I've built three PCs this year and finally I'm going to build one for me.

I've built:

E4300, Gigabyte 965P-DS3 for my brother (he paid for 98%)
E6600, Gigabyte 965P-DS3 for my nephew (he paid for 98%)
X2 4000 Brisbane, BioStar TForce 550 SE for my niece (I paid for all of it)

Price is definitely a factor. I'm looking at five different processors and pretty much decided that an overclocked Intel with a 965 or P35 MB is the way to go. But the Intel option is probably going to run me about $100 or more. So I thought I would post here and get some opinions.

Under consideration

AMD 5000 Brisbane
AMD 5000 Windsor
AMD 5200 Windsor
Intel E4300 Overclocked to 3 GHz
Intel E4400 Overclocked to 3 GHZ


I am concerned about the long term stability of the system. So if anyone knows about any badness about overclocking an Intel processor and perhaps leaving it overclocked at all times, I would appreciate the information. I plan on using it for some gaming. I'm looking forward to Bio Shock.

Thanks

If you are going to overclock, I wouldnt go with either of theose. The new E6550 costs as much as a X2 6000, has the 1333 FSB and much more headroom than the AMD. The only drawback is the mutliplier, which will limit the max OC you can achieve.

If you want to go with AMD, get the 3800. While they are a descent value for the stock buidler, for an OCer, the 5000s are a waste of money.

e6420 runs sweet at 3.2ghz

With overclocking all this "shorter lifespan" etc you hear is just mostly rumors, if you keep the cpu under say ~65º (full load), dont use and extreme vcore/overvolt and have proper motherboards (asus, gigabyte, AND proper chipsets - Intel for Intel etc) then it will run fine its whole life.

Shorter lifespans for cpus come from extreme over clocking (which involves extreme over volting etc) which leads to high temps, and i dont care what anyone says, ITS EASIER TO KILL AN AMD (whether it be static discharge or overclocking, but as long as your carefull there fine)

Get an intel, which one is up to you. Intels overclock better, and unless you plan on having this system for 10 years or go the route of extreme overclocking, oc'ing won't do harm to the chip

A reasonable OC will not effect the life of your CPU.
If you start pushing high voltages, you may shorten it's life.

Personally, I have a 4300 that is at 3.0Ghz and set to an under voltage.
So this should not really be a concern for you.

The Intel system will definately give you more bang.

If willing to OC and the price difference is a concern, you could look at the E2140 which is basically a Core2Duo with 1meg instead of the 2-4meg of onboard cache. They still OC like crazy to 3.0Ghz and beyond.

over clocking does not shorten the useable lifespan - it shortens it's over all life span.

take my typewriter, my dear typewriter - i mean my badazz shuttle gamer build in early 2003 with a 3.0c 3ghz chip oc to 3.5ghz(northwood) its running 24/7 and i use it over 8 hours or more i gamed it 12 hours+ a day - its not showing any sign of aging - yes its showing signs of being bogged down with bloated ms updates and anti this and anti that!


READ MY LIPS OVERCLOCKING WITH BETTER COOLING DOES NOT SHORTNE THE USE FULL LIFE OF CPU!

IT MAY ONLY RUN 90% OF ITS LAB LIFE BUT YOU WILL NOT CARE IN 10 YRS!

Not looking at any other chips...
No OC: 5000
OC: 4300
Depends on cooling the e4300 CAN get x2 (3.6Ghz)
On stock u should get ~2.6-2.8?

Intel chips are made so well these days, even with high OCs and temps they will prob out live thier usefulness.
Plus... if u get a good intel board u can run quad/45nm later.
As for chipset/board... i went with an Asus p4b-d (P965) earlier this year, and i see it will be able to run the 45nm chips too, which made me happy

As for OC/lifespan... i set my multiplier thingy to auto on my 4300
so its 6-9x Which is:
6x350=2.1Ghz
9x350=3.15Ghz

So it doesnt stress the sys too much when its idle.

PS: U need to check why ur family is taking advantage of u