Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD or Intel -- Decided on Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 3, 2006 10:15:04 PM

I've been undecided about this for a while, and now I have to make my decision tomorrow (last day of employee computer purchase program at work).

I want a system that performs well, but performance isn't everything. I want low power usage, and good upgrade prospects. I tend to keep the same PC for about 5 years, so it would be really nice if I could upgrade my CPU in a year or two without having to buy a new motherboard. 775 has been around for a long time, and Intel seems to keep pulling a trick where they keep making new chips that use the same socket but aren't backwards compatible with older motherboards, makes me a bit nervous about an upgrade future with Intel.

OTOH, AM2 is relatively new, and AMD has said that AM2+ and AM3 processors will be backwards compatible with AM2 motherboards. BUT with AMD floundering to regain the performance lead, what are the chances they will make drastic changes sooner and scrap the backwards compatibility plan? Or what if they continue on their path but only lag further and further behind Intel?

It kind of seems like Intel is the better choice, though my understanding is that AM2 EE chips are more energy efficient than C2Ds, and to make my decision harder the boards that have the features I want are the Asus P2B-E and the M2N-SLI Deluxe -- and the M2N seems like a much better design, especially since I will be using PATA and SATA and it looks like the PATA cable will block the SATA slots on the P2B.

More about : amd intel decided intel

December 3, 2006 10:24:09 PM

Get a Core2. It is
- cheaper
- more energy efficient
- cooler
- more overclockable
than same performing K8(be it EE or not).

About upgradability, get a mainboards with VRM 1.1. Those are compatible with Core2 Quad CPUs.
December 3, 2006 10:24:34 PM

I'd say build a system based around the E6600 and the Asus P5. That's probably the most common start for configuring custom computers in the last two or three months.

If you really want to go AMD, do it. Like you said, their new processors will be perfectly compatible with AM2 (don't be worried about a big performance hit from a lack of HT3.0, no current AMD processor even touches the upper limit of its HT bandwidth). But you will, of course, have to upgrade to get better performance than a current K8.
Related resources
December 3, 2006 10:51:51 PM

Is the performance difference between an E6300 or E6400 and an X2 3800+ or x2 4200+ perceptable in everyday use? While the AMD chips are a lot more expensive to get equal performance, I don't really care if it's only going to show up on benchmarks. I'd rather get something cheap with good performance now that I can upgrade to get great performance later, than wpend a lot now.

I have to admit that it does sound like C2D is the smart way to go, though...
December 3, 2006 11:15:26 PM

Quote:
Is the performance difference between an E6300 or E6400 and an X2 3800+ or x2 4200+ perceptable in everyday use? While the AMD chips are a lot more expensive to get equal performance, I don't really care if it's only going to show up on benchmarks. I'd rather get something cheap with good performance now that I can upgrade to get great performance later, than wpend a lot now.

I have to admit that it does sound like C2D is the smart way to go, though...


It depends on what you plan to do with your new PC. On average, an E6300 is 10 - 15% faster than an X2 3800+, and likewise an E6400 vs X2 4200+. TBH in a blind test you are unlikely to notice the difference.

One thing that puts C2D ahead of AM2 is it's overclockability. Almost all E6300s/E6400s can overclock past the 3GHz mark, and at such speeds it would leave any overclocked AM2 chip far behind.

Even if you don't intend to overclock now, think of it as a free future 'upgrade' should you require more CPU speed in future.
December 4, 2006 2:54:20 AM

Quote:

Even if you don't intend to overclock now, think of it as a free future 'upgrade' should you require more CPU speed in future.


Great statement...very well put!!! And, very true.
December 4, 2006 3:21:12 AM

Yah, what he said.
New 680 board are nice for the E6600.
December 4, 2006 10:35:56 AM

You will notice the difference in performance when you will do CPU intensive tasks.
The performance difference between E6300(1866MHz) and E6400(2133MHz) is 14.3% (100% * [2133MHz - 1866MHz] / 1866MHz)
The diference between X2 3800+(2000MHz) and X2 4200+(2200MHz) is 10% (100% * [2200MHz - 2000MHz] / 2000MHz)
The E6300 is 15% faster than X2 3800+ in average, while it is 5% faster than the X2 4200+.
The E6400 is 33% faster than X2 3800+ in average, while it is 20% faster than the X2 4200+.

