I would like to try building a budget PC. I will have a case will multiple bays for HDDs (more than 4), a low-end mobo, something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168.... I like this mobo for the 4PCI, 2PATA, and 4SATA. Many, or most of the boards I have seen at this price range do not have all this.
My biggest issue is deciding how much cpu I need. This is pretty much just a simple home system, no gaming, some home video editing, nothing real taxing on a system. I am thinking of AMD, but it is pretty confusing, brisbane/windsor, and on and on it goes. Is there an easy way to compare cpus? Often I end up reading technical specs that I do not understand.
So can anyone help? Maybe links that I can learn from? Suggestions for value for the dollar?
As you may notice, the first 12 places are taken by Intel. Are you sure you want an AMD solution?
Since AMD has a better bang for the buck and the OP doesn't need absolute bleeding edge gaming performance and can wait those miserable 30 extra seconds for mpeg2 encoding to finish (nice benchmark you picked out lol), I think AMD would be the right choice.
Maybe a 3600+ or 3800+ would do it since they are very affordable dual core processors. Windsor is based on "older" 90nm technology while the Brisbane core is based on new 65nm tech which uses less power and runs a little cooler.
My suggestion is to go with the AMD 4000+ Brisbane, which is $70, with free shipping from newegg, then go with the GIGABYTE GA-MA69GM-S2H or GIGABYTE GA-MA69GM-S3H, which are both great budget boards. The only difference between them is the S2H is microATX and the S3H is ATX, and both have ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 integrated graphics, which according to reviews and ATi's site will run Vista.
yeah, the 45w 2300 w/ board isnt bad at all then, especially considering what his intents are, and smaller OCs are always an option to boost the performance some at no cost, so the voltage core wont need to be increased at all either, resulting in no heat increase really. and as was suggested, if he wants anything more powerful than that really, to just go with the $298 quad w/ board, theres not a whole lot really worth the price inbetween, imo (just go with the most affordable option you can for the most part)... cuz anything below that and youre still in dual core territory, and they are 'all' very easily outperformed by a quad once you get into true smp aware apps [that can scale accordingly]. (how many people do you see recommending single cores over dual cores anymore?, its more of less the same situation again, as dual cores overall can more closely be considered the single cores of last year, in a sense, as apps become more and more smp aware)
I guess I am mostly concerned with getting too carried away, buying more than I need, and the price just keeps going up. Already sprung for 2 gig of ddr2 800, which was probably over-kill, and concerned about doing the same with the CPU.
the X2 3800+ is pretty decent (its the same one i have, aside from the sockets supported, s939 compared to sAM2), ddr2-800 is the slowest youre going to want to go with sAM2, as less than that, and youll end up hindering your cpu, particularly if you intend to OC by much (it may be a tad overkill at stock speeds though), but, that cpu is decent for your intents...
personally, its performance is holding me over till quad cores are more affordable, between $100-200, or less, but thats probably doubtful anytime soon... the reason for longevity though is because anytime i need more performance, i just OC it to how much is needed.