Build a new INTEL or AMD now? And why?

[Cybordolphin]

Ok..... let it fly!

 

[Budman]

Why not.

 

[fkloster]

Don't build either now...just keep waiting!!!

 

[dullard]

The 3.06 GHz P4 with hyperthreading has great performance, but I'd never buy one at this time - I'd wait for a price cut or two on it. Thus for the P4 route a 2.4 GHz on a 533 MHz fsb is the best buy. Its performance should be just fine for quite some time, and you could upgrade later.

As for AMD, the 2100+ seems to be the best price/performance at the moment. You'll save $100 over the 2.4 GHz P4 and get almost the same performance, just a bit less. If you want, you could get the 2400+ for the same price as the 2.4 GHz P4. So price/performance wise it wouldn't make any difference which one you got.

I'd really wait to see what speed Barton has if you are not in a hurry for a new computer. I don't think anything else is worth waiting for. Intel won't have anything spectacular out for quite some time, and the Hammer won't be out any time soon either. But really, I'm not sure I'd want to pay the premium for the first Barton myself. So if you want a computer soon, why even wait for that?

 

[sparks]

There is no clear cut answer to that question. You have to know what the system will be used for, your budget for the system and the time horizon of your next major hardware upgrade.

There are compelling reasons for either AMD or Intel. AMD is still the price/performance leader in the mid-grade system, while Intel is the clear choice for performance. In terms of future upgradability you may have more room if you get one of the new Granite Bay motherboards for the P4s (provided they are compatible with the Prescot P4s). The future of AMD now resides in the Athlon 64 for which you cannot currently purchase a motherboard. The Barton based Athlon XPs is the limit of expandability for existing MBs.

I'm sure there are many more questions that need to be asked and answered before a decision can be made, I just can't think of any more right now.

 

[p0rtmonkey]

I'm in the same boat right now. I can't decide which chip to choose. Right now I have an Athlon XP 1400 (I think) with 512 megs of PC 133 and a ATI Radeon 9700 video card. If I do decide to build a new computer its going to be a really good one. I'm setting aside around 1500 bucks for some play money and right now I can't decide if I should build the computer.... or spend the 1500 + 600 (for installation) for a good set of long tube headers for my car.... Good for 15-20 RWHP

 

[AdamDuritz99]

AMD for the past 3 or so years has been my favorable choice. But honestly I look at the best price/performance ratio and get that. If i was to get a higher end pc right now, I would most likely be Intel.

peace
sean

 

[Texun]

Whatever your budget tells you to do, and I don't see the need to wait. The reality is that someone somewhere will always be making a faster chip or widget, and since they never plan on ever giving them away you might as well JUMP as high as you can and hope you land on your feet. You can wait until the latest and greatest parts hit the street and there will be another set of goodies right behind them in a few months, which will be another reason to wait even longer. Get good parts now and be done with it until the next time.

I bought an XP1700, and when the 2100's hit the street I wished that I had waited a while longer. But if I had waited I would now be wishing for a 2700, but then I would want another board and faster memory..... ARRAGHHH!!!!! Will it ever end?

 

[Cybordolphin]

Ok..... how bout this...

What is an AMD 2100 comparable to in an INTEL chip?
Is an AMD 2400 performing just as well as a PENT 4 2.4?

Which motherboard will have the most potential for upgrading over the next year?

I usually buy a motherboard and chipset that I can grow a little with. But to be honest... I never upgrade my CPU... I usually just end up with a new motherboard, etc., and start all over again. The chipsets are changing faster than I change my sheets it seems. So there is always a faster better chipset/motherboard coming out.

I am kicking around staying with the AMD and getting a new enforce2 motherboard. But then I see my old sweetheart coming back strong.... the Pentium. A Pent 4 2.4 with a PE motherboard could be sweet too.

As for the toss up between the headers or the new computer.... go for the headers. You're likely to get more tail with the headers than the computer...lol

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: Cybordolphin
Ok..... how bout this...

What is an AMD 2100 comparable to in an INTEL chip?
Is an AMD 2400 performing just as well as a PENT 4 2.4?

Which motherboard will have the most potential for upgrading over the next year?

I usually buy a motherboard and chipset that I can grow a little with. But to be honest... I never upgrade my CPU... I usually just end up with a new motherboard, etc., and start all over again. The chipsets are changing faster than I change my sheets it seems. So there is always a faster better chipset/motherboard coming out.