If you are not going to OC, than the best bang for the buck will be a cheap C2D mainboard, E6300, DDR2-667 CL5.
If you want to overclock, than the best perfromance/price offers a mid-range OC mainboard with i965P chipset, E6400, DDR2-800 CL5.
I am looking after OC mainboard with i965P chipset. So far I have to decide between Asus P5B-E or Gigabyte GA965P-DS3. I choosed A-DATA DDR2-800 CL5 because are less expencive where I can buy my hardware.
December 4, 2006 10:37:42 AM

While AM2 AM2+ and AM3 are "compatible" if you put an AM3 chip in an AM2 board it will cripple the performance and only run as well as the AM2 version of that chip. Core2Duo is relatively cheap and powerful. You probably won't need to upgrade until the next generation anyway so go Intel for the time being.
December 4, 2006 10:45:03 AM

If I had to buy a CPU tomorrow and keep it for ~5years, then I'd get a C2D, an E6400 or 6600 maybe
December 4, 2006 10:49:12 AM

AM2, AM2+ and AM3+ are not compatible, but AM2+ and AM3 CPUs are compatible with sAM2 mainboards.
IMO the profrmance of the future K8L architecture chips with dual DDR2-800 will not be crippled.
K8 dual core CPUs are offering the same performance with dual DDR-400 and dual DDR2-800. sAM2 platform has sufficient memory bandwidth to run twice cores smoothly. Also K8L will have shared L3 cache, which will reduce the RAM traffic and RAM latency.
But, we'll have to wait more than half year before we can expect K8L CPUs to appear on the market.
December 4, 2006 11:14:54 AM

Hence why the word "compatible" is in quotations. AMD has already stated that running the next-gen chips in the older mobos will not have the same performance as a next-gen chip + next-gen mobo thanks to DDR3. The HT3 capacity of an AM3 chip tops out at over 5Gbps while current AM2 mobos top out at 2.0GBps, not using the full capacity of the memory controller and thus crippling the chips real memory through-put capacity.
December 4, 2006 11:40:36 AM

The speed of the HT link for 1P configuration is irelevant. It can't improve perfromance theoreticly and practicly.
The memory controller is connected directly to the RAM, not via the HT link, so the speed of the HT link can't affect the RAM perfromance in any way.
December 4, 2006 12:02:59 PM

It is not the ram's performance, but the memory bandwidth the chip will be able to process per clock cycle. It is not the CPU's problem but the MOTHERBOARD's problem. AM2 MOTHERBOARDS cannot handle the extra capacity. Multi-core AM3 (beyond dual core) CPUs would be able to utilize the extra headroom, but not if they are installed in a current AM2 motherboard.
December 4, 2006 12:21:44 PM

@tlreaves
No, you are wrong about the mainboards.
Mainboards are not handling the memory bandwidth. It is the ODMC on the CPU. The mainoard is only connecting the DDR2 data & ECC pins (128 data + 16 ECC pins) to the CPU socket via 144 lanes and supplies the RAM modules with electricity.
The reason for the lower efficiency of the DDR2 ODMC compared to DDR ODMC on the K8 CPUs is the higher latency in clocks and the different data length transfered per bit per clock(2bits for DDR and 4bits for DDR2).
The ODMC(actually there will be two ODMCs on the K8L) on the K8L CPUs will be different and probably more optimised for DDR2 memory than the ODMC on the current K8 CPUs. K8L ODMC should perfrorm better than the ODMC on the K8.
December 4, 2006 12:34:42 PM

I'm sorry I confused you with the way I worded it. I shouldn't have said memory bandwidth. It is the Giga-transfers per second. AM3 supports over 5 Giga-transfers per second, the current generation of AM2 boards can only handle 2. It is what you call a bottleneck.
December 4, 2006 12:39:40 PM

IMHO, the only real bottleneck you will feel is your hard disk drive if you're still using the mainstream 7200rpm hdds without any raid on them.
December 4, 2006 12:47:11 PM

That is true, but I'm referring more to "future proofing." Quad core and greater CPU's will probably be able to use at least some of that extra 3GB by the time AM3 is released.
December 4, 2006 12:47:48 PM

if performance isn't everything, then the AMD EE will do just fine. buy the lowest AMD EE, a good respectable budget AM2 motherboard with graphic onboard, value ram. good buck for the money..

you will able to upgrade to anykind of upgrade in the next few years consider that the value hardware you will buy are not so expensive, so whether upgrade or buy a new system won't knock your company bank account so bad.

perhaps the amount of money you spend on the high end system right now will equal to the amount of money you upgrade/purchase new system in the future if you keep low-end or mid-end enthusiast. there, you will often have the latest technology.

