AMD or Intel?

[angelyne]

To be or not to be.  Intel or AMD..... these are the age old questions.....

I am still trying to decide on a computer.  I've been reading up and learning more than I care to know about latency, timing, SLI, DDR, blah blah blah.

What are your opinion of AMD vs Intel.  What I have read so far is AMD is better for gaming.  Intel better for applications.  Anyone has an more qualified opinion?

Also, Intel supports DDR2, whereas AMD is supposed to introduce that support this summer.  Is DDR2 superior?  Superior enough to choose Intel over AMD? 

What about SLI....it allows you to run video cards in parallel. I can't image buying two video cards but is it worth buying an SLI board with an eye for the future?

[Regina]

I wish I knew more the differences between AMD and Intel but all I can say is what you probably already know because it's what I read when trying to decide what to put in my new PC, and that's that Intel is making great strides at being competitive with AMD.

Still, I went with an AMD processor, and it may be a case of buying a Chevy or a Ford.  I've always used AMD processors and like them.

As far as the SLI stuff goes, I'd say go with it all the way.  In these machines we're using it (like you I can't imagine ever needing two video cards), and the main reason I went that way is because it's the newer technology and I just hate it when I build something only to have a particular technology end up off the market in six months.

Here's pretty much what we built:

*Asus A8N-SLI Premium motherboard (not the most expensive, not the cheapest)
*AMD 3700+ San Diego processor (again, not the most expensive, but not the cheapest, either)
*2 80-gig Maxtor SATA hard-drives in each (I didn't know until after the fact, but this particular mobo isn't too keen on Maxtor, but they seem to be chugging along.  It definitely did NOT like my Maxtor IDE HD from my old computer when I tried to connect it so I could transfer my data--I had to take a longer route to that).  I did not set up a RAID array because it isn't something I need.
*2 gigs of Corsair RAM (it was under $100 a gig!)
*GeForce NVidia 6800XTreme 256MB DDR3 video card

And of course things like CD drive, DVD burner, etc.

As I said, I know naught about Intel processors so am afraid I can't help you there, but I have to say this machine handles TS2 with its expansions and over 1 gig of custom content like it was putting warm butter on a piece of bread--very smooth and quick.  My game load time is somewhere between one and two minutes.  CAS loads in a few seconds vs. waiting several minutes.  I can take sims to community lots without sitting here drumming my fingers waiting for them to load.  One sim family had a party with something like 9 or 10 guests (their lot is smallish) and there wasn't one time the game slowed down, even with all the pillow fighting and feathers flying everywhere.

Oh, I might mention the cases we bought, too.  We decided to go with some spiffy-looking Sunbeam cases called Transformer.  The case comes with 2 80mm fans, 1 120mm fan and space for a second 120mm fan (which we put in).  This thing is big enough that there's an empty slot between each of the drives.  When I checked the temperature it was running at 37C (the threshold is 76C).  It gets really hot around here in the summer so we try to go for as much air movement as possible to keep things cool.  I think this case is going to make a world of difference when it heats up here in a few months.

I wish you the best in trying to decide between the two processor brands.  I know Intel makes good chips but I wish I knew more.

[MistMeUK]

AMD seem to be leading the way with the 64bit market as now all of their CPU's have full x64 capabilities,  even the semprons (buget range) have 64bit support.
The current amd range also have built in memory controllers which does help a little bit, but you probably wont notice it.

The main difference between AMD and Intels approch is simple,   Intel uses higher clock rate with fewer pipeline whereas AMD have slower (but not slow) clock rate but with more pipelines.  so its like comparing a 2 lane highway with a speed limit of 100mph with a 4 lane highway with a limit of 70mph.

In my experience AMD has always trumped intel in most areas, even with their budget line. The only big area which see's intel move ahead is with video encoding/decoding. It seems the higher clock rate realy shine in that area, But then again if you thinking of SLi or any of the high end graphics cards from either nVidia or ATi then they do all the encoding / decoding for most video formats anyway, so it kinda eliminates intels only advantage.

