 MHz refresh rate, or if you think you'll even NOTICE a difference with a 160MHz refresh rate and 80MHz refresh rate... be my guest and buy a CRT. let us not even mention, that any kind of external magnetic force can mess up the route of the crt electorns, and we know that near our PC you have a scanner, printer, a mobile phone, a wireless phone, your ISDN box, a printer, a tv, a vcr, and a screaming mother [ok well you don't have any of those things but still smoking/+tiredness+crt=headache(on any kind of refresh rate)]

Err, my 21" Eizo runs very smoothly, 1280x1024 @ 100Hz

I dont ever experience headaches, except after a bitching day @ work, which is more likely to cause headaches. TFT's of the same quality are scarse and overpriced.

The thing is that I have limited money... I want a reasonable size screen and as UBER computer as possible.... So dishing out loads for a LCD monitor is just not going to work for me I'm afriad.

So basically AMD are better for gaming?

Can anyone tell me about multitasking?

I think you're talking about hyperthreading here. Yes, Intel introduced hyperthreading on its latest set of P4's. Generally this means that @ peak processor times, when theres a lot of programs asking for proc time, the P4 would act like if it was 2 processors. It's a nice idea, but tests show that in normal use this wouldnt improve performance a lot if at all.

TBH, I just go AMD for the sheer economical reasons allone, procs and mobo combinations are cheaper then Intel. That leaves more cash for the extras ;)

Last point, dont go 64 bit yet, they're massively priced atm and software using the 64 bit functions wont be widely spread anyways in the next 1,5 or 2 years anyways. Better to upgrade then then to spend big $$$'s now (can't find the pound key on a Dutch keyboard O_o )

Xizor

15-02-04, 23:02

First of all, why the hell don't you wait till you wanna buy the computer before speculating. Most of the hardware will drop in prices. New hardware will come ect.

Anyway atm:

AMD64, 3000+ is nice, if you have the money you could go for 3200+

5900XT (best price/performance)/Radeon 9800XT(best card overall)

2x512mb 3200 ram (if you wanna overclock corsairs XMS is a nice choice, otherwise their value.)

Judge

16-02-04, 00:44

The reason that I'm starting to consider now is because I want to find out as much detailed information about AMD and Intel as I possibly can. I am well aware that prices will go down, and I'm not actually speccing for prices atm... I'm just asking peoples opinions on various matters.

Omnituens

16-02-04, 02:22

OMG NOOB AMD>Intel!!!!111!!1!

no seriously. AMD is da bomb. though you wont benifit to the max from a 64-bit system until a 64-bit OS comes along.

naimex

16-02-04, 02:29

INTEL > AMD

and here is just 1 of the many proof of this ::

http://www.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_1_cpu_cooling.zip

Judge

16-02-04, 02:31

I hear that Microsoft are making a 64 bit version of Win XP Omni.... that pass your test. :p

IceStorm

16-02-04, 02:46

The best advice I can give you is to wait until you have the cash before planning out what you're going to buy. There's a lot of changes coming down the pike in Q2. IDF and CeBit may give us a glimpse, but it's late Q2 where we'll probably see quite a few new things from both camps. An example:

- PCI Express arrives on boards in Q2. Intel and SIS will not offer PCI Express chipsets that support AGP. VIA has some combo chipsets on their roadmap.
- AMD will launch Socket 939 in Q2. Wave goodbye to the Registered memory requirement of the FX line.
- Prescott may transition to LGA 775 format in Q2
- nVidia and ATI's new cores ship in Q2

Summer's landscape will not look the same as February's. Come back in June after you have the cash saved up.

OpTi

16-02-04, 02:58

i may have dreamed this up but i remember hearing that amd are changing the socket the 64's are using sometime later in the year, true or false?

QuantumDelta

16-02-04, 03:11

Originally posted by naimex
INTEL > AMD

and here is just 1 of the many proof of this ::

http://www.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_1_cpu_cooling.zip That's the only REAL reason I'd choose to use a P4 in a gaming machine otherwise PFFFFFFFFFFFT.

OpTi

16-02-04, 03:17

Originally posted by QuantumDelta
That's the only REAL reason I'd choose to use a P4 in a gaming machine otherwise PFFFFFFFFFFFT.

hears a tip, don't take the heatsink off the cpu.

honestly in all my time of gaming i've NEVER had a problem with my pos box standard heatsink/fan cooling my athlon xp. Nor on my old 800 duron.

both computers were lugged around and beaten with a stick a fair few times ;) , same goes for all the other people i know who built thier computers using an AMD chip. And not 1 heatsink/fan has ever fallen off to my knowledge on mine or my friends.

