Okay so taking into account everything I've learned (and semi-forgotton on acount of confusion, :LOL), I've done some shopping and also checked out a few benchmarks. Now before I continue, I should say that I am very weary about building a system from scratch no matter who does it as (like I said about my dad) I've had bad experiences with NON-brand PCs. And on the other hand, this old HP Pavilion P4 has been old reliable for me for like the past 7 years. So I will be getting a retail brand built computer. That being said, upon taking in all the info I have narrowed down a couple PCs from shopping within my price range. (Anything with a E6600 is just out of my price range). The 2 that I'm most interested in right now has come down to AMD vs Intel. One is powered by a AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and the other a Intel Core 2 Duo E6400. Heres the thing. The AMD is much faster than the Intel E6400 because it's Rated at 3.0GHz with 2000 FSB at 1 MBx2 L2 Cache. The Intel E6400 is rated at 2.16GHz with 1066 FSB at 2 (or was it 4?) MB L2 cache. In the benchmarks I looked at, the X2 6000+ was equal or better to the Intel E6600 on alot of test, and on some the E6600 out performed it. So economically speaking, I could get the equation of a E6600 c2d (in some apps alot better) by going with the AMD 6000+. The E6400 c2d isn't quite as fast. It's also not a slouch either by any stretch of imagination compared to what I have now. The biggest decisions I'm wieghing is these... The AMD powered PC is faster, plus it has 3 GB (the Intel one only has 2). But the AMD PC can only be upgraded to 4 GB of RAM at most. The Intel one can be upgaded to 8. And even though the the Intel E6400 machine is slower, it has more goodies to go with it. It does have a slightly better GeForce graphics card, and it also comes media center ready with a TV Tuner and remote (although I don't think it'll play/record our Dish Network). This is very attractive to me (I want to record TV on my HD real bad so I can edit it). but I also concidered that I could just add on that stuff later. And like I've said, I've only ever been an Intel guy. It's the only thing I've owned thus far and it's been old faithful for me. So that's my dellima. I can go with a faster AMD 3.0 GHz machine with more RAM (3GB), or I can go with a Intel c2d 2.16Ghz (more Cache though) that performed less and has 1 GB less RAM but has more entertainment treats that comes with it. I also forgot to mention that the Intel machine comes with Vista Ultimate. The AMD one does not. (It hasVista Home Premium). It is also $100 (USD) less than the slightly faster AMD machine. I honestly wish I could just get XP for now until Vista gets hammered out. I don't feel like dealing with all the Vista bugs like I did XP when it first came out. But it looks like I really don't have a choice in a pre-built manufacture PC. All that being said, Which one of those machines would you choose?
Well, I don't know what you want the machine for, but to me 3 gigs of ram is plenty. Of course I'm only running 512mb of ram now so maybe it's just by comparison to what I have. I honestly do not know when you would need 8 gigs of ram unless you are doing some serious graphic intensive work or running a LOT of programs. Of course if you plan to keep the machine for many years you might want the option of 8 gigs. Basically, do you see yourself needing more than 4 gigs of ram before you see yourself needing a new comp again? The tv tuner is nice, but that is an easy thing to add later. I would base the decision on performance of them achine, not extras. After all what good is a tv tuner if the machine doesn't perform the way you want it to. The goodies on a slow machine just slow it down more when you try to use them. You'd be better off adding the goodies to a faster machine. So, as I see it, it all depends on how often you want to upgrade and what you want upgraded. The intel machine being able to go up to 8 gigs of ram is great, but what processors does the mother board support? Will it support processors that are faster than the AMD machine? If so, perhaps you can go with the machine that has all the stuff you want and then upgrade just the processor in the future when you get some more money. I really hate decisions like this cause there are just so many optins and everyone has an opinion and they are all different usually. I am glad a was steered away from the pentium D though so it's not all bad.
