i would like a great processor for around 250.00. would an am2, or core 2 duo be better on price, performance, lifetime?
as for the life time, i would rather like to lean toward not having to upgrade my motherboard, if i buy now, the next time i will even look at processors would be in the spring, what will be the big hype then? will it still be on am2 or core2duo's sockets?
My friend and I just went through this decision. It came down to a amd 4600 am2 or e6300. Performance is roughly the same but our amd system was $35 cheaper so we went that way. Had we been able to find a suitable board for the C2D system that was under $200 we could have afforded the e6400 and would have gone that route. I think the am2 and 775 socket will be around for some time and life span of these chips is very long. So at $250 for a cpu I would get the e6400 but check out the price of a new board for that system because the a much more than an AM2 board.
The only problem with comparinng these 2 with the lifetime thing is not only will the motherboard be cheaper for the AM2, but most likely will be upgradable later on with a bios upgrade! The intel with a new processor later down the road...as in like when they make any slight change on the core 2 duo line, it will most likely require a new motherboard because the information for the chip isnt stored on the chip itself...its on the motherboard. Im not sure if I am explaining this clearly, but im sure someone can clear it up!
IMHO I would go with the core 2 duo, because it is a much better chip from the looks of it and will last longer without needing an upgrade than the am2 will especially if you plan to OC!
humm, ok what about quad core? honestly i dont know if i can even use all the speed, never the less, that doesnt mean i dont want it will the quad core processors use the same chipset?
on a side note, i really was set to turn to an amd, and then intel comes along with this new core 2 duo. arggg
The chipsets wont last forever with AMD, but they will last longer and with less revisions! Either way you go, im sure you will be fine. The AMD imho will give you an easier (maybe not better) but easier upgrade path, but the intel you buy now will last longer performance wise but will me more expensive. (you get what you pay for) As far as quad core goes, I would assume once that releases even on the AMD Platform you will be needing a new motherboard, but im not sure and dont know everything about it! maybe someone else can help out!
like i said before if you go for the AMD you will not have a slow computer, if you get the 4400+ or something and run it at like 2.6ghz then you will not be dissapointed with the results! Or atleast I wouldnt!
I dont know if Ive read anything directly stating AMD quad core will work on current AM2's, but I have read things stating that even the next gen processors (for socket AM3) are supposed to be backwards compatable to AM2 motherboards (only they lack in features like DDR3 and HyperTransport 2.0 that will come with AM3 boards). Intel Quad cores have been stated as compatable with current C2D motherboards, but intel has had more of a habbit of changing the required chipsets (I think that might have been what a previous poster was referring to), which means that although your new fancy processor "fits" into your board it doesnt actually work. AMD has been better at the long term planning for that kinda thing, meaning that you probably have a better chance of being able to make a simple drop in upgrade with AMD. All in all though, the C2D board will probably still last you a while, especially since its just come out, and they are the better processors in my opinion at the moment. Im going through this same debate (Ive been going back and forth for a month or two now, probably buying my comp in maybe 2 weeks or so) and I think Ive now settled on the Conroe being the best buy. It might not be the most futureproofed, but its pretty good, plus it seems like a little bit better of a chip for right now (especially if you want to OC it).
humm. ok well i believe that the 4600 am2 only has 2x512 l2 cache, which core 2 duo would that best relate to? now we play the speed game. i know that overall intel is spanking amd, shame cause i would like to root for amd. oh such a tough choice!!!
From what I've read and been told the 4600 and e6300 preform on about the same level. The 6300 is about $50 cheaper though. For the price of the 4600 you can get an e6400 and it's performance is closer to a 5000 or fx-62. The problem with a C2D is the mother boards cost more than the AMD boards so that needs to be taken into acount when building the whole system.
Check this out. It should help explain how they all stack up.
The cache on the AMD chips is almost irrelivant as long as you do have the 512kb amount. The difference between that and 1mb is very small because of the integrated memory controller on the AMD chip! I have a 3700+ sandy with 1mb of cache @ 2.4ghz, but I just ordered a 3800+ X2 (since it cost me all of $146 on zzf.com full retail 8O ), which I plan on running at the same settings (9.5x252.7)x(4xHTT) which will give me 2400.65mhz with 1010.8mhz (2021.6mhz effective HTT speed) The reason for this setting is because with setting my ram at 333mhz I can run my stock low timmings of (2-3-2-5) and it runs at 200.1mhz with the overclock! My point is, is that even though I am losing half the L2 cache in order to gain a second core and have the exact same speed settings I dont believe that I will have much of a loss on my single core games because my friend who has a 3500+ venice on my same settings gets all of 1 - 3 fps less than me depending on the game most the time its the exact same since we have same video card, so dont worry about that cache difference...Intel benefits from the extra cache alot more than AMD because of their FSB tech!
ok well after looking a little more at the core 2 duo option (conroe right?) i definately think that the motherboards are pretty expensive (between 160 and 200+) maybe i will check out other am2 options....though i dont know how much cheapter the mobos are. i know what 3ball said about the cache, but i was still not quite convinced, say you compare a 4400+ x2 with a 4600+x2 (am2) which would be faster? the 4400+ has 2x1mb cache, whild the 4600+ has 2x512.....
I don't think AMD is making any more CPU's with 1mb cache. There all going to be 2 x 512 except the 4000 x2 which is 2.0 GHz and 2 x 1mb cache. The 4600 should out perform the 4400 in most aplications due to the 200 mhz increase in core speed. The extra cache only gives advantages in certain areas such as video encoding. AMD's cache is not as important due to the fact the memory controller is built into the cpu. Even the new x6800 from intel can't comete with AMD's memory bandwidth. Both of thoes AMD processors are very powerful and the difference between the two will be minimul in any situation. As for motherboards it depends on your aplication. A quality nvidia 570 board is about 130 to 150 bucks and a 590 board is around $200. The 590 will add perfomance increases that will be useful in gameing.
The layout of that board is great in my opinion because of the spacing for the video card and PC Slots! Make sure you are using SATA for your hard drives and you will be ok becaus there is only 1 ATA slot as most boards are nowadays! ABIT is a great manufacturer and they have just merged with 2 other smaller companies! So the quality of their boards is believe to be back to how it was 2 years ago when they were my fave motherboard maker, which they will be who I buy when I switch over to conroe. So I would say that the board is a good buy!