IceStorm

16-02-04, 03:20

i may have dreamed this up but i remember hearing that amd are changing the socket the 64's are using sometime later in the year, true or false?
Socket 754 is destine to become the low-end/mainstream CPU socket. It won't go away, but that single memory channel isn't helping performance. Socket 939 (not launched yet) will become the higher-end/enthusiast CPU socket. Socket 940 will stick around for FX for a while, but that Registered ECC memory it requires is expensive.

and here is just 1 of the many proof of this ::
AMD included thermal protection in the Opteron/A64/FX. It's not as sophisticated as the P4's thermal throttling, but it'll stop the CPU in the event it overheats, without motherboard support. It's similar to the #THERMTRIP of the P4/PIII/PII.

naimex

16-02-04, 10:21

anyways, whatever AMD is doing to their chips to improve, I won´t even think of switching away from INTEL.

Had an AMD once.. Still have it.. My P2 266 was faster than that amd 400.....

me <3 INTEL

Jadin Eleazar

16-02-04, 12:20

Can anyone tell me about multitasking?

You probably mean Intel's Hyperthreading technology which simulates 2 cores within the CPU. It only works with multithreaded software, though, and because there's still only one core you won't get twice the performance (10-20% opposed to a Dual-CPU computer which can run up to 90% faster with the appropriate software). When working with multiple programs, HT makes the computer to react faster (switching from one application to another).

I hear that Microsoft are making a 64 bit version of Win XP Omni.... that pass your test.

Only if you want to buy an expensive server version. The desktop version will be launched later and unless the application/game supports 64bits you don't really benefit from a 64bit OS.

CPU-Cooling:

All high-end CPUs need good cooling and Intel's new "Prescott" CPU will need even better cooling than the existing "Northwoods".
Prescott will consume up to 100W of energy and that will be mostly converted into heat.
AFAIK AMD is working on integrating Mobile Athlon64 technology into their desktop chips as well, allowing to throttle down the CPU in idle mode. Intel uses a dynamic voltage regulation which is similar. Anyways, you NEED good cooling regardless of the CPU manufacturer.

The best advice I can give you is:
Don't try to buy the Uber-Computer because you'll be disappointed when new sockets, new memory, PCI-Express, etc. arrive. Try to stick with the cheapest new stuff (e.g. P4 2,6-2,8 GHz FSB800 instead of the 3,2GHz Models), for the offer enough performance and once the brandnew stuff arrives you still can upgrade.

winnoc

16-02-04, 12:41

Get a good motherboard, a cheap AMD chip, adn a GOOD and SILENT cooler.

I overclocked my amd 2200 to 150/150 FSB , added an overclocked geforce2 (with cooler) and stuff is running great.

Amd = cheaper but those buggers burn up fast if your cooler breaks or you have a loose cable fall into the fan (happened to me once)

BramTops

16-02-04, 13:08

@ the thread-starter:

please forget about 90% you've read in this thread. All you see here (let alone a few exceptions) are people who are giving you their biassed and subjective opinions on the matter. (They can't help it and so can't I ;))

There are tons of hardware review sites out there. Go there! Look at the figures! Look at the reviews and reviewer-comments there (do NOT just look at the flashy figures)! Those are objective and tested (if you have a reliable site).

But if you want opinions, here's mine :D :
intel's better than amd if you want to do more than just gaming with your rig (like running a decent amount of applications on your OS ;)). WinXP running on a P4 with HyperThreading is just unstoppable. I also like ATi over nVidia because of the graphics-quality (both use different algorithems for FSAA & AA for example, resulting in different pictures in the same game- guess its just a matter of taste).

I'm currently on a P4 3ghz-HT (800mhz fsb), 1Gb of Corsair mixed-pair DDR, Radeon 9800XT, Asus P4C800 Deluxe (AI) mobo, 36Gb raptor (10.000rpm SATA w/ 8Mb cache) for OS and Games, 2x 120Gb for storage (movies/music/documents) and a very expensive 21" CRT (an high-quality CRT is always better, or you'll need 10.000 bucks for a TFT of that quality ;)).

But..... you'll need the cash. ;)

Oh.. and yes. Forget about the 64-bit stuff.... By the time that will actually be used it's time for your next pc.

darkservent

16-02-04, 13:58

Well i suggest AMD personally as its cheper and greater performance. You also have to remember that the GFX is wot really determines if u have a gaming system. So IMO ive found NVIDIA great but thats cause i never have tried ATI and maybe wont.