Well, you said, the Intel one comes with a e6400, but you didnt describe what kind of proc the AMD one has, I believe all you said was 3.0 ghz, so I can't help you come to a conclusion on that until I know what model the AMD one is. Vista premium, ultimate, I haven't been on point lately with the differences between new vista versions so I can't help you on that. Memory, of coarse, more may be better, but it also matters what MHZ speed you will be getting in that department as well... ANd finally the graphics card, if it even has a card at all. Or onboard grafix. But you mentioned a gforce but don't recall the model no. All in all Im sure BOTH CPU"s are comparible, Ive heard Intel's are better for 1 serious application, whereas the AMD will multi-task slightly better. "Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all. We're still waiting to get our hands on the E6400 as it may end up being the best bang for your buck, but even the slower E6300 is quite competitive with AMD's X2 4200+ and X2 3800+. If AMD drops the price on those two parts even more than we're expecting, then it may be able to hold on to the lower end of the performance mainstream market as the E6300 is not nearly as fast as the E6600." I got those lil specs from http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19 http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996946,00.asp and here where they say with a 7900 gpx card and a Core 2 Duo E6600 vs. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+, they say on average the C2d will be around 15% better..... But with that hardware, youre talking at least 250 for the CPU, and another 250 for the Grpx Card. So theres 500+ bones right there in 2 pieces of hardware.
Thanks for the advice and information guys. It really does mean alot to me and I do take them into serious consideration. It's a HUGE help. The AMD is a Duel Core (64 X2 6000+). It has 2 slots of 1MB L2 cache. The Intel has 2MB L2 cache. I read that Cache is extremely important in making a CPU run fast because it stores that memory information on the board itself. So that will be an important factor to decide. However, so is money. The biggest thing I want to use it for is video editing and encoding. Right now I use Vegas 5.0 (probably will upgrade to 6.0 since the price cuts) and I just don't have enough Ram to make it run smoothly. It takes me hours on end to attempt anything if it doesn't lock up on me. So I need tons more ram to make it work. But I am concerned... does Vegas 6.0 work with Vista? Vista's compatability is a big issue with me. Same with 32 bit vs 64 bit since the 32 bit has alimit on the amount of RAM you can use. Another thing to concider is that Vista is a recource hog and takes up alot of memory and 15GB of HD space. But I'm not exactly sure how much Memory. Right now I have a Transformers video on hold because my current machine can't get the job done. I have it half way finished but my hardware can't handle all the clips at this point. As for the memory on the new machines, I have looked at newegg and it appears I can get some quality 1GB sticks of compatable Kingston (PC4200) DDR2 Ram for 35 dollars a piece. It even won a consumer award. And if I can get more quality Ram at that cheap Price should RAM even be a factor right now?
Maybe make sure no other programs are running when you start Vegas, Ive heard Vista eats up ram due to the GUI, but, maybe install a dual boot to your machine, with like Linux Ubuntu, to minimize the RAM usage for your machine? ANd run VEGAS on Linux, that may give you more headroom to work with it on Ubuntu, instead of Vista....to run a lil more smoothly. DO NOT add a new stick of RAM to your Motherboard of a different MHZ with the one you currently have, it sometimes causes more problems than what its worth. ALWAYS try to match your sticks of RAM of the same MHZ on your board. In my opinion anyway. Check your Motherboard Specifications to see what they reccomend as a MAXIMUM speed that is safe and compatible with your MOTHERBOARD. I believe it help the CPU operate more smoothly as it gives some headroom for the CPU to breathe. (afaik) Or maybe HEAT is your issue and the CPU is running hot and possibly shuts down, POSSIBLY. Get a temperature monitor program and see what temp your CPU is running at at full load. Ive never heard the 32 bit, or 64 bit windows has a limit on RAM, I think you are limited to what your MOTHERBOARD can handle, as Windows is just an operating system, but I could be wrong on that.
I say go with the AMD machine. After some quick research, there's more than a noticeable difference between the two. For an extra $100, it's completely worth it. As for a TV tuner and such, you can pick those up nowadays for somewhere around $100, so that shouldn't be TOO much of a worry. Also, when dealing with Vista, while ultimate is nice to have, Home Premium's not really gonna slow you down. Ultimate has a few extra features (hard drive encryption, moving backgrounds) but nothing really all that striking. Vista overall is a bit of a pain right now, but you can look forward to most of them being sorted out by the first service pack, which should be out by the end of the year or early 2008.