Ive been thinking of building a new PC recently too and when doin research all of the website I have seen have shown that the top line AMD outperform the intel in all gaming related areas.

As with the SLi setup, unless you are thinking about using extremely high resolutions then you probably wont need it unless you arent thinking of upgrading for a long time, and if you arent then I highly recomend the ATi crossfire option, even though most benchmarks show the SLi model performing slightly better than the crossfire, the latest ATi cards can do both HDR lighting with Shader3 and full Anti Alaising all at the same time without any performance hits,  BUT the nVidia range CANNOT do HDR and Anti Alaiasing at the same time, now although at the moment no games support both HDR and AA at the same time over the next year you will see many new games that do which is where the ATi cards will be able pull away from nVidias offerings.

hope this helps

[TheCheat]

SLI isn't worth the money. It's pretty straight-forward, really. You get more bang for your buck with one video card in one PCI-Express x16 slot than you do with two video cards in two PCI-Express x16 slots that are now each running at x8.

[MistMeUK]

SLI isn't worth the money. It's pretty straight-forward, really. You get more bang for your buck with one video card in one PCI-Express x16 slot than you do with two video cards in two PCI-Express x16 slots that are now each running at x8.

Thats true about them only running at 8 speed each, but the top end Asus crossfire motherboard allows both ATi Crossfire cards to run at their Full 16 speed which can be a big advantage.

And although the sli model splits the speed between the two cards, it doesnt really matter all that much at the moment as no video card utilises all of that bandwidth anyway,  they made PCI-E has such high speeds for pure future proofing so they didnt require multiple versions like AGP has, so for the time being the fact that the available bandwidth is lower for the two cards doesnt really make a difference as they have no way of using it all anyway.

[angelyne]

Thanks for all your answers guys :

This is the system I am considering :

# Processor: Athlon64 3800+ 939 CPU
# Motherboard: ASUS A8N-E
# Memory: Kingston KVR400X64C3AK2/1G
# Hard Drive: SEAGATE 250GB (7200rpm) SATA
# Optical Drive: LG DVD-/+RW 16x DUAL LAYER
# Graphic Card: ASUS 6600GT (I already have that one)
# Audio: 8-Channel Audio (Integrated)
# Lan: Ethernet Gb LAN (Integrated)
# Floppy Drive: Sony 13-in-1 Card Reader 3.44" Floppy Drive
# Case: ANTEC SONATA II 450W QUIET Tower Case

This is a stock system in a local store.  They have decent prices and no gimmicks which is something I appreciate.  There is another that is always advertising but they try to lure you in by boosting their prices and then including a "free" monitor and a "free" printer (ink and cable sold separately of course) and free adobe reader 6.0.  Bah. It's just a trick so that you can't negociate on the price since everything is "Free"

This system is mid-range and seems to fit pretty close to what I need.  The sonata case is quiet, good quality and has room for extra fans, which I will purchase.  I was thinking however of upgrading my motherboard to the SLI Premium version.  It's well rated and has new cooling technology.  Although one website considered it to be over the top.

 I was considering the OZR brand of memory, it's very fast, but 150$ more expensive  (like 250$).  It seems to be more of a memory for overclocking.  I think Kingston is considered to be a mid-range type of memory?  Is Crucial or Corsair better?

I already have the video card, so that's not an option to change.

Thanks for the warning about Maxtor Regina, I'll make sure to stay away from that brand since I am pretty sure to get the Asus motherboard.

I'm trying to stick to what they have listed on their website, which is fairly comprehensive anyway.  It makes things easier, especially if something goes wrong.  Custom ordered stuff can be a nightmare if it proves to be defective.  That's my experience anyway.

[DrBeast]

It seems like a very good configuration angelyne. I'd personally go for a Western Digital hard disk though, SATAII with 16MB cache (model name: WD2500KS). I've used Seagate only once back in 1998, and I wasn't really happy about it. I've been using WD's ever since. I'd also switch the processor to a 3700+ San Diego. The one you've chosen is maybe a little faster, but the one I'm suggesting has more L2 cache (1MB as opposed to 512KB of the Venice chipset). As for the loss in processor speed, it can always be remedied with overclocking, something AMDs just BEG for! Trust me, you can easily run a 3700+ as a 4000+ without a hitch! But these are just choices I'd make, your config is just fine!