so good luck!
December 4, 2006 12:49:38 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry I confused you with the way I worded it. I shouldn't have said memory bandwidth. It is the Giga-transfers per second. AM3 supports over 5 Giga-transfers per second, the current generation of AM2 boards can only handle 2. It is what you call a bottleneck.
The giga transfers you are talking are about the HT bus. And as I said, it is irrelevant for 1P systems, it is not a bottleneck. It can improve the interCPU communication in MP systems only when using NUMA. By using NUMA the system gets more memory bandwidth, which in certain cases can improve the performance.
December 4, 2006 12:52:13 PM

oh i see. but by the time AM3 is out, he will need a new cpu, mobo, and ram since the current AM2 won;t fully utilize the Gb transfer it has. it's almost a total upgrade i see.. :p 
December 4, 2006 12:57:54 PM

forgot to ask. what's the main purpose you will use this computer for?

or you just want a new pc that will last 5 years?

c2d will last for 5 years for general office and internet use since it's just a brand new microarchitecture, in my opinion. amd ee will last for 5 years too for the same usage purpose, but its microarchitecture is already here for 3 years long.
December 4, 2006 1:32:57 PM

It's going to replace my current computer, which still has adequate performance (though it's starting to feel a little sluggish), but is noisy as hell and produces a lot of heat.
Current system is dual AMD MP 1800+, 768MB PC2100 RAM, ATLAS 10K IV Boot drive (major source of noise), Matrox G450. This system is completely incapable of playing games. I'd like to be able to play games even if it's not at the highest/prettiest settings.

I do a bit of everything with my computer. Most of the time it's sitting idle while I'm at work, but I do use it to serve up MP3's to my work PC, and I remote into it to do various things...so I don't want to leave it off, but it spends most of its time idling, which is why idle power consumption is important to me. I do a lot of web surfing, but I'm a pretty serious multitasker (15 tabs open at the moment in firefox, 19 programs running at the moment). Compiling C++, ripping DVDs and encoding MP3 are tasks I do fairly regularly, though my computer is fairly adequate in this regard (I generally start the tasks and then go do something else).

I think I will go with C2D, though I am now rethinking my motherbord choice, may go with something cheaper with integrated video to keep the price down. I'm not sure, but I'd better decide soon!
December 4, 2006 1:37:23 PM

well as usual everyone has jumped the gun and started making suggestions before they even have a clue about what this person needs.

in order to answer your question fairly we need to know two things...

1. whats your budget?
2. what will the PC be used for? (gaming, developing, music, or general use)

without knowing this all i can suggest is that you go with the cheapest dual core cpu you can find. you really wont notice the difference in typical applications and it will serve you far better to invest the money you saved on the processor to be used on superior memory, hard drives, and graphics.

its undeniable that hard drives are the bottleneck of any system. invest in the highest performing, highest capacity drives you can find. make sure you have a raid option here, either on the motherboard or an expansion card of some kind.

the fastest, lowest latency memory module you can find will also allow you to overclock your cpu later on if necessary. adding additional performance later when needed.

new video cards are released so frequently these days. i suggest finding benchmarks for whichever game you play the most and choosing the cheapest card that will get you the closest to 60 fps. 30 fps is all you need to play but 60 fps will ensure that your system wont bog down in high visual settings and will allow you to run AA and other features.
December 4, 2006 1:39:27 PM

heh you beat me too it. im a slow typer. :roll:

dont skimp on the motherboard. make sure you get as many features as possible. a good motherboard can provide for a cheaper upgrade path in the future.

it seems like this will be more for storage than anything else. save your money on processors and devote that money to storage. lots of memory and get a couple of the biggest/fastest hard drives you can get ahold of.

check here for suggestions.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&mo...
December 4, 2006 1:50:39 PM

If I was building a new box today I would have to go with an Intel C2D. I don't believe it is possible to build a system with long term, over 2 years, cost effective upgradeability.
December 4, 2006 1:50:49 PM

oh ok now i know.

based on your daily usage. c2d will feed you more than enough.

cpu: intel c2d e6300 (go with e6600 if you want more raw performance when encoding-decoding and rendering)
pcb: foxconn G9657MA-8KS2H
ram: 2gb of supertalent value ram (ddr2 533 if you're not planning to overclock, go with higher speed if you intend to overclock such as supertalent ddr2 800 c4 - the best performance of ddr2 800)

here's a good review from a very respectable reviewer:
http://www.sysopt.com/features/mboard/article.php/3646241

good luck and let us know what's your new system be.. :) 
December 4, 2006 2:00:40 PM

Without knowing your budget its basically impossible to suggest either, CPU just isnt as important as enough memory, the right mainboard, and display card these days. If you go AMD though, you can get away with spending less on the chip and put the money into RAM, MB, VC, and PSU. Id rank all those components as being more important than your CPU.
December 4, 2006 2:03:14 PM

hehehe. i forgot to ask that question at first.

