I'm looking to put together a medium-to-high-end PC within the next two
weeks or so, and I have one big decision to make - Intel or AMD? (I've
already decided on nVidia vs. ATI because the former's cards have
better Linux support.) Comparing the prices between the two, at least
on NewEgg, it looks like I can get a bit more bang for the buck using
AMD (I'm willing to spend up to $200 on the CPU), but, it's quite
possible I'm missing something. Which dual core architecture is
better, and which does it make sense to buy now?
"Cyde Weys" <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168128330.399618.302660@51g2000cwl.googlegro ups.com...
> I'm looking to put together a medium-to-high-end PC within the next two
> weeks or so, and I have one big decision to make - Intel or AMD? (I've
> already decided on nVidia vs. ATI because the former's cards have
> better Linux support.) Comparing the prices between the two, at least
> on NewEgg, it looks like I can get a bit more bang for the buck using
> AMD (I'm willing to spend up to $200 on the CPU), but, it's quite
> possible I'm missing something. Which dual core architecture is
> better, and which does it make sense to buy now?
>
Cyde Weys wrote:
> I'm looking to put together a medium-to-high-end PC within the next two
> weeks or so, and I have one big decision to make - Intel or AMD? (I've
> already decided on nVidia vs. ATI because the former's cards have
> better Linux support.) Comparing the prices between the two, at least
> on NewEgg, it looks like I can get a bit more bang for the buck using
> AMD (I'm willing to spend up to $200 on the CPU), but, it's quite
> possible I'm missing something. Which dual core architecture is
> better, and which does it make sense to buy now?
paulmd@efn.org wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > I'm looking to put together a medium-to-high-end PC within the next two
> > weeks or so, and I have one big decision to make - Intel or AMD? (I've
> > already decided on nVidia vs. ATI because the former's cards have
> > better Linux support.) Comparing the prices between the two, at least
> > on NewEgg, it looks like I can get a bit more bang for the buck using
> > AMD (I'm willing to spend up to $200 on the CPU), but, it's quite
> > possible I'm missing something. Which dual core architecture is
> > better, and which does it make sense to buy now?
>
> Benchmarks
>
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=464&chart=170
>
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=464&chart=193
>
> The top core 2 duos beat the top X2s. But in your price range, there is
> some overlap.
Well, it definitely looks like Core 2 Duo is taking over the high end.
Does the Core 2 Duo have more room for upgrades within the architecture
than Athlon 64 X2? Are Athlon 64 X2s at the peak of their ability, so
if I wanted to upgrade in, say, two years, I'd need to get a new mobo,
whereas if I go with Core 2 Duo now I could just get a new CPU in two
years and keep everything else the same?
Another thing I see is that the lower end Athlons are significantly
cheaper. You can't really get a Core 2 Duo for less than $200. But
$200 in the 64 X2 line gets you a few rungs up the ladder.
On 6 Jan 2007 16:05:30 -0800, "Cyde Weys"
<cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm looking to put together a medium-to-high-end PC within the next two
>weeks or so, and I have one big decision to make - Intel or AMD? (I've
>already decided on nVidia vs. ATI because the former's cards have
>better Linux support.) Comparing the prices between the two, at least
>on NewEgg, it looks like I can get a bit more bang for the buck using
>AMD (I'm willing to spend up to $200 on the CPU), but, it's quite
>possible I'm missing something. Which dual core architecture is
>better, and which does it make sense to buy now?
IMO, AMD is the better choice for a low end PC today, but
mid - high you'd be better off going C2D & i965 chipset
board.
On 6 Jan 2007 19:04:52 -0800, "Cyde Weys"
<cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, it definitely looks like Core 2 Duo is taking over the high end.
>Does the Core 2 Duo have more room for upgrades within the architecture
>than Athlon 64 X2? Are Athlon 64 X2s at the peak of their ability, so
>if I wanted to upgrade in, say, two years, I'd need to get a new mobo,
>whereas if I go with Core 2 Duo now I could just get a new CPU in two
>years and keep everything else the same?
Not necessarily, AMD socket AM2 is supposed to support AM3
CPUs, but at present yes, AM2 X2 have less headroom than
Core2Duo.