I am kicking around staying with the AMD and getting a new enforce2 motherboard. But then I see my old sweetheart coming back strong.... the Pentium. A Pent 4 2.4 with a PE motherboard could be sweet too.

An Athlon XP 2400+ is more or less (technically, both more *and* less) faster than a P4 2.4B. It really boils down to what you plan on using your computer for. AXPs have a stronger FPU and tend to be faster at things that require raw number crunching such as scientific apps or anything that requires raw computing power. P4s on the other hand, tend to excel at bandwidth-intensive applications and anything that is SSE/SSE2 optimized. You would probably do well to check some CPU reviews at AnandTech and maybe some places like THG and see which CPU is faster at the benchmarks that most closely resemble the things that you use your computer for the most.

As for motherboards and upgradability, AMD predicts that through the end of 2003 Athlon XPs will still make up about 50% of their overall CPU sales with the Athlon 64 (ClawHammer) making up the other 50%. This means that AMD will continue to update the Athlon XP through the Barton core during that time. So an nForce2 motherboard should serve you well at least until the end of 2003. It will even support Bartons with a 400MHz FSB, if AMD really releases them.

As for P4s, speculation is that the current 533MHz FSB P4s will top out somewhere around 3.2GHz, probably in Q203. After that, the Prescott cores with either 667 or 800MHz FSBs will be released. No current chipsets "officially" support those speeds, though at least 667MHz FSB should be achievable through OC'ing if you have the right motherboard, preferably based on the Granite Bay chipset. Sometime next spring, Intel will release the Springdale chipset which is a more consumer-oriented version of GB and will have some features such as integrated S-ATA and will be validated for the 667 or 800MHz FSB Prescotts (IIRC).

So, if you're going to buy now, I'd say that an nForce2 chipset will provide more upgradability over the next year, whereas a Springdale chipset may have more longterm upgradability if you plan on waiting a few more months.

 

[RayEarth]

a wise but drunk man once said " why ask why, try bud dry!"

 

[Cybordolphin]

CrazySaint...

Thanks.... just the reply I was looking for. Helps much...

 

[KF]

It is better not to upgrade. People who don't are generally amazed at how meager their computer needs really are. The optimum economically is to not ugrade until forced. You usually know when things have reached that point.

What do you buy when forced? The best? There is large economic disadvantage to buying the best which is worse the more frequently you upgrade. Even if you wait a long time between upgrades, there is still an advantage to not buying the best. At some range, the disadvantage becomes negligible.

Right now I would not buy a CPU higher than a $55 Athlon 1700+. As for motherboards, the ASUS A7N266-VM as a complete package is hard to beat. It is just too bad that there is no comparable mobo that uses low cost SDRAM instead of DDR. There is the ECS K7S5A, but you will need a video card, and ECS seem to push the reliabilty of the components it chooses too close to the edge for comfort.

 

[Davegod]

Unless youre hardcore gaming, video editing or whatever that actually needs/benefits from a lot of power then a 1700+ is plenty. I dont do anything remotely taxing my xp1600+ (winXPpro + mirc + trillian + a dozen IE windows + mp3 + firewall, AV etc... all at once and not a hint of slowdown), other than games where the 2400+ thats on it's way will significantly improve ut2k3 etc for me

AMD or Intel: depends on your budget, your needs and views on chipsets, imho. Way I see it if your a gamer with tight budget a AMD is very likely to be the choice for you. If youve a stack of cash and want the very fastest, a top Intel may be the one for you.... Intel generally choice if you put a high value on quiet, but much better fans have appeared making noise less of an issue for AMD, if you choose carefully.

When choosing CPU I look at my budget, at what features I want from mobo and then do aswell as I can with the money.

 

[Snoop]

or spend the 1500 + 600 (for installation) for a good set of long tube headers for my car.... Good for 15-20 RWHP

Why not install the headers yourself? Headers are usually fairly easy, then take the 600 bucs, get an epox nforce 2 board ~130, a athlon xp 2400+ ~180 (o/c the hell outa it, so dont skimp on the heatsink), and two 256 meg corsair pc3500 120 x 2.
around 550. For a sweet setup.

 

[Cybordolphin]

Oooooooo...... headers..... the computer....... AND the girls!