what a great company that its own employee may decide what's gonna his new system be. i would love to get the same attention from where i work at too. hehe :twisted:
a c 102 à CPUs
December 4, 2006 2:43:48 PM

If you are just looking at upgradeability in the future, get a socket AM2 board by a decent maker. Put an X2 in it- the 4200+ and 4600+ rival Intel for bang-for-the-buck. The 4200+ is all-around a tad better than the E6300 while the 4600+ is a little slower than the E6400. Both are pretty powerful CPUs anyway, and it's stupid IMO to get a real high-end CPU as the bang-for-the-buck stinks. I'd go this route- heck, I *did* go this route with my builds! When the AMD quad-core Agena CPUs ship, they'll work in any AM2 motherboard. Core 2 Quadros will *not* work in any Core 2 Duo-compatible motherboard; one example is the Intel 975X Bad Axe board that supports Core 2 Duo. The Bad Axe II supports Core 2 Quadro, but those have just begun to ship...

If you simply want power today, a 965 chipset LGA 775 board with an E6600 is recommended. The E6600 is a 4MB Conroe versus the 2MB Allendale E6300s and E6400s, and this gives it a decent boost. The E6600 is somewhere around the AMD FX-62 in gaming performance and is quite a bit less expensive. You won't beat a QuadFX with an E6600 in anything, but it's not too expensive. The E6700 is much more expensive for a little extra clock speed, and I'd never recommend a top-end chip like the X6800 or QX6700. Too expensive for what they provide.
December 4, 2006 5:01:34 PM

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear, the employee purchasing program means I can buy a PC for home use with an interest free loan.

My budget is...not clear. Cheaper is better. Under 700 preferred, under 1000 a must.

Aren't some of the intel MBs claiming to be quad core compatible?

Edit: also I am looking for a board with firewire capabilities. I'd like to put some of the drives in my current system in external firewire enclosures and use them for backups, and I'm sick of crappy USB 2.0 performance.

At the moment these boards look like possibilities:

Gigabyte GA-965GM-S2
Asus P5B-VM
Intel BOXDP965LTCK
MSI P965 Platinum
Asus P5B-E

I think those of you who have been saying C2D has a better future are right. If I need more performance I can try overclocking. If that doesn't work and future C2Ds require a different MB, I can put a core 2 extreme available today which definitely works with these boards. Seems better than speculating that future AMD chips that don't exist yet PROBABLY will work with my current MB.
December 4, 2006 5:26:40 PM

Another thought: I'm considering getting a single 1GB stick of memory now (I know, performance will be worse at first), and then when memory prices become more reasonable I'll get another 1GB stick and then be able to use dual channel. I'd like to have 2GB in the new system, but prices are very high at the moment, so 1GB makes more sense for the short term, but I'd rather have more room for upgrading later and 2*512 now plus 2*512 later means no room for memory upgrades down the road.

Is this a really terrible idea?
December 4, 2006 7:07:26 PM

Right choice; performance is hit only few percent in single channel mode and it's really worth to keep a good upgrade available.
December 4, 2006 9:02:05 PM

AM2+ processors will work with both AM2 and AM3 boards. NO speculation here!
AM2 board will support future AM2+ processors. True Quad Core with new L3 Cache which will b better than Intel’s current Glued Quad core for sure
For upgrade I think AM2 is a better choice.

Get a Quad Core supporting mobo if u go for Intel.
December 4, 2006 9:28:57 PM

Well, I put in my request. Can't actually order anything until it's approved.

E6300 Conroe
SeaSonic S12-500 PSU
Asus P5B-E motherboard
WD WD5000KS 500GB 7200RPM SATA II
Antec P180 case.

Haven't settled on a video card, ran out of time and haven't even considered those yet. I'll just buy it outside of the purchasing program. I certainly won't be buying a powerhouse GPU; I'd rather keep the cost, heat and energy use down.
December 4, 2006 10:16:14 PM

Quote:
AM2+ processors will work with both AM2 and AM3 boards. NO speculation here!

Nope,
AM2+ processors will work with both AM2 and AM2+ mainboards.
AM3 processors will work with AM2, AM2+ and AM3 mainboards.
AM2 -> DDR2, HTT1
AM2+ -> DDR2, HTT3
AM3 -> DDR3, HTT3

Quote:
AM2 board will support future AM2+ processors. True Quad Core with new L3 Cache which will b better than Intel’s current Glued Quad core for sure

This is total BS!
True quadcore CPU is Kentsfield and Clovertown. It is simple 4 cores on 1 CPU.
We don't know how good the L3 cache of K8L will be, but we know that the caches on the K8 are slower than the caches on the Core2 & Pentium D.
Also we don't know how will perform K8L exactly, but so far according to the data we have today, we can expect to perfrom like Core2 Quad, clock for clock.
December 4, 2006 10:56:11 PM

I had reasons to say K8L will b better than Intel’s Glued Quad Core. Intel’s QC uses the FSB to transfer data between the 2 L2 caches while the K8L will use the Share L3 cache. K8L may b a bit better than Core2 in performance per clock too. We will see when the benchmarks come out.
So the K8L better than Glued QC is not a total BS!

Quote:
AMD HAS FOURsocket types coming in the next two years, and that is before the variants for each market segment are taken into account. Things could get interesting, and AMD may well attract the same criticisms as Intel did in the early Pentium 4 (423/478/603/604) days. Pin counts only change once, but that is as much of a problem as a saving grace.

The first socket is the current one, AM2. There is an AM2+ and an AM3 in the works as well, all should be available in about a year. A year or so after that comes the unnamed socket for Cerberus. It is going to get mighty interesting, and with any luck AMD will build in enough logic to avoid lots of acrid smoke that used to be expensive CPUs.

AM2 is a known quantity. You can go out and buy it now. AM2+ is a variant that will arrive in the Barcelona time frame, basically Q2. It brings us the wonder of split voltage planes so you can "volt" the CPU differently from the memory controller, freeing AMD from one of its bigger frequency scaling headaches.

AM2 chips can plug into AM2+ sockets, and AM2+ chips can plug into AM2 sockets, but you will lose functionality in the latter case, and not gain anything in the former.

AM3 is the successor to AM2+ (duh), and it arrives in the Shanghai/Budapest generation. AM3 chips have HT3.0 and force a split voltage plane. You can do all sorts of tricks with HT3.0 that you could not do with HT2.x, so this will be a major step forward, but the pin count should not change.

You can plug an AM2+ chip into an AM3 socket, and plug an AM3 chip into an AM2+ socket. Again you do not gain functionality going forward, and you lose functionality going backward. This assumes that the AM3 boards do not use features that make the AM2+ chips choke like splitting HT links. While I have not heard for sure, this AM2+ chip on advanced AM3 boards does not sound feasible, so I will go out on a limb and say it won't work.

AM3 forces split voltage planes, where it is supported in AM2+ and not supported in AM2. This means AM2 and AM3 sockets and chips will not play well together no matter how hard you push them into the socket. AM2+ chips will go both ways, pun intended.

That brings us to Cerberus, and it's integrated PCIe. Guess what, you need more pins for that, lots more. This means a new physical socket, and that is not compatible with AM3. Since these parts are due in late 08, that makes it the fourth new socket in 2 years. OEMs hate this.

Remember I said something about variants? At the very least, there will be an A64 socket and an Opteron socket, so that means 8 sockets in 2 years, one a quarter. Lets not forget laptops, the occasional 4x4 tweak, and who knows what else. This means that the staid old AMD socket that never changes will change a lot.

If you collect mobos like Pokemon cards, the next two years will be a golden time for you. If you design or buy said parts, it will be more of a headache. There is good reason to do each of the moves, but the grumblings of discontent are already starting.
December 4, 2006 10:58:08 PM

Quote:
Well, I put in my request. Can't actually order anything until it's approved.

E6300 Conroe
SeaSonic S12-500 PSU
Asus P5B-E motherboard
WD WD5000KS 500GB 7200RPM SATA II
Antec P180 case.

Haven't settled on a video card, ran out of time and haven't even considered those yet. I'll just buy it outside of the purchasing program. I certainly won't be buying a powerhouse GPU; I'd rather keep the cost, heat and energy use down.


nice choice. :) 
December 4, 2006 11:05:04 PM

until the real benchmark pops up, intel still leaps ahead. :p 
December 4, 2006 11:10:48 PM

yep looks good.

good motherboard, nice hard drive (which you seemed to need the most with the dvd/mp3 ripping)

since you dont game much then a 7900gt or x1950pro should suit your needs just fine. you can find either for 200 or less.
December 4, 2006 11:15:36 PM

Quote:
I had reasons to say K8L will b better than Intel’s Glued Quad Core. Intel’s QC uses the FSB to transfer data between the 2 L2 caches while the K8L will use the Share L3 cache. K8L may b a bit better than Core2 in performance per clock too. We will see when the benchmarks come out.
So the K8L better than Glued QC is not a total BS!

