Would the AMD AM2 4800+ Brisbane fit my required needs

[Civic2oo1x]

I would really appreciate the help guys as I plan on making a purchase on some equipment within the next week.

Some givens to my hardware choices.
-Patriot extreme 4GB (2x2GB) PC6400 ($200)
-XFX GeForce 8600GT 256MB ($150)
-Shuttle XPC
-Initially try Vista, then maybe scale back to XP.

I'm set with the hard drives, DVD-RW, monitor, etc for now. The last step would be to add a CPU and case. I'm between either the AM2 4800+ Brisbane 65w ($125) + the XPC SN27P2 ($340) or a Core Duo (either the Core Duo E6300 for $165 or the E6400 for $186) + a XPC SD39 ($400). Both XPCs have relatively the same specs with the exception of it being tailored towards each individual processor.

I've been using a Intel system for the past 4 years (Intel 3.0ghz Socket 478) and need a jump up. Prior to that I've built and used all AMD systems with the K6 chip, the Athlon 64, etc.

Some of my needs require
- Minimal gaming, nothing too graphically intense, that's why I'm going for the highly rated 8600GT that's relatively cheap. I don't care about FPS, etc, as I've somewhat outgrown computer games.
- Fast MP3 encoding decoding and fast video encoding capabilites. I shoot a lot of video and want to be able to convert, edit, and process it quickly.
- I do light GIS work that requires faster CPU to process all the calculations.
- I want a relatively quiet and cool system. From what I've read the XPCs are relatively quiet as I've had past experiences with a Shuttle XPC and really enjoyed it and the Brisbane appears as though it would run cooler.

I've read in numerous magazines (Maximum PC, PC World, etc) that the Core Duo is one of the fastest chips on the market and that nothing AMD has out now even compares. I don't NEED the fastest thing out there, hence the reason I'm not going for a $200+ chip, I want something I can get a few years use out of. I know that the SFF restricts the potential growth of any motherboard, etc and I'm fine with that. I've used my current system without fail for 4 years. Also does a nVidia run differently on Intel vs. an AMD?

For what I require would I be equally ok with just the AMD setup? Or should I make the initial extra $80 or so and go for the Core route? Thank you all so much for all the help and I appreciate any feedback if at all possible.

 

[MarcVenice]

The magazines are somewhat wrong. Amd still has fast cpu's, up to the x2 6000+ competing with the e6600, same price/performance. Past the e6600 AMD has nothing on the market that can compete though. If you go here: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html and compare the e6400, which is faster then the e6320, to the x2 4800+ windsor, clocked at 2.4ghz instead of 2.5ghz which you're ordering, then you will see it's only slightly faster, if it would have been a e6320, which offers only slight advantages over the e6300 with less cache, it would seem that the AMD is the better choice, same bang for less buck

 

[myocardia]

I'd go with the C2D, especially for your uses. Although, since the 4800 is so much faster (clockspeed-wise) than the two C2D's you mention, it would just about be a wash, as far as performance, even in encoding.

 

[MarcVenice]

a wash, theres a 100-120$ price disparity, not a wash imo. Encoding, on toms cpu comparison only shows the e6400 slightly faster. Be it as it may, for 100-120$ which could perhaps be invested into a faster videocard that could speed up encoding too, definately seems worth it to me ...

 

[Civic2oo1x]

Forgot to note that it would be the 6420, not the 6400 with the added cache. (If it matters any). Also I don't initially plan on overclocking, but I've heard that the Core Duo is extremely easy to OC and that you can get speeds of close to 3ghz or so with it. I'm not too familar with the OCing capabilities of the Brisbane.

What struck me was this posted on an anandtech article (though it is in context to a Preview)

"Now that the pieces are falling into place we are able to understand a bit more about the implications of AMD's move to 65nm. It's clear that these first 65nm chips, while lower power than their 90nm counterparts, aren't very good even by AMD's standards. Already weighing in at the high end of the voltage spectrum, we hope to see more overclockable, lower power offerings once AMD's 65nm ramp really starts up. It's a constantly evolving process and if this is the worst we will see, it's not terrible; AMD can only go up from here, but it does mean that you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for the right 65nm AMD to come along.

Performance and efficiency are still both Intel's fortes thanks to its Core 2 lineup, and honestly the only reason to consider Brisbane is if you currently have a Socket-AM2 motherboard. It is worth mentioning that AMD still has the lowest overall power use with its Athlon 64 X2 EE SFF processor, but in terms of performance per watt efficiency it's not all that great. We would really like to see an EE SFF successor built on AMD's 65nm process, but we have a feeling it will be a little while before we are graced with such a delicate creature.

The step back in performance with Brisbane is truly puzzling; while none of our individual application benchmarks showed a tremendous loss in performance, it's a very unusual move for AMD. The last thing AMD needs to do is take away performance, and based on its current roadmaps the higher latency L2 cache makes no sense at all. Either AMD has some larger L2 cache variants in the works that we're not aware of, or AMD's cache didn't take very kindly to the 65nm shrink. As soon as we get the official word as to why L2 access latencies jumped 66% with Brisbane we'll be sure to report it; until then we can only wonder.

We long for the good old days, when a die shrink meant ridiculously overclockable processors, back before a die shrink was coupled with a sneaky decrease in performance. While Brisbane is far from a Prescott, it's not exactly what we were hoping for from AMD's first 65nm Athlon 64 X2. Hopefully they can work out some of the process' kinks in time for the K8L launch."

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
a wash, theres a 100-120$ price disparity, not a wash imo. Encoding, on toms cpu comparison only shows the e6400 slightly faster. Be it as it may, for 100-120$ which could perhaps be invested into a faster videocard that could speed up encoding too, definately seems worth it to me ...

Failed all of your reading comprehension classes, huh?

Originally posted by: myocardia
it would just about be a wash, as far as performance, even in encoding.

 

[MarcVenice]

perhaps my english is lacking and I never had reading comprehension classes in English. Why don't you start speaking Dutch and maybe I will understand better? Now, you could either be a nice guy and explain to me exactly what you ment and what I misunderstood, or just continue being a jackass.

@ OP, if you're gonna overclock, which can be done at least a little considering you will have to be carefull with temperatures and such in a shuttle, you could easily get a e6320 to run a LOT faster then a x2 4800+ which doesn't overclock to well. A e6320, without voltage increase, could probably run at e6600 speeds, without heating up to much, using a stock cooler. Maybe a little higher even, but I wouldn't put to much money on that.

 

[Skott]

In the OP's situation I'd say if you do not plan to overclock then pick the lowest price or the chip with the highest stock clock. If you intend to overclock go Intel. AMD just cant match the Intel chips right now when it comes to overclocking.

 

[Civic2oo1x]

The impluse buyer in me just placed an order. I?m one of those people that if you put something shiny in front of me and a price tag on it, I?ll be taking it home.

Went with
SN27P2
AMD 4800+ Brisbane 65w
Patriot 4GB
XFX GeForce 8600GT
3.5? Memory Card Reader

Plus some other stuff (DVD-R?s, Thermal Paste, etc), with shipping and tax it came out to just under a grand. I could?ve saved some dough if I ordered around and had stuff coming in from 2-3 different merchants, but decided to go with one that I have a good history with, even though they charged $60 for sales tax. But at least there?s $55 worth of MIR I have to look forward to.

I might OC, but I'm more interested in running and cool and quiet system, so I went with the AMD. The $100 saved I'll take the fiance out for a good dinner.