@deamon - SEAGATE HDDs are to be avoided??, Well u havnt had experiance with ssome of the most reliable HDDs. Ive never had them bork up on me for years and still runnin at there greatest.
Considerin they have been formatted and just had alot of pressure go on em. Im a sort of person that Uses ghost to restore the windows system like every week cause i hate it when the computer gets messy. So you can see wot i put the system through.

The 64 BIT of linux is out but u most probably wont use it. And WIN XP 64 BIT is already there. Always has been available. Ive had a look at the 64 bit chips and best to wait for the new SOCKETs to come out and the PCI EXPRESS.

LCD is just there for convieneance of space which i prefer. I mean if i need best performance and convineance then id got for a plasma screen. Otherwise if for u cause of ur budget just go CRT.

Also with VIDEO and AUDIO on AMD it works perfectlly fine at top performance. I use alot of 3d STUDIO MAX and MAYA and its got great performance, same with encodin DIVXs. Youre issue is cost i say go for AMD and go for the most memory and best GFX card.

Samhain

16-02-04, 14:00

seagates lower end hard drivers are like timebombs. their higher end stuff is very respectable.

i've never owned a maxtor drive that didn't fail, also

darkservent

16-02-04, 14:14

Originally posted by Samhain
seagates lower end hard drivers are like timebombs. their higher end stuff is very respectable.

i've never owned a maxtor drive that didn't fail, also

Dunno abt that. But i have a barracuda and there great stuff. I heard theres a V good HITACHI one. MAXTOR ARE V GOOD TOO.

Xizor

16-02-04, 15:43

Common misunderstanding:
AMD CPUs generate more heat than Intel CPUs.

AMD CPUs can be as warm as 70C (I think it's 70) and Intel is only about 50C. That means that Intel CPUs often have bigger/eviler (omg nice word) coolers keeping the CPUs cool.
And thus creating the misunderstanding.

DO NOT TRUST TOMSHARDWARE.COM - Good old Tom is known to have "funny" benchmarks. Sometimes, it apears, that Tom is getting other results than everyone else. Why is that? Go figure...

I personally use www.anandtech.com instead.

Atm AMD64 is the best CPU for gaming. You "could" get an Intel 3.2EE but it's like 3 times the price so..

KuifJe

16-02-04, 18:34

Originally posted by Xizor
Common misunderstanding:
AMD CPUs generate more heat than Intel CPUs.

AMD CPUs can be as warm as 70C (I think it's 70) and Intel is only about 50C. That means that Intel CPUs often have bigger/eviler (omg nice word) coolers keeping the CPUs cool.
And thus creating the misunderstanding.

snip...

Still AMD's run hotter then Intel @ same workload. Doesnt matter a lot BECAUSE the chip can withstand more heat.

Had my old one upto 85 degrees C before it started smokin' ;)

Heatsinks dont differ a lot tbh, smartest thing for either brand is an extra casefan just besides the CPU fan, that'll keep the hot air out.

He's right about the sites btw, Tom can be a bit errr...awkward at times

msdong

16-02-04, 19:03

Originally posted by winnoc
...Amd = cheaper but those buggers burn up fast if your cooler breaks or you have a loose cable fall into the fan (happened to me once)

thats all a mainboard thing. on my last PC ill had some problems with my fan. ill get 2 monday models that break after the first minute. all that saved my chip was the auto off option of the mainboard that powerd down my system ....

thx epox :)

-DM-

16-02-04, 19:26

This thread just shows that not all gamers are hardware enthusiasts (actually its the hardware enthusiasts that tend to be gamers).

Some of what has been said is kinda of right, but at the end of the day you have to look at the price/performance ratio (which most people/sites don't look at).

Take the new AMD A64 3200+ (about £220 OEM) with a SIS 755 based motherboard (not quite avalible in the UK yet but soon and probally costing around £60) combined with a 512meg stick of pc3200 ddr ram (about £60). This kinda system will perform within 5 to 10% (and somtimes better in the game benches) of a P4 3.2 gig EE which costs about £650 for the processor alone.

This is just a prime example of AMD having a much better price/performance ratio then Intel. And it is true that you should not look at stuff now becuase the next few months there is going to be a whole batch of new stuff released by just about everyone.

For a new GFX card its harder to say, because the important games (like Doom 3 / Half Life 2) are not out, and about the time they are supposed to out, there will be a whole new generation of cards from both Ati and NVidia. So i'd say its even more important to hang on to your cash until these cards and games have been released and tested (benchmarked).