OK here's an update. Even though I'm pretty partial to Intel and especially the great reviews for the Core 2 Duo, for the sake of money I decided to give the AMD a try. So I went to the store and bought what looked like a very great value AMD 64 X2 5000+ 2.6 Ghz powered Gateway for around $400 and bought a superb TV Tuner and nice GeForce 8500GT ($86) and a stick of 1GB Ram. Well I decided to try it out before I do any upgrades to it incase I ran into any problems and its a good thing I did. I plugged everything in and made sure my moniter (same one I'm on now) coard is tight and pushed power. Guess what? Moniter says it's getting no signal. I called Gateway and they were of little help. They said it could be a graphics card thing (key word being COULD) but didn't know. They were clueless. She said I could try the graphics card. But I didn't take their word for it so I called Best Buy Geek Squad and he was stumped too, but he at least warned me not to open it up because then they wouldn't take it back. He said to just return it. So now I'm having to return the machine for another one and I'm actually thinking about just returning everything and getting that AMD 6000+ with 3GB Ram. The thing that's holding me back is that AMD 64 X2 6000+ machine only has GeForce 6150se shared (integrated) graphics so I'll definately need a new one especially considering Vista's demands and that I'll be doing a lot of editing. What would you do? Go for the one I can afford to get the GeForce 8500GT with now, or just go for the faster processor and stick with the GeForce 6150se integrated graphics for a while? The big consideration with the graphics is that I am used to a nVidia TNT2 card. Do you think the 6150se will be any worse than the TNT2 considering Vista's demands? Also, how much of your processor and RAM does Vista actually consume? (How much does it take away from your other applications?)
That video card is crap value for money. Additionally extra RAM on low-end video cards are a waste of money. Also, DX10 cards - unless one really wants to play Halo 2 on Windows Vista, no games in the near or fairly distant future will force one to buy a Direct X10 card, all of the DX10 cards are overpriced and DX10 has serious issues of its own. You might as well get a mid-range DX9-based card for a little bit more, such as a GeForce 7900GS or a ATI Radeon X1950Pro, or just get a cheap 7600GT now. Then upgrade to a DX10 card in the future when you are finally forced to (and that that point there will be a wider range to choose from and prices will be lower). To run a newdecent video card, unless he already had a good power supply, its HIGHLY advisable that he gets a brand new, well-branded power supply. Does the motherboard with the integrated graphics have a PCI express X16 slot for a new video card should you want to upgrade later? If you choose the integrated solution, then you'd probably not want to run Vista's Aero Glass desktop. It uses your video card's 3D capability to run its fancy effects and thus is a considerable resource hog. I'm avoiding Vista until I have to upgrade to it.
Yes. I could use that. I wish I could avoid Vista but I kind of have no options if I know nothing about programming through Operating Systems. I have another update. I fiddled around with the machine again and for some reason this time it decided to boot up. Only the first time it booted up I got nothing but a bunch of graphic glitched scrambled color squares across a black screen. The same thing you see if you've ever seen an Arcade Game being start up for the first time of the day, or after being worked on. At first it looked like a faulty computer, but then I pushed the power button and tried to boot it up again. This time it booted correctly but noted how Windows did not shut down properly the last time and promted me. I commanded it to open normally. And ever since it's been booting up normally. It's slow as mollassis though. Of coarse, I also havn't put in the extra Gig of RAM or the GeForce 8500 GT (PCI x16 express) yet either though. I did test a DVD out and it looks like Youtube quality witch is crap. Still, I know how much of a resource hog Vista is and I'm wondering if I should keep this thing and upgrade it (seems OK now, don't no what the deal was with that. Just a little slow on Vista with the bloat ware though) Or just keep the crappy Graphics and go for the more (3.0 Ghz) CPU with an Extra 2 (1 if I do the upgrade to this one)Gigs of memory but sacrafice the video card. What do you think? I know one thing that I think... I think Vista is a fat pig!