>
>Another thing I see is that the lower end Athlons are significantly
>cheaper. You can't really get a Core 2 Duo for less than $200. But
>$200 in the 64 X2 line gets you a few rungs up the ladder.
AMD's prices have dropped recently, and Intel's seemed to
rise slightly pre-Christmas but now have settled down again.
Even so, C2D starts a few rungs up as the older P4 fills the
lower-midrange. e6400 seems to fit your budget, the
equivalently priced X2 4200 has lower performance on
average.
kony wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2007 19:04:52 -0800, "Cyde Weys"
> <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Well, it definitely looks like Core 2 Duo is taking over the high end.
> >Does the Core 2 Duo have more room for upgrades within the architecture
> >than Athlon 64 X2? Are Athlon 64 X2s at the peak of their ability, so
> >if I wanted to upgrade in, say, two years, I'd need to get a new mobo,
> >whereas if I go with Core 2 Duo now I could just get a new CPU in two
> >years and keep everything else the same?
>
> Not necessarily, AMD socket AM2 is supposed to support AM3
> CPUs, but at present yes, AM2 X2 have less headroom than
> Core2Duo.
>
And there's the big kicker: will my motherboard support the new
processor? Sometimes a Bios upgrade is required to get a newer
processor to work on an older board, and sometimes you just hit a wall
you can't overcome. And there's no real way to know in advance.
Research and planning only goes so far.
Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> Well, it definitely looks like Core 2 Duo is taking over the high end.
> Does the Core 2 Duo have more room for upgrades within the
> architecture than Athlon 64 X2? Are Athlon 64 X2s at the peak of
> their ability, so if I wanted to upgrade in, say, two years, I'd need
> to get a new mobo, whereas if I go with Core 2 Duo now I could just
> get a new CPU in two years and keep everything else the same?
Both Socket 775 and AM2 will be EOL by Q1 2009. DDR2 is unlikely to be the
memory of choice at this time.
> Another thing I see is that the lower end Athlons are significantly
> cheaper. You can't really get a Core 2 Duo for less than $200. But
> $200 in the 64 X2 line gets you a few rungs up the ladder.
By the way, what the difference between 975 and 965 chipset?
Boba Vankufer
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:shq0q2tvdtc1ne497gjbf63dpgek0i30dn@4ax.com...
> On 6 Jan 2007 16:05:30 -0800, "Cyde Weys"
> <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking to put together a medium-to-high-end PC within the next two
>>weeks or so, and I have one big decision to make - Intel or AMD? (I've
>>already decided on nVidia vs. ATI because the former's cards have
>>better Linux support.) Comparing the prices between the two, at least
>>on NewEgg, it looks like I can get a bit more bang for the buck using
>>AMD (I'm willing to spend up to $200 on the CPU), but, it's quite
>>possible I'm missing something. Which dual core architecture is
>>better, and which does it make sense to buy now?
>
>
> IMO, AMD is the better choice for a low end PC today, but
> mid - high you'd be better off going C2D & i965 chipset
> board.
Al Pilarcik wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> >
> > Well, it definitely looks like Core 2 Duo is taking over the high end.
> > Does the Core 2 Duo have more room for upgrades within the
> > architecture than Athlon 64 X2? Are Athlon 64 X2s at the peak of
> > their ability, so if I wanted to upgrade in, say, two years, I'd need
> > to get a new mobo, whereas if I go with Core 2 Duo now I could just
> > get a new CPU in two years and keep everything else the same?
>
> Both Socket 775 and AM2 will be EOL by Q1 2009. DDR2 is unlikely to be the
> memory of choice at this time.
>
> > Another thing I see is that the lower end Athlons are significantly
> > cheaper. You can't really get a Core 2 Duo for less than $200. But
> > $200 in the 64 X2 line gets you a few rungs up the ladder.
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=467&chart=175
>
> If we compare the C2D E6400 and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor AM2 both
> priced at $200-225, the Intel bests the AMD offering in every benchmark.
Looks like I'll be getting the E6400 then. Then the next question is
.... which mobo? Looks like the main choices for chipset are 945, 955,
and 975. 945 is the cheapest, so I'd like to get that if I don't have
to sacrifice any features for it (for instance, I don't ever intend on
using dual video cards). Is there any compelling reason to upgrade?