But if I had to buy now this moment I'd go for AMD A64 processor for no more than £200 absolute max, combined with a SIS 755 based motherboard, with about 1gig of pc3200 ram. For the graphics card its a hard choice, I would be inclided to say Ati 9800pro (you can get these for about £210 now and trust me theres no point spending any more than this on a gfx card), but at £140 the new NVidia 5900XT/SE is an absolute steal.

Final words are buy cheap mid range stuff and upgrade often. (you get the best of the new technology coming in and if you pick wisely, with a bit of overclocking you can push the cheaper stuff up to the performance of the more expensive stuff). The key is to buy the stuff thats actually almost the same as the top end stuff, but just clocked lower etc. These items usually offer the best price/performace ratio (e.g. the NVidia 5900XT/SE is exactally the same features as the very much more expensive 5950 Ultra but is just clocked a bit lower in speed).

edit: Just one point to make about the "buy cheap and upgrade often" bit, I'm really only refering to the CPU, MB, GFX, RAM. For you hard drive, keyboard, moniter etc its best to buy the best you can afford providied you choose wisely (becasue as always with IT industry you are charged a premium price for the top stuff even though it might not give much more than the mid range).

icarium

16-02-04, 23:12

Originally posted by QuantumDelta
I do personally prefer AMD, but at the moment I see P4 is superior in the areas I actually need (software apps) power in.
My gaming machines however will always be AMD+Nvidia Cards (unless ATi start putting out stuff that works better with AMDs...)

rad 9700 pro and barton 2500@3200, never had any issues with it. i think some peeps are just unlucky with this kind of thing.

AMD get my vote, if i had lots of spare cash i would go AMD again. nothing wrong with intels, but they take the sheer speed approach whereas i always got the impression AMD chip design was a little more efficient. whatever you do make sure to get ddr400 ram. games loves bandwidth. so does everything in fact, including me, mmmmmmm baaaaandwidth

icarium

16-02-04, 23:20

incidently the new bartons run nowhere near as high temps as old amd chips. mines oc'd from 1.8 to 2.2 and sits at 35 under load. admittedly it is watercooled, but when i had a coolermaster jet 7 at only 2500rpm it didnt get above 45 degrees.

toms are regarded to be a little preferential in their reviews, check out the adverts on their site to see what i mean :wtf:

___T-X____

17-02-04, 00:07

OT - did anybody actually read the spec i posted on page 1 of this thread ? If they did any comments

KuifJe

17-02-04, 00:13

Decent setup that will run Doom 3/HL 2 pretty good I think. No need for watercooling unless u wanna go into oc'ing. All in all that system will last thru the year.

Sidenote: if u gonna spend big bucks on gfx cards ATI does a better job according to all tests.

Original monk

17-02-04, 00:40

at work we use intel and i like it

at home i use amd and i like it

i prefer amd cause its cheaper :)

edit: and still decent

rob444

17-02-04, 02:46

AMD 64 has.... paladium chip........... I think everyone know whats that for right? Its not activated but will probably be in the near future, GL all AMD users, Im going Pentium as planned before, now even more reason to do so. rofl

QuantumDelta

17-02-04, 02:53

Originally posted by rob444
AMD 64 has.... paladium chip........... I think everyone know whats that for right? Its not activated but will probably be in the near future, GL all AMD users, Im going Pentium as planned before, now even more reason to do so. rofl Stupid?
Ignorant?
Pirate?
Or all three?

Intel will be doing this as well very shortly after.

greploco

17-02-04, 02:56

AMD - cheaper and faster, and yes runs hotter. big cpu fans can be very noisy.

Intel - more expensive and slower, does not run so hot, can be less noisy.

IceStorm

17-02-04, 03:19

OT - did anybody actually read the spec i posted on page 1 of this thread ? If they did any comments
You recommended a CPU which is bested by An A64 3000+ at the same price, then added water cooling and a 550 watt PSU to it. Why?

The XP line, for enthusiasts, is dead, especially at the 3000+/3200+ end of the spectrum. A64, at the same price-point as the 3200+, is where it's at if you want an AMD box now. The 3200+ even gets bested quite often by a P4 2.8C, a CPU which costs $40 less.

