well i have all of my parts picked out except the cpu. it is going to be intel. i am torn between the P4 6xx seried and the Pentium D series. for the price, what is the advantage of going Pentium D? i am not a huge gamer(not even a little bit, i used to be but don't have the time anymore). I am mainly on the PC on the net or watching movies, top gears, etc. TIA

 

Pentium D's are dual core. Definitely get dual core... it just makes everything alot more fun.

Just curious... since you're building, why not go with AMD? You get more bang for your buck.

 

I agree with Churnd...get an AMD....my things load so much faster and much more zip to it than the intel's do that I have noticed. I just got an AthlonXP 1800 and it does what I want and even stays cool too.

 

i have always been and intel guy. i will admit that i know nothing about amd's or ATI's.

first off where does the dual core come into play, how doest it work, etc? i used to be huge into computers but i haven't kept up with it for a couple of years. if i would go AMD what yould you suggest and why? all the AMD's i look at the clock speed is much lower than intels...what gives? and what makes amd so much faster then intel for the money?

 

All I know is I'm sitting beside a Dell with a higher speed CPU than my custom built computer with the AMD CPU and mine is much faster....plus I just reformatted the dell the other day. So I know it isn't the hard drive. Churnd can buzz in on this now...

I take that back....I swapped out my old XP1800 for XP2400 but hers is still .39 more GHZ than mine.

 

hahaha you dont remeber just about 2 years ago when you worked on the GEEK SQUAD....hahaha


get a pentium D 8xx series if you are looking for something fast for a decent price.

the 6xx P4's are junk as far as todays standards go

 

sam i don't want to hear it....i haven't kept up with computers since i left the squad...and the little knowledge that i did have was filled up with off-roading terms/bike stuff....etc....

 

And typically use AMD. The bottom line... It doesn't really matter too much unless you're a gamer, then go with AMD. If you do multi-media apps like photoshop et al, use Intel. For most folks I use whatever has the best benchmarks at the lowest cost. That would be AMD. Dual core isn't going to matter until more multi-threaded apps come out; in fact single core cpu's typically outperform dual core in many tests because the clock speed is higher. 64 bit cpu's... great if you're running a server or using a unix/linux os but windows 64 bit is kind of restrictive with driver and application availability.

 

All that will change is your socket type and possibly memory. Most likely you'll have a similar mobo available with an AMD socket, so just match it up with the right memory and that's it. I can help you with that if you want.

Most AMD chips use a rating system. Ignore the clock speed, as it's misleading since you're most likely comparing it to Intel speeds. Look at the part where it says something like AMD 2400+. That means that proc is comparable to an Intel proc running 2.4 GHz.

Check out this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103747

Notice it's rated 4200+. Show me where you can get a 4.2 GHz Intel Pentium D proc for that price. I don't even think they clock them up that high.

The AM2 socket is the latest one released. It supports dual channel memory, which is a good thing (means faster memory). It also uses a capable front side bus speed of 2 GHz. Most Intels are capped at 800 MHz. A lot will tell you that you'll never see 2000 MHz on your FSB, but it's nice to know it's there.

You'll have a 64 bit capable dual core proc that'll run 32 bit (mostly what you have) apps great. You never know when the dual core will come handy. If you use DVD Shrink, a dual core proc will cut your encoding time in half. You'll notice that when you're trying to do more than one thing at a time, it'll be a lot quicker. Say if you're running a system scan and still wanna surf the net. You won't notice the system scan is running.

Why limit your capabilities to 32 bit when you can have a better, more powerful 64 bit capable proc at the same price? Just food for the thought. Let me know if you change your mind and wanna go AMD. I'll help you make the change.

As for graphics... flip a coin and choose. That's such a complex topic, I dare not go into it. Nvidia makes the best high end cards, but as far as mid-range or budget cards go, it just depends as it could be either Nvidia or ATI. Do research on it if you want the best pick.

General rule of the thumb I've always gone by: Nvidia's graphics are "prettier", ATI's are sharper. But that's usually to a very discriminating eye.

 

thanks guys....the tip on just compairing amd's name to intels clock helped alot...cleared up some confusion....

 

But I work with end users day in and day out and none of them would notice a bit of difference between an AMD Athlon64 X2 4400 or a Pentium D 3.6. Clock speeds are almost meaningless nowadays and it boils down to what apps on what cpu architecture. Also bus speed, memory settings, drives etc. are equally important.

I always use nvidia gpu's because they invariably end up in a linux box but again, to an average user it makes no difference whether there's an ATI or an Nvidia gpu in the box. A professional CAD designer or an avid gamer are going to know exectly what it is they're looking for in a gpu. Anyone on a fence about AMD or Intel will probably have no clue about 3Dmark scores or a Doom3 benchmark. I would, however, recommend that the system exceeded the MS Vista minimum reqs. by at least a factor of 2. That's assuming they want to ruin a perfectly good computer with windows

 

That's a 2.2 GHz chip, not a 4.2GHz... still a good chip, but not THAT good.

 

Read the part about AMD's clock speeds comparing to Intels. Yeah, the AMD's is clocked to 2.2, but it's comparable to an Intel clocked at 4.2, at least according to AMD. That's the comparison I was making.

It's one of the better chips he's gonna get compared to what he was looking for. I don't think he'd be willing to drop $800 on the proc alone.

 

get an opteron 165 or x2 3800+. oc em and save yourself a couple hundred and get a damn fast cpu. my opteron 165 came stock at 1.8ghz and i run it at 2.7ghz. (would that be a 50% overclock/speed increase?)

 

If you are just going to use the computer for web use and maybe minor gaming, then you can't go wrong with an 1800+. I use one in this machine here along with a 256MB 4200 Video card from MSI, and I am able to play a lot of games that are about 2004 graphics and older without any problems. The speed it good too for normal computer use.

 

most amd's do more per clock cycle than intels, thats why they are just as fast if not faster at lower speeds.. btw AMD has bought ATI

 

Things have changed in the last couple of days. Check out Intel's new Conroe cpu. It's sad when you compare it to the previous Intel chips.

 

the new core 2 duos are nice.. but i still take amd over intel anyday because the chipset architecture is just that much better. higher cache and front side bus using the northbridge instead of the chip itself like intel.. intel just dont run that effiecient.

 

Core 2 duo's are nice but they are spendy..

Im building a new system soon also.. I decided to go with an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ w/ the new AM2 socket. with a gig of ram and a Gigabyte mobo.

tips: Good power supply and good mobo will make the computer last MUCH longer and overall just be faster.

 

I don't think anyone touched on it, but what have you picked out already?

Also you can build a 4.0 GHZ complete computer for about 715.