Also, as for specific mobos (and not just the chipset), I would like to
try overclocking the processors. Will any of the mobos allow that, or
do I have to look for them especially?
Cyde Weys wrote:
> Al Pilarcik wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, it definitely looks like Core 2 Duo is taking over the high end.
> > > Does the Core 2 Duo have more room for upgrades within the
> > > architecture than Athlon 64 X2? Are Athlon 64 X2s at the peak of
> > > their ability, so if I wanted to upgrade in, say, two years, I'd need
> > > to get a new mobo, whereas if I go with Core 2 Duo now I could just
> > > get a new CPU in two years and keep everything else the same?
> >
> > Both Socket 775 and AM2 will be EOL by Q1 2009. DDR2 is unlikely to be the
> > memory of choice at this time.
> >
> > > Another thing I see is that the lower end Athlons are significantly
> > > cheaper. You can't really get a Core 2 Duo for less than $200. But
> > > $200 in the 64 X2 line gets you a few rungs up the ladder.
> >
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=467&chart=175
> >
> > If we compare the C2D E6400 and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor AM2 both
> > priced at $200-225, the Intel bests the AMD offering in every benchmark.
>
> Looks like I'll be getting the E6400 then. Then the next question is
> ... which mobo? Looks like the main choices for chipset are 945, 955,
> and 975. 945 is the cheapest, so I'd like to get that if I don't have
> to sacrifice any features for it (for instance, I don't ever intend on
> using dual video cards). Is there any compelling reason to upgrade?
>
> Also, as for specific mobos (and not just the chipset), I would like to
> try overclocking the processors. Will any of the mobos allow that, or
> do I have to look for them especially?
I'd wait for the warranty to expire before I'd try overclocking. I
admit that overclocking is one way to stress test a computer... but
long term the benefits are outweighed by the risks.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:30:18 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
<dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>By the way, what the difference between 975 and 965 chipsets
I don't recall all the differences but 965 is newer and
cheaper, IIRC has 16/4 instead of 8/8 PCI Express lanes (so
not optimal for a crossfire video card arrangement). 965
probably has some slight memory controller tweaks but may
tend to be found on more midstream rather than high end
motherboards (which in itself is another good reason to pick
it, IMO, as some of the high end Intel platform boards are
rather ridiculously priced). 975 boards might be more
enthusiast oriented though, maybe more overclocking options
if that's important (and the low end C2D do tend to o'c
rather well).
I think 965 is also bundled with ICH8 which allows 10 SATA,
but I don't know if that's a hard rule or someone could use
ICH7 still. Performance of the two northbridges is close
enough to ignore.
On 6 Jan 2007 19:04:52 -0800, "Cyde Weys" <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>paulmd@efn.org wrote:
>> Cyde Weys wrote:
>> > I'm looking to put together a medium-to-high-end PC within the next two
>> > weeks or so, and I have one big decision to make - Intel or AMD? (I've
>> > already decided on nVidia vs. ATI because the former's cards have
>> > better Linux support.) Comparing the prices between the two, at least
>> > on NewEgg, it looks like I can get a bit more bang for the buck using
>> > AMD (I'm willing to spend up to $200 on the CPU), but, it's quite
>> > possible I'm missing something. Which dual core architecture is
>> > better, and which does it make sense to buy now?
>>
>> Benchmarks
>>
>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=464&chart=170
>>
>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=464&chart=193
>>
>> The top core 2 duos beat the top X2s. But in your price range, there is
>> some overlap.
>
>Well, it definitely looks like Core 2 Duo is taking over the high end.
>Does the Core 2 Duo have more room for upgrades within the architecture
>than Athlon 64 X2? Are Athlon 64 X2s at the peak of their ability, so
>if I wanted to upgrade in, say, two years, I'd need to get a new mobo,
>whereas if I go with Core 2 Duo now I could just get a new CPU in two
>years and keep everything else the same?
>
>Another thing I see is that the lower end Athlons are significantly
>cheaper. You can't really get a Core 2 Duo for less than $200. But
>$200 in the 64 X2 line gets you a few rungs up the ladder.
My E6300 and motherboard were $200 total for both.
Dual core: Core 2 Duo vs. Athlon 64 X2? 
Linear Mode