As to the video card, a 5900 XT (the LOW END 5900 - nVidia uses XT to denote lower end specs vs ATI which use XT to denote higher end specs) gets beat quite often by $200-range 9700 and 9800 cards from ATI and its OEMs. When you turn up the AA/AF, ATI's cards fair better most of the time. It really depends on what games you play, though. If all you're going to do is use stencil buffers, an nVidia card will probably be a better choice.

Harbodus

17-02-04, 06:57

Buying an AMD 64 right now is like handing AMD a down payment for their next generation chips without you getting the bang for your buck. Nothing is going to use 64 bit for a long time, sorry folks.

If price is your biggest factor, go AMD. If pure power is, go with my req.

Basically you need to remember that as soon as u upgrade your Mobo proc, you will probably have to get a new case too...
Don't listen to these AMD folk, P4's are the way to go. Head to www.newegg.com

Asus P4P800 Retail - ASUS, there is no substitute for quality and stability. The p4p800 is a great overclocker...a just plain great mobo. http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-459&depa=0

P4 2.8c Ghz (800mhz FSB) Processor - There is no better overclocking processor than the 2.4 GHZ model, but for like 10 bucks more why not get the 2.8. I am constantly hearing reports of standard voltages, stock cooling getting this chip well over 3 GHZ. http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-162&catalog=343&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=0

Geil Ultra Platinum Series Dual Channel 184 Pin 512MB(256MBx2) DDR PC-3500 - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-144-514&catalog=147&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=0

ATI 9800 Pro 128 MB. Awesome freakin card. Nuff said, I have the 256mb model but there is almost no difference. Someone sent me the better version via ebay and I didnt complain.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-286&catalog=48&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=0

RAM: $110.00
Mobo: $106.99
Proc: $179.00
Vid: $272.00

You'll be smoking at about 3.2 Ghz, 1000 MHZ FSB, and done easily with FREE SHIPPING for around $675. Get PC-4000 memory if you overclock, and get the 2.4 Processor (ill explain if ya want).

EDIT: TX, that system is solid but ATI pwns the 5900xt :P

Varaem

17-02-04, 09:44

I bought a p4 3.0 ghz on my laptop... i chose a harddrive known for how quiet it was because a noisy laptop is annoying.. little did i know that the sound would be comming from the cooling fan, not the hard drive. :(

Oh... and I want a crt with 100 mhz refresh rate... then I could run games at 100,000,000 fps and my monitor could keep up!

Really... lcds with 60 hz refresh rate are fine for gaming. Your eyes cant see past 30 or so... maybe 45-50 if you're really sensitive or something.

Nasher

17-02-04, 17:02

AMDs ARE better for gaming because thats what they are mainly designed for, pentium are usually better for use in servers and multitasking (and they make less heat).

Also with athlons you need to make sure it has good cooling, if they get to hot they start to loose a lot of performance and stability.

Harbodus

17-02-04, 18:57

Nasher...um, just because Intel makes better processors for servers doesn't mean their chips aren't good at gaming too.

Thats like saying Lexus makes a great car, and since they make good cars their SUV's must suck. If you're gonna say stuff like that come correct with reviews from reliable sources, benchmark comparisons (which dont mean that much anyways) or something besides this shit is true cause I said so foo.

naimex

17-02-04, 23:57

Originally posted by Nasher
http://members.aol.com/Nasher000/sig1.jpg

Dude... 8| that´s like a mutant star wars convention :wtf: :lol: :lol: O_o

-DM-

26-02-04, 00:24

Just to make a key point, the hottest processors currently avalible are Intel P4 based on the new Prescott cores. These are bloody hot and also incredibly power hungry.

Also about AMD 64bit, like everone has said who cares? but the 64bit thing is not what makes the AMD A64 processors some darn good, its the onboard memory (RAM) controller that means it really kicks ass. For both P4 and current Ath XPs the mem controler is situated on the Northbridge of the chipset. This means the CPU has to talk to the Northbrigde, which in turn talks to the mem. This is slower than the CPU talking directly to the mem.

One other point about general CPU performace:

Inte CPU: Has a long pipeline, therefore it can process (in comparison to AMD) fewer instruction per cycle, but has greater potential clock-frequency (in other words Intel makes up for poorer performace per clock by having higher clock-frequency).

AMD CPU: these are the reverse of Intel they have a much shorter pipeline and therefore can process more instructions per cycle, but has a lower (compared to Intel) potential clock-frequency.

But, and it is a big but, some applications favour (simple apps e.g. Word/Excel and fixed function apps e.g. encoding mp3s) the high clock-frequency. Whereas games (varied function apps) favour more instructions exicuted per clock cycle.