Why don't you look at the Core2 Quad benchmarks before you say something more stupid about Core2 Quad perfromance scallability.
About the perfromance K8L might be slower, faster or equal to Core2 Quad. We can't make any conclusions before the ES benchmarks. Meanwhile the 45nm Core2 will be enriched with more L2 cache, more instructions, faster FSB and other.


Also, don't quote BS from the_INQ. It proves nothing and has ZERO credibility as any source of information or technical data.
It is simple, AM2 & AM2+ mainboards will have DDR2, while AM3 will have DDR3. K8L CPUs will be compatible with DDR2/DDR3 and HTT1/HTT3 and are able to fit in all sAM2, sAM2+ and sAM3 mainboards. sAM2+ mainboards will have HTT3 which is backwards compatible with HTT1. There will be no sAM2+ CPUs, but sAM3 CPUs. The trick here is that the sAM3 will come latter because it is too early for transition to DDR3 in Q3/Q4 2007. When sAM3 mainboards will be released, the old K8L CPUs will handle the DDR3 RAM. The CPUs with DDR2 ODMC will not work in mainboards with DDR3.
December 4, 2006 11:45:11 PM

Quote:
I had reasons to say K8L will b better than Intel’s Glued Quad Core. Intel’s QC uses the FSB to transfer data between the 2 L2 caches while the K8L will use the Share L3 cache. K8L may b a bit better than Core2 in performance per clock too. We will see when the benchmarks come out.
So the K8L better than Glued QC is not a total BS!

Why don't you look at the Core2 Quad benchmarks before you say something more stupid about Core2 Quad perfromance scallability.
About the perfromance K8L might be slower, faster or equal to Core2 Quad. We can't make any conclusions before the ES benchmarks. Meanwhile the 45nm Core2 will be enriched with more L2 cache, more instructions, faster FSB and other.


Also, don't quote BS from the_INQ. It proves nothing and has ZERO credibility as any source of information or technical data.
It is simple, AM2 & AM2+ mainboards will have DDR2, while AM3 will have DDR3. K8L CPUs will be compatible with DDR2/DDR3 and HTT1/HTT3 and are able to fit in all sAM2, sAM2+ and sAM3 mainboards. sAM2+ mainboards will have HTT3 which is backwards compatible with HTT1. There will be no sAM2+ CPUs, but sAM3 CPUs. The trick here is that the sAM3 will come latter because it is too early for transition to DDR3 in Q3/Q4 2007. When sAM3 mainboards will be released, the old K8L CPUs will handle the DDR3 RAM. The CPUs with DDR2 ODMC will not work in mainboards with DDR3.

two moron fanboys beating each other over the head. i cant get enough. :lol: 

lamerz what a waste of your time to even post this stuff. hardly anyone can afford the kentsfield and the difference between the lower models of both amd and intel are so close its hardly worth mentioning.

crawl out of your computer dungeons and get a life.
December 5, 2006 12:04:18 AM

Forgot to mention, chose this RAM: CORSAIR XMS2 1GB DDR2 800 CM2X1024-6400
Single stick. Hopefully it'll work in a dual channel configuration when I buy another one later!
I'm surprised nobody asked. Too busy bickering I guess. ;) 

I found no evidence that AM2+ or AM3 will definitely be compatible with existing AM2 motherboards. I realize that AMD claims they will, but since they don't exist yet, things can change. Or it could turn out that while technically compatible, the only way to realize the performance gains will be to upgrade mobos. Or maybe all that's needed is a BIOS update, but mobo manufacturers will decide it's not worth their time to release BIOS updates for their boards because they'd rather have you buy a new AM2+ or AM3 board. It's all speculation at this point isn't it? I haven't seen any AM2 boards claiming AM2+ or AM3 compatability, meanwhile I *have* seen Intel boards claiming to be quad core ready (the P5B-E is one of these, of course). I think that says something. Maybe I'm wrong.

While the specs may indicate the AM2+ or AM3 will catch up or surpass Intel performance, without benchmarks it's impossible to be sure, looking at specs before it seemed like AMD would have the lead for a long way to come.

I prefer AMD because I like rooting for the underdog, and I cheered for them when they were the performance king (lasted a long time too). But this time I had to go with Intel...ultimately it was the more practical choice, I believe.
December 5, 2006 12:40:13 AM

i know its a little late now but you know you could have picked up two 512mb modules and gained dual channel. their are four memory slots on the board you selected so you could have added two 512 models later. the price difference would have been minimal.

but no matter now. :wink:
December 5, 2006 1:16:25 AM

Quote:
I had reasons to say K8L will b better than Intel’s Glued Quad Core. Intel’s QC uses the FSB to transfer data between the 2 L2 caches while the K8L will use the Share L3 cache. K8L may b a bit better than Core2 in performance per clock too. We will see when the benchmarks come out.
So the K8L better than Glued QC is not a total BS!

