Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
hi,
i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
(as generally as possible and upToDate)
would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
thanks
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
<tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
>(as generally as possible and upToDate)
>would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
specific you're looking at?
I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
Intel, about 5KM away).
However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
links:
Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
for.
The long-story short though is that both companies make good
processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
of a system.
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Tony Hill wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
>
> Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
> specific you're looking at?
>
> I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
> both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
> people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
> they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
> down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
> Intel, about 5KM away).
>
> However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
> their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
> links:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=2353 >
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=2249 >
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] 4-6xx.html >
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/pa [...] mmer-1.ars >
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/pa [...] tium-1.ars >
> Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
> though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
> for.
>
> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> of a system.
Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.
Bryan
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Tony Hill wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
>
> Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
> specific you're looking at?
>
> I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
> both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
> people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
> they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
> down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
> Intel, about 5KM away).
>
> However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
> their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
> links:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=2353 >
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=2249 >
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] 4-6xx.html >
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/pa [...] mmer-1.ars >
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/pa [...] tium-1.ars >
> Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
> though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
> for.
>
> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> of a system.
Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.
Bryan
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Is your goal to build a system or systems for yourself from scratch, or
to simply buy ready-built systems with these processors on it? Or maybe
to upgrade an existing system with one of these processors?
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Bryan Hoover wrote:
> Tony Hill wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> > >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> > >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
<snip>
> > However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
> > their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
> > links:
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=2353 > >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=2249 > >
> > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] 4-6xx.html > >
> > http://arstechnica.com/articles/pa [...] mmer-1.ars > >
> > http://arstechnica.com/articles/pa [...] tium-1.ars > >
> > Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
> > though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
> > for.
> >
> > The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> > processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> > do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> > overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> > of a system.
>
> Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
> board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
> foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
> the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
> probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
> with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
> with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
> the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
> bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.
thanks for the reply...
perhaps chip set comparison would be more useful...
sincerely
Tanya
(the boards that i have seen for intel-based systems are fairly similar)
>
>
> Bryan
>
> > -------------
> > Tony Hill
> > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Tony Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
> >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
> >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
>
> Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
> specific you're looking at?
hi Tony,
i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
and i would like to know in what?
i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
YKhan wrote:
> Is your goal to build a system or systems for yourself from scratch, or
> to simply buy ready-built systems with these processors on it? Or maybe
> to upgrade an existing system with one of these processors?
>
> Yousuf Khan
hi
i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
missing something
thanks
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Tanya wrote:
>hi
>i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
>i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
>missing something
>thanks
Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
a few days old) for the system that I just built.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Tanya wrote:
> hi
> i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
> i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
> missing something
> thanks
These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.
Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
different markets all at once, with at least three different
socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
high-end, extremely high-end.
Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
chrisv wrote:
> Tanya wrote:
>
>
>>hi
>>i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
>>i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
>>missing something
>>thanks
>
>
> Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
> choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
> a few days old) for the system that I just built.
>
And chrisv was one of the hardest ones to convince too.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:48:42 -0500, Tanya
<tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
>> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
>> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
>> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
>> of a system.
>>
>hi Tony,
>i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
>put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
>and i would like to know in what?
>i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!
No problem! First off, as I mentioned above, both Intel and AMD make
very good chips and they're both available for pretty reasonable
prices, so it's tough to go too wrong with either one. However for
either situation it pays to spend a little bit of time looking into
some options and potential gotchas.
I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
everything in the computer.
Personally if it were me that were building the system, I would look
either towards an Intel P4 sitting in an Intel i915(G) chipset or an
AMD Athlon64 sitting in an nForce4 chipset. These two seem to be
hitting a good price/performance point these days with decent feature
sets, so they would probably be good starting points if you're looking
into things.
A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot
PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
system.
2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
don't do so good at computer games. They can also lower overall
system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
so desire. One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
Intel chipsets they are quite common.
3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors
One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
do complicate things slightly.
4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
upgrade you can get.
Well, that should give you a bit of food for thought! Good luck!
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
hi Tony,
thanks again for replying!
[...below...]
Tony Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:48:42 -0500, Tanya
> <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Tony Hill wrote:
> >
> >> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
> >> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
> >> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
> >> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
> >> of a system.
