Thoughts on computer parts
Author
I'm about to do a major upgrade. Actually its more like building a new computer. I'll be keeping a few of my old hard drives, screen, mouse, keyboard and a few other non essential accessories. But otherwise all new. Now, its a long time since I've been on the PC market so I've been researching a bit to catch up. So far I think I've found a decent list for my price range:
Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 (motherboard)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition
Sapphire Radeon HD 3850 512 MB
Mushkin XP2-8000 4096 MB Extreme Performance (2 x 2048)
NorthQ NQ-2210BLK (case)
Western Digital Raptor 36,7 GB (fast HD, 10000 rpm, for OS install)
But I figured I'd throw the list out here to hear any thoughts or recommendations. Maybe it will also be of some help for other people who is currently building or thinking of putting together a new PC.
I don't know how the latest athlons perform, nor the radeon, however i just upgraded to a Q6600 and 8800GTX and can highly recommend them.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
AMD is cheaper in amount of speed per dollar spent. You can get a faster machine for the same money if you buy AMD. Intel's chips are faster overall though, so if you're willing to spend more then go with Intel.
As for ATI, I've never used their cards before. I'm using Linux a lot and ATI's Linux drivers have always been a nightmare.
As for ATI, I've never used their cards before. I'm using Linux a lot and ATI's Linux drivers have always been a nightmare.
Author
Yeah, I've been using nVidia up to now because of that. But I wanted to give ATI a try both because I havent tried it before, and because there is a chance it will work better together with the AMD now since AMD bought up ATI and all.
I don't think AMD buying ATI will have any effect on how well AMD64 and ATI machines "work together." AMD bought ATI because it was the little fish and for their IP. With everything heading toward highly integrated multi-core machines with video chipsets integrated into the CPU, AMD needed ATI to remain competitive in the coming years.
Author
You are probably right I guess. It can't hurt though. But I wonder how the Linux support will pan out. AMD has always been Linux friendly.
Quote:Original post by jonahrowley
AMD is cheaper in amount of speed per dollar spent. You can get a faster machine for the same money if you buy AMD. Intel's chips are faster overall though, so if you're willing to spend more then go with Intel.
As for ATI, I've never used their cards before. I'm using Linux a lot and ATI's Linux drivers have always been a nightmare.
Are you sure about that? About 4 months ago when I did the numbers, it came up as Intel blowing AMD out of the water on the benchmarks and cost. The only area that AMD was showing promise was the low end ($50 processors). Lots of other people were agreeing with my conclusions, so I didn't think much more about them when I went with a Core2 Duo.
For $160 you can get an AMD X2 6400+ or for $170 an Intel Core 2 Duo E6550. The 6400+ performs better in benchmarks (and also overclocks well with a decent cooler) than the E6550. There's also the $10 or $15 you'll save on an AM2 board which are generally cheaper than LGA775 boards, mostly because AMD64 has an integrated northbridge (or half of it at least). So that's maybe $25 more you can put toward RAM or a video card.
On the other hand, Intel's quad core machines and fastest dual core machines perform better than anything AMD has out right now. You can get a faster machine if you're willing to pay more and go with Intel.
AMD almost always rates better in price/performance. This is their entire business model.
On the other hand, Intel's quad core machines and fastest dual core machines perform better than anything AMD has out right now. You can get a faster machine if you're willing to pay more and go with Intel.
AMD almost always rates better in price/performance. This is their entire business model.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
