Going to build a new PC, comments please.

If you have the money go for 2GB(2x1GB)... I would have if i had the money. You'll never have to worry about upgrading the ram on that system again. ... still seems *slighty* excessive at the moment thats all, but it'll be the norm in a year.
 
If you're into Photo-Shopping, video editing etc, it isn't excessive at all!

Not that I am, but I spent a lot of yesterday Googling for a pal having trouble with 1GB sticks - turned out his Asus couldn't take 'em.
 
Zelig said:
Yeah, and it's only Athlon 64's to which my comment about 4x ram sticks is applicable, since they're the only chips with on-die memory controllers. (well, Opterons too, but we won't go there)
Click to expand...

That'll teach me to look before I post.

Either going with 2GB now or selling the 2 512 sticks when the time comes may be your best bet. Good news is that DDR400 is fairly common, so you should be able to get rid of it rather easily, especially since you know these modules are good.
 
+1 on getting a quality power supply. Also, I assume the case has cooling fans built-in, but make sure the airflow is adequate and make sure the Athlon comes with a cooling fan or get one separately.

And if you're not ordering at www.newegg.com, you're doing it wrong. :p
 
Get inspiration for good coolers from http://www.overclockers.co.uk

Their catalogue will at least give you a good grounding in what is available on the market, plus they add specs and reviews &c.
 
Anyone wants to suggest a good and quiet power supply unit? and good sound card and speakers? I don't need anything too advance on the sound, just good sound quality.
 
I wouldn't recommend a AMD processor, I was going to update my processor awhile back and asked wether I should go with AMD or Intel. Intel processors were much cheaper (around $200 for a 3.0Ghz with 1 MB of L2 cache), where as the AMD were around $400 for the same. Also, Hyper-threading is awesome :).

I ended up going with an Intel, but decided to build a AMD computer also, just to see if it was better. Needless to say, the thing won't work.. period. I gave up on it.
 
vbraun said:
@Strider - Are you sure? There's this Intel 3Ghz (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80661-1) and this 3Ghz AMD (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80699-R) which is $39.90 cheaper. Sure the Intel one has 1gig of L2 cache, but the AMD is 64 bits.

I've always seen AMD as cheaper and faster, the only promblem I'm having with mine is a slight Overheating problem.
Click to expand...

The P4 is 64-bit also, and you just proved what I was saying. For the same speed and about the same price, you can double your L2 cache by buying an Intel.
 
The Intel I used for comparision is not 64bit. Intel has just started making 64bit CPUs. AMD has been doing it for years...

And the AMD chip will probably run faster then the Intel one anyway.
 
Strider said:
The P4 is 64-bit also, and you just proved what I was saying. For the same speed and about the same price, you can double your L2 cache by buying an Intel.
Click to expand...
What about the L1 cache? P4s have only 16kB whilst A64s have 128kB. You need to consider more than just clock speed and L2 cache to determine which cpu is best for your needs.

It is a fact that in most applications an A64 will outperform a similarly priced P4.
 
vbraun said:
The Intel I used for comparision is not 64bit. Intel has just started making 64bit CPUs. AMD has been doing it for years...

And the AMD chip will probably run faster then the Intel one anyway.
Click to expand...

Doubt it, Intels well known for being the best at everything except games.
 
Funny, I always see AMD being better performers in general. For example the new Dual-Core chips, The AMD is still faster then the Intel.
 
vbraun said:
Funny, I always see AMD being better performers in general. For example the new Dual-Core chips, The AMD is still faster then the Intel.
Click to expand...

CPU speed is determined by doing Interger Multipication. Intel has always completely kicked AMD's butt in speed. However, AMD's are capable of much *much* better floating point calculations.

In all honesty, a AMD processor will do what you need for generally cheaper. However, Intel gives you alot more power for your money. More L2 cache (which is somewhat like RAM), and hyper-threading technology.

Currently with my Intel, I'm running Trillian, Winamp, Final Fantasy XI, Playonline, Mozilla Browser, Microsoft Anti-Spyware, Nortan Anti-Virus, and Yahoo! Internet Security. It's using up about 38% of the computer power. BTW, that's with both the Anti-virus and Anti-Spyware scanning my system.

Hyper-threading technology, is just enough reason to buy an Intel. (Hyper-threading basically tricks the computer into thinking there are two processors, instead of just one. It basically allows the processor to run two differant threads at once, instead of AMD's one.)

Here's the benchmarks for the dual-core processors BTW.. The Pentium Extreme usually beats the Athlon 64.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=808&page=3
 
Those benchmarks are ancient, quite a lot has changed since then.

Single core AMDs are unquestionably superior for gaming, for other usage, it can vary.

The top of the line AMD chips currently being released easily best their Intel counterparts in nearly everything available... check out any benchmarks of the 4800+.

edit: See here for a good review.
 
Strider said:
Hyper-threading technology, is just enough reason to buy an Intel. (Hyper-threading basically tricks the computer into thinking there are two processors, instead of just one. It basically allows the processor to run two differant threads at once, instead of AMD's one.)
Click to expand...

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_2353,00.html


Not all of intels CPU have HT. Mine I know doesn't.

Strider said:
Here's the benchmarks for the dual-core processors BTW.. The Pentium Extreme usually beats the Athlon 64.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=808&page=3
Click to expand...

Well yeah. of course a dual core is going to beat a single core. Except when we are talking about a overclocked 4Ghz Watercolled one.:D
 
For those interested in THE guide to AMD Vs Intel;

Part 1

Part 2

Can't recall a time when AMD ever beat Intel on maths calculations - that's why Intels are better at encoding (clock for clock).
 
MarineCorps said:
Well yeah. of course a dual core is going to beat a single core. Except when we are talking about a overclocked 4Ghz Watercolled one.:D
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If the OS or application doesn't take account of a second ondie CPU (dual core) then it never gets used.

Nearly all games (certainly all action games) fall into this catergory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom