Building new PC-AMD or Intel?

I am going to be assembling a new computer shortly. What makes it hard
is I use it for a wide variety of uses.

1. Microsoft Office (mostly Word and Excel)
2. Design and Graphics-I also do a lot of photo editing with Adobe
Photoshop. I use the Adobe suite as well as Dreamweaver for web
page development. Also for work I create DVD's so use Pinnacle
Studio.
3. Multimedia-I want a system that is the ultimate multimedia computer
since I do the video and graphics work and I want it to be HDTV
ready meaning I'll be able to get a high definition drive for
it, play video from the computer onto a HDTV, record video from
satellite TV, etc.
4. Gaming-I want it to be a good gaming computer and be able to play
the latest games.

Other Questions:

AMD vs. Intel: I read for gaming AMD is best (likely the Athlon 64)
and for video/graphics Intel is best (dual core). It seems for my use
Intel may be best but yet for gaming will I suffer that much by not
going with AMD? I can imagine Intel cost more as well. With Longhorn
coming out next year though being 64 bit would it be better to be with
a 64 bit chip rather than dual core which I believe is 32 bit?

Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
any problems?

I know for this I will get a good PCI Express card such as geforce. As
well probably a good surround sound high definition card such as the
Soundblaster Audigy unless the sound is built into the motherboard.
the problem I find is I want a computer that just about covers every
use. I know I will have more questions to ask later such as what case
to go with, what specific sound card, for memory I assume DDR2 is best,
and what graphics card but this is a start.

The Athlon 64 X2's are out now,you get dual core and 64 bit in them.And the
64's run much cooler than the XP's and recent P4's.If cost isn't too much a
factor,the best vid card out there right now is the Nvidia 7800 GTX.
<markw10@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121663609.629261.205720@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> I am going to be assembling a new computer shortly. What makes it hard
> is I use it for a wide variety of uses.
>
> 1. Microsoft Office (mostly Word and Excel)
> 2. Design and Graphics-I also do a lot of photo editing with Adobe
> Photoshop. I use the Adobe suite as well as Dreamweaver for web
> page development. Also for work I create DVD's so use Pinnacle
> Studio.
> 3. Multimedia-I want a system that is the ultimate multimedia computer
> since I do the video and graphics work and I want it to be HDTV
> ready meaning I'll be able to get a high definition drive for
> it, play video from the computer onto a HDTV, record video from
> satellite TV, etc.
> 4. Gaming-I want it to be a good gaming computer and be able to play
> the latest games.
>
> Other Questions:
>
> AMD vs. Intel: I read for gaming AMD is best (likely the Athlon 64)
> and for video/graphics Intel is best (dual core). It seems for my use
> Intel may be best but yet for gaming will I suffer that much by not
> going with AMD? I can imagine Intel cost more as well. With Longhorn
> coming out next year though being 64 bit would it be better to be with
> a 64 bit chip rather than dual core which I believe is 32 bit?
>
> Heat Issue: I know someone who has both a Pentium 4 and a Athlon XP
> and the Athlon seems to run far hotter than the P4. he has fans on
> both and both seem to be operating fine but does this usually create
> any problems?
>
> I know for this I will get a good PCI Express card such as geforce. As
> well probably a good surround sound high definition card such as the
> Soundblaster Audigy unless the sound is built into the motherboard.
> the problem I find is I want a computer that just about covers every
> use. I know I will have more questions to ask later such as what case
> to go with, what specific sound card, for memory I assume DDR2 is best,
> and what graphics card but this is a start.
>

I forgot to add also, what is a good motherboard to go with? In the
past I've always gone with ASUS. Seems like the Athlon 64 X2 is a good
choice. I haven't looked at prices so will do that now.

I've been using AMD ever since the gigahertz race started. I think my
first was actually a 950mhz. Now I'm currently running a Athlong XP
3200 (333mhz FSB). As of today, there's nothing I've come across that
has "Slowed" me down.. Nothing a bit more memory couldn't fix. So I
dunno, I don't think there's a noticeable difference between the
fastest AMD and the fast Intel chip today, other than price of course.
I don't know too much about the newer processors, I'll be glad to see
what the others say here, but hey...Go AMD!

Video card? I've always been ATI. There's always a war going on between
ATI and NVidia not to mention the one between the users saying witch is
better. Just the mere fact that there are so many arguments between the
end users should tell you, there's no huge difference. You might notice
later on though.. some games favor different cards more than others and
also.. you could have the best system yet the game still lags at
certain points, why? Bad coding. Don't think that if you get the top of
the line you will be flawless.

I say go with what you can afford at the time of purchase. I currently
own an ATI x800 Pro, $395 from ebay..had it for about seven months.
Once again, nothing a memory upgrade couldn't handle. I would recommend
you to get at least 1.5gb of memory if you're a power user.

PS. Don't follow benchmarks on these sites too much, they sometimes
have hidden agendas if you know what I mean, they add in factors not
presented in the article.

I will just watch for now, might make a post later after other people
have already pitched in.

Tekmanx

I wanted to add this also. I know AMD now has a chip that is both
dual-core as well as 64 bit. Is this a good chip to go with? I know
it's a big price jump for it so I wanted to know if it's worth the
difference.

"MarkW" <markwco@RemoveNoSpamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:28dod1t10bno2h2ge2msftvplssp4osqdj@4ax.com...
>I wanted to add this also. I know AMD now has a chip that is both
> dual-core as well as 64 bit. Is this a good chip to go with? I know
> it's a big price jump for it so I wanted to know if it's worth the
> difference.

It's only worthwhile if you're already using the best components elsewhere,
or have specific needs for dual core such as video encoding, etc.

For example, if you're choosing to purchase less memory or a cheaper video
card just so you can afford a dual core 64 bit chip, you'd be wasting your
money.