AMD HAS FOURsocket types coming in the next two years, and that is before the variants for each market segment are taken into account. Things could get interesting, and AMD may well attract the same criticisms as Intel did in the early Pentium 4 (423/478/603/604) days. Pin counts only change once, but that is as much of a problem as a saving grace.

The first socket is the current one, AM2. There is an AM2+ and an AM3 in the works as well, all should be available in about a year. A year or so after that comes the unnamed socket for Cerberus. It is going to get mighty interesting, and with any luck AMD will build in enough logic to avoid lots of acrid smoke that used to be expensive CPUs.

AM2 is a known quantity. You can go out and buy it now. AM2+ is a variant that will arrive in the Barcelona time frame, basically Q2. It brings us the wonder of split voltage planes so you can "volt" the CPU differently from the memory controller, freeing AMD from one of its bigger frequency scaling headaches.

AM2 chips can plug into AM2+ sockets, and AM2+ chips can plug into AM2 sockets, but you will lose functionality in the latter case, and not gain anything in the former.

AM3 is the successor to AM2+ (duh), and it arrives in the Shanghai/Budapest generation. AM3 chips have HT3.0 and force a split voltage plane. You can do all sorts of tricks with HT3.0 that you could not do with HT2.x, so this will be a major step forward, but the pin count should not change.

You can plug an AM2+ chip into an AM3 socket, and plug an AM3 chip into an AM2+ socket. Again you do not gain functionality going forward, and you lose functionality going backward. This assumes that the AM3 boards do not use features that make the AM2+ chips choke like splitting HT links. While I have not heard for sure, this AM2+ chip on advanced AM3 boards does not sound feasible, so I will go out on a limb and say it won't work.

AM3 forces split voltage planes, where it is supported in AM2+ and not supported in AM2. This means AM2 and AM3 sockets and chips will not play well together no matter how hard you push them into the socket. AM2+ chips will go both ways, pun intended.

That brings us to Cerberus, and it's integrated PCIe. Guess what, you need more pins for that, lots more. This means a new physical socket, and that is not compatible with AM3. Since these parts are due in late 08, that makes it the fourth new socket in 2 years. OEMs hate this.

Remember I said something about variants? At the very least, there will be an A64 socket and an Opteron socket, so that means 8 sockets in 2 years, one a quarter. Lets not forget laptops, the occasional 4x4 tweak, and who knows what else. This means that the staid old AMD socket that never changes will change a lot.

If you collect mobos like Pokemon cards, the next two years will be a golden time for you. If you design or buy said parts, it will be more of a headache. There is good reason to do each of the moves, but the grumblings of discontent are already starting.
Intel is already sampling 45nm parts, while AMD has yet to get a 65nm part on the market. Even with K8L AMD is going to have a difficult time competing seeing as CSI and the ODMC will be standard for Intel CPUs before you know it, not to mention the massive clockspeed advantage they'll have as well.
a c 102 à CPUs
December 5, 2006 1:32:03 AM

You do *not* need a 500W PSU for that setup. The Core 2 Duo Allendales (the E6600, E6700, and E6800s are Conroes, the 2MB L2 E6300 and E6400 models are Allendales) don't consume that much power and no single GPU that you will put in there will make you pull even near to 500W.

Worst-case wattages:
CPU: ~90W
Motherboard: 30-40W
HDD: 20W
Fans: let's say 30-40W for all of them
RAM: 10W
Optical drive: 30W
Video card: 150W (this is NVIDIA 8800 territory, other cards are less.)

Total: 330-350W

You'd be just fine with a 430-450W PSU as most of the time your unit will be running less than 100W, and probably less than 200 at full roar. If you run a more reasonable GPU like an ATi x1600 series or NVIDIA 7600, halve the GPU power requirement and a 380-400W PSU will do you fine. A budget GPU like an ATi x1300 or NVIDIA 7300 only uses about 30W or so, so a 320-350W PSU will be fine. Buying way too much PSU is just wasting your money and wasting watts as a big PSU lightly loaded is less efficient and hotter than a moderately loaded smaller one. And it's not the wattages that really matter, but the amperages on the 12V rails. SeaSonic makes some darn nice PSUs, just get yourself one a size or two smaller and you'll be more than happy.
a c 102 à CPUs
December 5, 2006 1:36:41 AM

Those are all high-line cards, you do know that. Dropping $200 on a card to not game much is pretty wasteful IMO. A card for somebody who does not game much would be an x1600 or 7600- and the $100 versions at that. My system ran fine on a 6200TC until I decided to get a second monitor and wanted to get into things that needed a stouter GPU.
December 5, 2006 3:12:01 AM

Quote:
Intel is already sampling 45nm parts, while AMD has yet to get a 65nm part on the market. Even with K8L AMD is going to have a difficult time competing seeing as CSI and the ODMC will be standard for Intel CPUs before you know it, not to mention the massive clockspeed advantage they'll have as well.