> >>
> >hi Tony,
> >i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
> >put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
> >and i would like to know in what?
> >i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!
>
> No problem! First off, as I mentioned above, both Intel and AMD make
> very good chips and they're both available for pretty reasonable
> prices, so it's tough to go too wrong with either one. However for
> either situation it pays to spend a little bit of time looking into
> some options and potential gotchas.
actually i have spent a bit of time (but only on intel so far)
> I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
> would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
> choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
> niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
> For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
> more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
> VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
> their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
> Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
> of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
> be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
> the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
> everything in the computer.
i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
whether there are other differences
> Personally if it were me that were building the system, I would look
> either towards an Intel P4 sitting in an Intel i915(G) chipset or an
> AMD Athlon64 sitting in an nForce4 chipset. These two seem to be
> hitting a good price/performance point these days with decent feature
> sets, so they would probably be good starting points if you're looking
> into things.
thanks very much for posting the amd info (i have something to go on now)
i read a review on intel boards:
the asus p5gdc-vdx is compared to others with i925xe's and rates highly
(apparently has something to do with dissipating heat)
(it is socket 775))
> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
>
> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot
this has onBoard (but also does have pci express x 16) and i could get the card
later (if needed or wanted)
> PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
> norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
> expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
> price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
> going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
> unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
> system.
there's no mention of agp
> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
>
> Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
> board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
> here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
> don't do so good at computer games.
won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
affect me)
> They can also lower overall
> system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
> pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
> can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
> AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
> so desire.
via a pci slot?
> One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
> the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
> Intel chipsets they are quite common.
>
> 3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors
this is what it has:
slots: 1x pci-ex16, 2x pci-ex1, 3x pci.
ide: 1x ata 100 (up to 2 devices)
2x ata 133 (up to 4 devices with raid 0/1/0 +1 by ite 8212f)
sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1
> One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
> that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
> maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
> hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
> definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
> however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
> non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
> drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
> chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
> chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
> do complicate things slightly.
the above controllers should be okay shouldn't they?
(i could use the ata 100 for a cd-rw -- or 2:-)
and the sata/raid for hdd?
> 4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
>
> Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
> memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
> that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
having it built into the chip -- is this better? (rather than having the
controller on the chipset)?
> while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
> chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
> dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
> into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
> complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
> i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
> for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
> to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
> upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
> 4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
> only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
> the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
> computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
> upgrade you can get.
there are 4 sockets...
this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
i'd be using ddr initially
also the max is 4 gb
> Well, that should give you a bit of food for thought! Good luck!
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
with respect to the amd-based boards:
there are 3 categories; (on motherboards.org site)
(i realize that one cannot compare apples to oranges however which group would
be comparable [closest] to s775?)
socket a
socket 754, 939, 940
socket 939 (64-bit)
1 concern:
i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat.
is this unavoidable?
thanks again for the reply!
i appreciate it
sincerely
Tanya
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
chrisv wrote:
> Tanya wrote:
>
> >hi
> >i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
> >i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
> >missing something
> >thanks
>
> Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
> choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
> a few days old) for the system that I just built.
i'm reading it...
thank you for pointing it out
sincerely
Tanya
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
hi Yousuf,
thanks for the reply...
[...below...]
Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Tanya wrote:
> > hi
> > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
> > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
> > missing something
> > thanks
>
> These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
> equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
> together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
> nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
> chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.
i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....
> Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
> because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
> everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
> Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
> have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
> etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
> different markets all at once, with at least three different
> socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
> high-end, extremely high-end.
maybe you can explain this: the categories (of ranking amds) are socket a;
socket 754, 939, 940; and socket 939)
which would be *comparible* to the lga 775 socket?
> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
> motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
> There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
> basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
> are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:21:54 -0500, Tanya wrote:
> hi Yousuf,
> thanks for the reply...
> [...below...]
>
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Tanya wrote:
>> > hi
>> > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
>> > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
>> > missing something
>> > thanks
>>
>> These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
>> equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
>> together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
>> nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
>> chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.
>
> i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
> i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....
You heard wrong, though FUD has been the rule in this business since its
conception.
>> Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD s
