AMD 64 or Intel Prescott

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
question. Thanks for your help.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

LGA775 is due June, wait for the reviews.


<amd6891@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c840g6$lv2@odah37.prod.google.com...
> I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
> been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
> better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
> 64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
> I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
> question. Thanks for your help.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 19:49:42 -0700, amd6891 wrote:

> I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
> been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
> better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
> 64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
> I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
> question. Thanks for your help.

I don't understand your thinking. The amd 64 has support for all current
software that a 32bit cpu does. It will also run 64 bit software now, so
don't let an erroneous lack of support enter into the equation. And if you
need 64bit support later, you have it.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

<amd6891@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c840g6$lv2@odah37.prod.google.com...

" It is better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport
AMD 64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out. "


Perhaps this article will help.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

<amd6891@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c840g6$lv2@odah37.prod.google.com...
> I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
> been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
> better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
> 64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
> I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
> question. Thanks for your help.
>

The AMD64 runs everything that the Intel will run plus it will also do
64-bit versions of Linux NOW and 64-bit Windows (when it is available); what
about it do you mean by unsupported?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 16 May 2004 10:08:15 -0700, amd6891@bellsouth.net wrote:

>After reading what several of you have to say, especially ancra, I have
>some more questions but not really in reguards to the processors. Is it
>more better (read: smarter/economical) to buy or build a $500-$800
>computer and replace after about two years (maybe less/more) or build a
>dream rig for like $2000- $2500 and use it for 4-5 years?

I think so. It seems several reasons conspire to make it so:
1: Age is a far more defining factor, when it comes to PC performance,
than price.
2: You pay exponentially more, for ever smaller gains, as you move up
the ladder.
3: Cutting edge technology is expensive, hot, noisy, unreliable, and
has compatibility issues. Mature technology is cheap, cool, silent,
reliable and highly compatible.

>Any suggestions,
>especially if you have a faced this question before of if you have
>built a really kick ass cheap rig let me know.

You really need to consider what exactly you need *performance* for.
Gaming? - The videocard is the key!

The real economy in, and gain from building your PCs yourself, comes
in the long run, from your ability to upgrade them, and scavenge parts
from earlier PCs. And also in balancing them, the components, after
your needs.

Otherwise, my philosophy is increasingly: "if it works, - then it
works, even if it's cheap".
You don't need to have expensive mainboards from Asus and Abit,
chipsets from Intel and nForce, ram from Crucial, Corsair... That's
safe recommendations to make, so it becomes the constant gospel on
this group and various hardware sites.

ancra

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ancra wrote:
> On 16 May 2004 10:08:15 -0700, amd6891@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>Any suggestions,
>>especially if you have a faced this question before of if you have
>>built a really kick ass cheap rig let me know.
>
>
> You really need to consider what exactly you need *performance* for.
> Gaming? - The videocard is the key!

Even then, you need to remember that games will generally run well on
PCs a couple of years old. Not at the highest resolutions and with all
bells and whistles turned on but certainly at very playable performance
- after all, games writers hardly want to shrink their own market by
producing something that only runs on a top of the range PC from the
last 6 months.

Even for a games machine I wouldn't buy at the bleeding edge of technology.

>
> The real economy in, and gain from building your PCs yourself, comes
> in the long run, from your ability to upgrade them, and scavenge parts
> from earlier PCs. And also in balancing them, the components, after
> your needs.
>
> Otherwise, my philosophy is increasingly: "if it works, - then it
> works, even if it's cheap".
> You don't need to have expensive mainboards from Asus and Abit,
> chipsets from Intel and nForce, ram from Crucial, Corsair... That's
> safe recommendations to make, so it becomes the constant gospel on
> this group and various hardware sites.
>
> ancra
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 18 May 2004 09:06:46 +0200, BarryNL <barry@nospam.nl> wrote:

>ancra wrote:
>> On 16 May 2004 10:08:15 -0700, amd6891@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
>>>Any suggestions,
>>>especially if you have a faced this question before of if you have
>>>built a really kick ass cheap rig let me know.
>>
>>
>> You really need to consider what exactly you need *performance* for.
>> Gaming? - The videocard is the key!
>
>Even then, you need to remember that games will generally run well on
>PCs a couple of years old. Not at the highest resolutions and with all
>bells and whistles turned on but certainly at very playable performance
>- after all, games writers hardly want to shrink their own market by
>producing something that only runs on a top of the range PC from the
>last 6 months.
>
>Even for a games machine I wouldn't buy at the bleeding edge of technology.

OK. So what's your take on a suggestion like this then?

Soyo SY-KT600 $50
AthlonXP 2000+ $52
Arctic Cooling's Copper Silent 2 TC $15.
Mushkin Basic Green 512MB PC2700 $88 (run as PC2100)
Sapphire Radeon R9600 (_NOT_ "SE"!!) 128MB $95
WD or Samsung 80GB $67
Samsung or Lite On CD/DVD $27
Samsung CDRW $27
FSPgroup FSP300-60PN (available under Sparkle brand) PSU $28

This is just a pointer, since I haven't seen this case in person:
Raidmax ATX-208 $17

$466. Excluding OS, monitor, keyboard, mouse.

About $530: Exactly the same, but a R9600pro and a Barton 2500+
instead, and run memory at ddr333.

(I'm not entirely sure that HS will fit the Soyo board and Raidmax
case though. But the '2 TC' and the FSP PSU are very silent.
I haven't tried that Soyo board myself, I'm running an EPoX KT400A,
but I haven't heard anything bad about it sofar, and it has all the
bells and whistles, onboard sound, LAN, ATA133, SATA, and the KT600
chipset, that will take you all the way to XP 3200+ and ddr400.)

I have something similar to '$466-suggestion' as my bedroom PC. With
EPoX board and GF3 Ti graphics. I think the video is it's main
limitation, R9600 should do better. Even so, it's ok. I've played
Morrowind a lot on it.

ancra