LOL Uhm, whats your argument here? Intel can barely squeeze out an advantage with 65nm vs 90nm AMD so somehow 45nm will make it all better.

What happens when AMD goes 65nm, will Intel have to squeeze down to 45 just to compete again. You are pulling at strings here trying to make a point that really isnt a good point. Stop while you are ahead.

Quote:
Total: 330-350W

You'd be just fine with a 430-450W PSU


Just because a power supply says its 500W doesnt necessarily mean that it will be able to reach that mark. Most of them dont even come close. There hasnt been a PS review in a while here but the last one arranged here on toms had several burn out before they even reached the watts they claimed to be at. In all likely-hood his 500w PS will only be able to deliver 450 anyway.

Its alway a good idea to get more power supply than you need. Remember you have a small generator in your PC. Do you really want to put one in there thats running at 100% to do the job or one that can do the job at 50%?
December 5, 2006 5:48:47 AM

Quote:
LOL Uhm, whats your argument here? Intel can barely squeeze out an advantage with 65nm vs 90nm AMD so somehow 45nm will make it all better.

Typical fanboi argument. Look at Pentium M: Banais 130nm, Dothan 90nm, Core: Yonah 65nm. They could definitely keep up with equivalent AMD processors, installed in a desktop platform.

"It's not the process, stupid, it's the architecture!" (No offense)

Quote:
What happens when AMD goes 65nm, will Intel have to squeeze down to 45 just to compete again. You are pulling at strings here trying to make a point that really isnt a good point. Stop while you are ahead.

We find out today. Just wait a few hours.

Quote:
Just because a power supply says its 500W doesnt necessarily mean that it will be able to reach that mark. Most of them dont even come close. There hasnt been a PS review in a while here but the last one arranged here on toms had several burn out before they even reached the watts they claimed to be at. In all likely-hood his 500w PS will only be able to deliver 450 anyway.

I dunno what brand power supplies you use, but all of mine have passed my 110% Rated Load stress test. I use FSP Group and Sparkle Power brand power supplies.

Quote:
Its alway a good idea to get more power supply than you need. Remember you have a small generator in your PC. Do you really want to put one in there thats running at 100% to do the job or one that can do the job at 50%?

Not always the case, if you get an overpowered power supply, it is not as efficient as getting one appropriately sized. Also, to nitpick, it's not a generator, it's an ac-dc convertor. Generators produce electricity from other forms of energy. To answer your question, I would get a power supply that runs at 80-85% of capacity.
December 5, 2006 12:14:44 PM

Quote:
Typical fanboi argument. Look at Pentium M: Banais 130nm, Dothan 90nm, Core: Yonah 65nm. They could definitely keep up with equivalent AMD processors, installed in a desktop platform.

"It's not the process, stupid, it's the architecture!" (No offense)


I guess you didnt get the clue. Re-read the post "stupid." Its called sarcasm. I was making the same point. The guy was trying to say that die shrinks somehow increase performance. But Im guessing you had to make yourself feel better by posting something obvious.

Quote:
I dunno what brand power supplies you use, but all of mine have passed my 110% Rated Load stress test. I use FSP Group and Sparkle Power brand power supplies.


well heres the PSU roundup perhaps you should read it before you make statements that begin with "I dunno"

I think you will come to the same conclusion that I have once you read the article. Especially with a brand that I've never heard of like Seasonic. He was more than justified with the 500W PSU.

Quote:
Not always the case, if you get an overpowered power supply, it is not as efficient as getting one appropriately sized. Also, to nitpick, it's not a generator, it's an ac-dc convertor. Generators produce electricity from other forms of energy. To answer your question, I would get a power supply that runs at 80-85% of capacity.


Your statement is completely false. A PSU running at 100% is producing a lot of heat. Anyone with half a brain knows that heat is the biggest enemy of electricity. Its causes much greater resistance which means your PSU will have to work harder to do the same job, which in turn decreases its lifespan. Not to mention LESS EFFICIENT, which completely debunks your whole statement. At 85% adding one major component like a new video card could put your new system in jeopardy of being non-functional in one quick swoop.
!