Edit: I think I'd also go for the SLi version of the m/b and add a second 6600GT when/if I had the cash. I'd also get a good power supply unit if that was the case, I'm not very thrilled with Antec's stuff. A Tagan would be my nr.1 choice, but I don't know how well-known they are over at the States.

Edit #2: I'd also happily steal that Retriever on your avatar! I just LOVE those dogs!

[angelyne]

I could go for the AMD Athlon 64 3700BN 939 Pin - CPU-AL64/3700 939 which is a 100$ cheaper than the system above.

Or maybe  I could go for a AMD Athlon 64 4000BN 939 Pin - CPU-AL64/4000 939, which has a 1GB cache and is around 50$ more.


Does the cache make a huge difference in peformance?

I looked at the hard drive you suggested and the specs look real good.  It's listed as Sata II.  What is the difference between sata I and II.  And I wonder if my board will support it.

Thanks for all the input, this is really giving me lots of good info and food for thought.

BTW, if you want the puppy you can download him at http://www.cuteoverload.com/.  Click on the pups link.  But as the name says....be prepared for cuteness overload!

[DrBeast]

I could go for the AMD Athlon 64 3700BN 939 Pin - CPU-AL64/3700 939 which is a 100$ cheaper than the system above.

Or maybe  I could go for a AMD Athlon 64 4000BN 939 Pin - CPU-AL64/4000 939, which has a 1GB cache and is around 50$ more.


Does the cache make a huge difference in peformance?

I looked at the hard drive you suggested and the specs look real good.  It's listed as Sata II.  What is the difference between sata I and II.  And I wonder if my board will support it.

Thanks for all the input, this is really giving me lots of good info and food for thought.

BTW, if you want the puppy you can download him at http://www.cuteoverload.com/.  Click on the pups link.  But as the name says....be prepared for cuteness overload!

Well, if you have the extra $50, by all means go for the 4.0 GHz beast! Nah, it's not really a HUGE difference, but it's not something you can upgrade, while you can always overclock. SATAII theoretically has double transfer speed (it doesn't live up to that expectation really, but it sure is faster than plain SATA)and yes, your m/b supports it (I checked it out while replying, no half-ass suggestions from me, hehe!).
Thanx for the link but no thanx. Dogs are my weak spot, and it saddens me that I can't have one due to work hours and space limitations (no yard = no dog! Dog and cat owners who keep their four-legged companions locked inside four walls are frowned upon by me!).

[Regina]

I'm not sure about Seagate HD quality since the ones we've used were purchased in years past, but I do know they come highly recommended by a lot of people.

The IDE hard drive this computer WOULD pick up was a Seagate. LOL  That's how I ended up transferring my data.  My daughter had an older Seagate as a storage drive in her machine.  We finally took it out, put it in my old machine, put my files onto it, put it in my new machine and voila!

The owner of a local computer shop we visit really hates Asus mobos because of the weird problems they sometimes have.  They use MSI.  My first experience with an Asus was a used board we put together for my sister.  It's been running perfectly for about 5 years.  Someone years back told us we should try Shuttle motherboards and we did.  We had problems with them from the get-go (one fried itself three weeks after the warranty expired, and another machine was constantly having problems, while a third worked out fairly well).  The first new mobo I bought was an Asus and it worked so well for me I've stuck with them.

Oh, one thing I was thinking about is that the Asus mobos come with an NVidia chipset which has its own firewall.  Unfortunately, the firewall has major problems and under no circumstances should it be installed.  I know you're not planning on building this for yourself, but it's just something to keep in mind when buying a machine.

Custom ordered stuff can be a nightmare if it proves to be defective.  That's my experience anyway.

Indeed!  And home-built is even worse if something's wrong because you don't know what on earth it is! LOL

I might say, also, one of the most useful resources I've found for learning about computer components has been www.newegg.com.  Although you can spend literally days there, reading the reviews on the products they sell will give you much better insight than reading professional product reviews in my opinion.

[MistMeUK]

The more cache on a CPU the better,

for example, the biggest difference between a the standard range CPU's ("64"+"Pentium) and the budget ("Sempron" + "Celeron") is the amount of cache on the cpu.

and just for the record its 1MB of cache not 1GB.

brief on what cache is:
Cache is like super fast ram memory which is used to store code that is going to be reused in an application, this way it has access to it imediatly at a very fast rate. Its essentially RAM but about 50 times faster. There is two type of cache on all CPU's,  called level 1 and level 2,  level one is the smaller amount but about 3 times faster than the level 2 cache.

So the more cache you have the better performance you will get.  You may not see any adition performance in initial load time of applications, but you will see improvment in the general running of them.

The system you have stated sounds like a good choice, but then again its all about how much you wanna spend.

[angelyne]

Thanks for the info Regina.  I'll check it out.  I was also reading this website : http://www.pcstats.com/  It's really great.  It's got a whole slew of "beginner's guide to ...".  Despite the name, they are far from dumbed down.  All their guides are very comprehensive and go into lots of details.  However they are written using straight forward language, which is why I believe they are considered beginner level.  I am going to read their guide to overclocking once I get my system and have had time to settle it in.

This is my revised system :  My total is a cool grand

          
AMD Athlon 64 4000BN 939 Pin - CPU-AL64/4000 939    
ASUS A8N-SLI Premium - MB-AS-A8N-SLI PREMIUM
Kingston 1G PC-3200 Dual Channel Kit - RAM-KVR400X64C3AK2/1G         
ANTEC SONATA II - CC-ANTEC-SONATA II       
Digital 250GB Hard Drive KS - HD-WD2500KS    
LG GSA-H10A 16x Super Multi DVDRW/CDRW (BLACK) - DVDRW-GSA-H10A/Black

It looks like a pretty good outfit.  I pick the parts and they put it together for me. Even though I coud do it easily enough, It's better this way for warranty and service.


Thanks MistMe, I  misread and saw 1GB, probably because you rarely ever see 1MB for anything anymore   Thanks for the explanation and the stamp of approval for my system.

[smvb]

SLI isn't worth the money. It's pretty straight-forward, really. You get more bang for your buck with one video card in one PCI-Express x16 slot than you do with two video cards in two PCI-Express x16 slots that are now each running at x8.

That used to be true, but now the newest nVidia nForce 4 SLI X16 chipsets support dual 16X SLI, instead of each at 8X. The A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard is an example that uses this chipset.

[TheCheat]

Once again, it's not really worth it at all. Take an nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX. If you had one of those, you would get beautiful framerates in pretty much every single one of your games (given the rest of your computer is up to snuff). Would it be worth it to SLI two GeForce 7800 GTX's? No. There won't be any noticeable difference in performance, and that's all that really counts to most gamers.

Now, it might be cheaper to SLI say, two GeForce 6600GT's together and the performance would be improved, but then those 6600GT's would get outdated in less than 6 months and newer games wouldn't have the same smooth performance on those older cards.

[Motoki]

IMO, SLI/Crossfire is better as an upgrade path rather than something to buy both at the same time. If you do that now the price performance ratio won't be that good, you'll basically be paying too much. But later on down the line when that card starts looking moldy oldy getting a second one would help performance and since by that point it will be an older card, it should be much cheaper.

[smvb]

IMO, SLI/Crossfire is better as an upgrade path rather than something to buy both at the same time.

Yes, that's what I've done with my PC. Buying two cards at the same time is a waste of money. My little ol' 6600 is fine running Sims 2, but it will be fun to see the difference when I drop another one in with it.

My point about X16 doesn't really mean anything right now either, since today's games don't generally stress cards running at X8. But in the future, I'm sure it will make a difference to have both enabled at 16X in SLI. And it just sounds bad when you hear that they can't both run at 16X.