It's up to yourself, but I don't think fanboyism is a good reason to chose what CPU you're going to buy, especially considering Intel's chipsets are more stable, mature, and are fully compatiable with pretty much any operating system that runs on x86, and now their CPUs leave AMD in the dust.
Originally Posted by Agent
stable? - new ones maybe.
mature? - excuse me...what do you mean by mature?
fully compatable with any OS? - and all that I've seen and used AMD is also fine on all OSs
leave AMD in dust? - sorry but I just don't see that happening
Yes AMD are working on expanding their company instead of consentrating on pushing out the next best chip, which means that Intel have been able to take an early lead, but come Jan 07 AMD will be kicking out it's 65nm chips which will have been worked on for longer, and made more stable and much better chips than the Intel ones. Then again in 2007 AMD is pushing out the K8L architecture which again will put Intel in a dodgey position.
A little read for the people that think Intel is the mutt's. Make sure you read the large message at the bottom.
I'm not sure where you get your info, but it's a little dodgey. And don't get me wrong, I know Intel has some good chips out at the moment, but I just don't side with the view that Intel will kill off AMD, as I said earlier, AMD and Intel are level-pegging and will do until there is a major breakthrough in technology.
Yes, stable, always have been, I've never had an Intel chipset that has been unstable, and I'm going back to the late Pentium days, I have however been through 2 faulty VIA chipsets in a row (on Socket A platform), and my friend has been through 3 faulty nForce chipsets.
Mature, as in Intel has been producing chipsets for decades, nVidia has only been at it a few years, and it shows.
Did you try GNU/Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc?... working "fine" and working properly are two different things.
It's already happened, with benchmarks showing Intel's £250 E6600 conroe at standard clock rate beating the stuffings out of AMD's £730 FX-62 with a mild overclock.. and the overclocking nuts have got nearly 100% overclocks from Intel's Core Duo processors. Sorry to burst your bubble. Google is your friend.
A lot of people talking abour 'reverse hyperthreading' don't seem to understand what goes on inside processors, pulling off a magic trick like fragmenting parellel instructions from inside a single thread and sorting data between the two seperate caches and trying to run them in a way doesn't screw up each core instruction, it's a syncronisation nightmare, if at all technically possable, plausable maybe, but it would be a fleat of engineering miracle work, and the overhead involved with sorting instructions would probibly take up a whole dedicated unit in itself.
Last edited by aidanjt; 01-07-2006 at 11:27 PM.
I don't give a monkeys about the romours, I take them as a load of bull, pointless quoteing that really.
I ran a couple of Linux OSes on my PC stable, fine, properly.
I get that you only ever had Intels from the fact you wont even tolerate AMD and me trying not to change your mind and say AMD is the best, but to get you to understand it from a different perspective. Personaly do see the fact that Intel have got some good chips at the moment, but that's purely at the moment and that's the point I'm trying to make.
AMD are releasing their new chips at the end of the year which should be able to beat the Intel chips at that time, and so on and so forth. What I am getting at here is that there is never one company better than the other, they are equal, one may jump ahead of the other, and then the other will, that's how the tech has been going lately. The same is with ATi and Nvidia, the companies effectivly leapfrog around with their products.
Anyway, this is all way off topic now, and will confuse poor little marcster
Sorry to hi-jack your thread mateI hope that you can work out a decent PC for the money that you have available. - my mind keeps chaning about what I would like to build every day...still have 2 and a bit months to think
I do have an Athlon XP 2500+ running as my server, the VIA chipset is still faulty so it's underclocked to stay stable, it's well overdue for a replacement as I need a PCIe x8 slot for a RAID card. It's not that I dislike AMD, I just don't like the fact that the main chipset provider (nVidia) refuses to release information relavent to driver development to the open-source community, and as a result are left with unstable, hacked together drivers (marked EXPERIMENTAL by the kernel team as a matter of fact).. If AMD designed chipsets that are open to the public, that'd be great, if the boards produced from it looks like something I'm after then I'd be all for it, but this isn't the case.