Ya, Youre right, but I was only using thatas an "in stock" example at newegg, and the "moderate" pricepoint. Also since it is DX10..... And on 1280x1024 the 7900gs gives more performance, but I believe it costs more, on average depending on the game or benchmark I seen the 7900 had a better performance average of 5 fps over the 8600. but I was using a "in stock" example...and It aint all THAT bad, and over a 7600, should be a slightly better choice, without having to upgrade later again. It may look like crap due to the resolution you are playing the video at?
well, the money you might save by sacrificing CPU, may be enough benifit to keep the downgrade advisable...however if youre looking to game right off the bat, I dont think integrated graphix will get you there and run vista smoothly so theres 2 knocks on the faster cpu. and the only thing youll get for the upped CPU money IS an faster CPU, and more Ram. it's tough when you get into that scenario, and theres not alot of room for improvement. The kicker would be "if" the 6000+ is THAT much better. But, if you can save enough from keeping the downgraded one, to say, buy a better GRAPHIX card, maybe stick with it? It may just ned some display tweaking, aero changes, or driver changes for the 8500?
Well the 8500GT (wich was on sale for $85) would have to be added to either one of them. They both come with the exact same integrated graphics. It's just that the one with the AMD 64 X2 5000+ is $180 less expensive then the the one with 3GB RAM and 3.0 Ghz AMD X2. Not to mention the 3.0 6000+ has double the cache (1MB + 1MB for 2). Here is some benchmarks I saw at Toms hardware.... http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html The only thing is that lists a whole bunch of AMD 64 X2 5000+'s so I don't know wich one this machine is. I'm pretty sure it's a 90nm socket though. It has 512 + 512 L2 Cache and 2000 FSB and uses 533Mhz PC4200( through 6300) DDR2 Ram memory sticks. Another Alternative I thought about is a 2.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo E4400. It's benchmarks actually show it to be faster than a E6300. Although I haven't been able to find any tests comparing it to the AMD 5000+ though because I think it's fairly new. It's cache size seems to be what makes it a little quicker. It actually has less FSB than the E6300 so it's got to be the cache. I'm not really going to game a whole lot on it. I'll mostly be doing Video/Audio Editing and Encoding for my productions. The most demanding game I'll play is probably Civ 4. Other than that, nothing too modern. I am so unfamiliar with all this stuff so I am really relying you you guys opinions. Keep in mind my number one use I want to do with this PC is Video Editing.
ANSWER: Look for the RED bars. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=925&model2=882&chart=433 On an AVG VIRUS SCAN benchmark, your 5000+ cpu kills the E4300. Period. However, ,when you flip the Intel choice to a E6750, It kills the 5000+ by 27 SECONDS!!!!LAWL. Now flip the settings to pit the 6000+ windsor vs. E6750, Intel still kills the 6000+ by 11 seconds on same benchmark. A virus scan, but still valid. However, look whitch ones are ABOVE your CPU, IN RED REMEMBER! (even though your 5000+ is at the top pinnacle, The only other CPU's that fair better than your 5000+ now, is the E6400 and UP, OR CONVERSELY, the 5200+ and UP (of coarse) because it IS faster anyways out of the box. Download a program called CPU-Z. It will show you EXACTLY what CPU you have, and the current stats of your CPU. Conclusion: the 5000+ is a very valid choice. However, The CONROE DIES of Intel flavor, starting with the E6400 are the only ones that do better. (IN THIS BENCHMARK) (or the 5200+ and up) The E4400 is in no way faster than your 5000+. < peroid. cache or not. It really shouldnt be confusing to you, because the numbers are there. You just have to LOOK at them to determine what is what. Or you could EBAY the used 5000+ cpu for 60 bucks. and upgrade to the 6000 lawl. ANSWER: Get CPU-Z!! SEE what CPU you have. black and white period. http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpu-z-141.zip
