Need advice on Smokin Linux Desktop CPU and hardware.ADVICE?

[gustave]

I want to build a new fast Linux Desktop for home use.
I have a reasonable budget but dont want to spend more than I have to.
My main question is whether the Dual core proc is a good idea or to get a fast AMD 64 single core instead ( faster clock speed than the dual ) as this is just a desktop system and not a server.

Correct me where I am wrong, or give your opinion on what would be better and why please. Thanks

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ w/ 2x512K Cache
2x512 PC3200 Kingston RAM
Asus A8N-E w/ DualDDR400, 7.1 Audio, Gigabit Lan, SATA2.0, PCI-E x16
Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.9 SATA II w/ NCQ, 8MB Cache

So, thoughts on this? Dual core or single core?

Thanks for the assistance. Trying to figure out what is best before spending the $

 

[Emerald]

Nice smoking system; however, it could be complead overkill for what you are intending to use it. Linux by itself is so much fast than WindowsXP. I run a AMD K7 850MHz with FreeBSD and KDE and it blows my AMD XP 2000+ with Windows XP away.

I think the AMD 64 X2 would be great for music editing and video rendering

The differance between the 64 and 64 X2 is about $100, better than spending it on uping the CPU from 64 3800+ to a 64 4000+ all most no gain

 

[gustave]

So is the dual 3800 X2 the way to go? Or a Single 3700+ Athlon do you think?
Is SATA 2 worth it?
If I dont go SATA 2, I could get away with an AGP card I already have too.

 

[endyen]

Is SATA 2 worth it?
If I dont go SATA 2, I could get away with an AGP card I already have too.

What do they have to do with each other?
Sata2 offers 150MB/sec more than Sata1. Too bad neither can get anywhere near what they offer. At this point % usage is more important than interconnect. A 1/4 used ATA drive will be faster than a 3/4 full SATA drive.
The Abit AV8 is a great agp board that supports single or dual core chips.
The SanDiego 3700 is the best bang for buck (I think) right now.

 

[Kelledin]

Hmmm...single core or dual core. Debatable.

For basic Linux usage, either one is really overkill, as emerald noted. Many apps are SMP-enabled--xine is multithreaded for example--but even so, current single-core setups are still overkill. It's almost the same for gaming, although a few recent games (like Doom 3) hog the CPU just enough for you to feel it on a 1.8GHz single-core CPU.

One thing, though, if you plan to do a lot of compiling, dual-core would really be better. More often than not, you can enable parallel-building of source code simply by using "make -j2" (or "make -j4" if you have four cores, etc.). Compile jobs set up this way scale almost linearly with multiple cores, so a couple of 1.8GHz cores would likely do you better than a single 2.4GHz core.