So Buff what would you suggest. Wait and buy a conroe or wait and buy the amd x2 4800 on a 939 socket once prices have dropped?of course you can
marcster, the AMD prices are rumoured to be dropping by as much as half when Conroe launches in about 4 weeks so if you can hold off that long you can save a packet..
Yeh went slightly off topic and wait a minute im not little!I don't give a monkeys about the romours, I take them as a load of bull, pointless quoteing that really.
I ran a couple of Linux OSes on my PC stable, fine, properly.
I get that you only ever had Intels from the fact you wont even tolerate AMD and me trying not to change your mind and say AMD is the best, but to get you to understand it from a different perspective. Personaly do see the fact that Intel have got some good chips at the moment, but that's purely at the moment and that's the point I'm trying to make.
AMD are releasing their new chips at the end of the year which should be able to beat the Intel chips at that time, and so on and so forth. What I am getting at here is that there is never one company better than the other, they are equal, one may jump ahead of the other, and then the other will, that's how the tech has been going lately. The same is with ATi and Nvidia, the companies effectivly leapfrog around with their products.
Anyway, this is all way off topic now, and will confuse poor little marcster
Sorry to hi-jack your thread mate
Its been great hearing what all you guys think and i think il be hanging around here for a while.
I going to wait to see what happens once the conroe appears and then decide but it doesnt mean i know what to do still. Amd seems more simple especially as i know a fair bit about the 939 socket. I really like the x2 4800. I just dont know if i should step up to am2 or go over to intel! like you said they are just leap frogging each other so i am having mid august as a deadline for getting my spec together otherwise im just going to keep waiting!
Depends upon your circumstances (e.g. do you have DDR RAM to carry over that a 939 could use?), budget & main usage.
I note that you have set a deadline of mid-August - there have been suggestions that Conroe may initially be in short supply although Intel says that it will be available.
Basically I suggest waiting to see how this all comes out in the wash ...
G'Day Marcster
I think your computer specs are slightly imbalanced.
If you want to play games you would be better off spending a bit less on the cpu and more on the graphics card (eg 7900gt).
If you really want the X2 4800 then make sure to reserve enough money for a better graphics card.
Anyway besides games, what specific software will you be running.
The games i will playing will not be that strenuous. To be honest it'l just be games iv already got like worms and red alert. I am definetly going to be running photoshop and illustrator and dreamweaver and hopefully my course at uni will provide me with a nice video and sound editing suite. I get the feeling i will be doing alot of multi tasking, hence why i want a dual core!
I am building from scratch so i guess itl depend on how i want to upgrade in future. 939 seems to be finished now with am2 out so maybe its best to go for an am2 4800. i think that exists but please correct me if i am wrong.
Well in 6th months time AMD bring out the 65nm chips, which will be another pinset, and then they bring out the total new K8L architecture which will be in like a year, and will be again a new pinset.
It really depends on your money and preferences, AM2 should last a while as it's the new pinset, but it may not last that well due to the newer and better ones coming out.
The fact that you'll only be running basic games and demanding apps tells me you want to be looking at the Conroe, for Windows based programs Intel is better and always has been, AMD take it in the gaming field.
Check up on the Conroes and the performance tests between the Conroes and the AM2s (a quick google will bring up lots of info...so will a quick check on Hexus.net), because you'll be apping more than gaming you will want to find and read the reviews on apps (not that many I'd have thought really), but belive me the Intels will bring it from AMD in video/audio encoding as well as general running.
Take a proper look at what you'll be using the PC for, if it's demanding games then I'd say AMD (even thought Conroe is taking it nowdays) but if it's mostly apps go for the Conroe and find a decent one (they won't be cosing that much anyways).
that's not necessarily true - AMDs have typically been better for typical office apps than Intel but Intel has been better for encoding/3D work & with multi-tasking using HT pre-dual-cores.
Apparently Conroe has it's weakpoints too but that's why I said wait & see once the NDA is off & all the reviews can hit the web.
In that case what you have chosen will be fine.
Maybe wait a few more weeks though, because prices on the 4800 will drop and the conroe cpu will be out, which may be worth considering depending on price.
i am definetly going to wait but is it worth stayin on the 939 socket or should i move up in the world to am2?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote