Which Processor?

I would NOT advise going with the AMD processor. The current Intel dual core is superior. I am currently running an Intel E6600 Core 2 Duo LGA775 2.4GHz 4MB L2 1066FSB, which was the best option for my new computer back in May (that and the Asus P5B LGA775 motherboard which is similar to the Gigabyte version). I have no experience with the quad cores (I don't think they are good value for money yet).

I don't want to get into a big "thing" over this, but I run 2BG of 667MHz ram as there was practically no benefit I could see in running 800Mhz ram from a speed point of view (which was almost twice the price of the 667Mhz).

Last year AMD was better. Next year?? The thing to do is buy the speed grade that is 20-30% down from the peak and change to a new motherboard each year as tech advances. Resell the old one.

Do not buy a high cost computer and expect it to be current for the entire 4 years of college as it will be snail slow compared to new tech and will have zero value.

Ha. I just upgraded in May. My old computer was a 400Mhz 256MB ram 20GB hard drive. FPS dropping to single figures anyone. Anyway, as mentioned it doesn't pay to buy top of the line, but if you buy a good system which is able to be upgraded then you can get really good value for money with moderate upgrades in graphics cards (I went thru about 3 and it really helped keep my computer running, sort of).

I would basically agree, Intel-based these days, are more solid and dependable than AMD, with one exclusion:

Typical AMD motherboards support 2 Ghz FSB, while those of Intel have barely half that, at 800 Mhz. So if it's for heavy math / floating-point crunching, such as animation rendering or 3d-polygon gaming, I would point to the FSB as the main channel for data-transfer between the CPU and RAM, with all dedicated Card-Hardware in between.

As to heat: Most boards today are adept to balance clock speeds to cooler / fan activity, either manually or automatically, from within the desktop.

At the moment, the Intel Core 2 Duo range is superior in my opinion. However, speed is rarely constrained by the processor - it depends on what you are doing. Are you paying high end games, editing video / photos, using a CAD package, high levels of database work, etc?

You need to consider the amount of memory, hard disk type/speed (and the type of interface to the hard disk), the graphics card, etc - all will be slightly different depending on your intended use.

Tell me what it will be used for & I can give you more specific thoughts.

Cheers.

If money is no object:

CPU - Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850

MB - EVGA nForce 680i SLI

RAM - 2GB Corsair Dominator

Power Supply - 750 Watt min - go top end

HD - Western Digital Raptor 10,000 RPM

The Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8GHz Socket LGA 775 800 MHz 2MB

With

GIGABYTE GA-965P-DS3 V3.3 Socket LGA 775 Intel 965P ATX motherboard with DVD Wirter & 1GB DDR2 800/667 Memeory along with 512MB Graphis Card is best for computing & as well as games applications,better to go for it,

Regards

Vagish

India

email ID :sachet2707@yahoo.co.in

This thread is always been asked and the answer never correct everytime.

I came across this question whenever myself, my friend, my company...etc ask this question.

Well, i saw an answer in a magazine few days back.

According to the history, AMD and Intel NEVER make the same speed prcessor, they are at relay race...until today for example... the latest Core 2 Duo is faster than the AMD's.

Then latest discussion is Core 2 Extreme against the unreleased AMD Quadcore

Extreme is actually two Core 2 put together where else AMD's is actually 4 cores independant to each other and the heat desipation has improved (due to the new micron thick processor) and was rated better speed than Core 2 Extreme... but! till it release to the market, i will reserve my views.

Needless to mention, the price is always at the AMD's side.

Cheers.... :D

Yes, I agreed due to speed/performance/price outperform Intel anytime, reserve my view for comparing apple to apple before judging AMD to prove its points. I do not take side, five computers at that I got, AMD 4800x2 and Intel 2 duos.

I run AMD in all my computers and so does our company. The AMD is cheaper and faster than the specs shown. I mainly use my Clevo clone 17" laptop with AMD 86x 64 bit CPU, 2 Gb ram, and it is used as a 3D modelling and CAD machine drafting industrial mechanical conveyor components. I have had to only add some thermal grease #2 a couple of years ago when it was new and it has not failed me since , even on the most graphic intensive files(5.8Gb) in full. Heat is not an issue.

The Intel Core Duo from our clients point of view has performed but speed performance is reliant on comparison with Windows Vista but has been known to stall (presumeably due to the overheating internally in the CPU). I only have the many different client views and this is what I am relaying as my secondhand hearsay. The Vista may be the cause as it is so buggy and does not live up to the hype from all reports and this may be what causes the CPU to over work.

Personnally, I have found my 20 or so private computers over the past 15 to 20 years have all been AMD with the exception of 2 which I purchased as complete systems have performed to capacity and faultlessly.

AMD satisfied user.

Your son is going to college? right. Does he value portability or power? Portables do better with intel in general. But what makes a computer fast is not the cpu, but the communications. In particular, it is in two places, communication between memory storage and image manipulation. A great big hard drive is great, but the same in RAM will always be faster. Medium size hard drive and same to twice in ram does best in the speed race The same reason is to buy the best that you can afford graphics card with largest possible ram amount. If you go desktop, ( often the least cost route)remember that portability can be better done with a Treo or Blackberry model with build-in camera will be best. Two blue tooth add-ons bt keyboard and bt ear phone/mic on the mic cheaper can often be better @ picking up lectures. Expect to also spend and additional $200 in program upgrades and sd cards. for either Treo or BLBY. Now he can record lectures, listens to books, exchange notes and sd memory is cheap and fast too. He can use either machine with a little help to connect anywhere on campus. I concur go a gen on cpu back and spend the money you save in these directions. Not the coolest, but you find it a better way. Did this help? Oh, for my expertise on this subject well I've owned a personal computer since 1978. My first modem ran @ 300 baud. I've only owned 2 new computers, most were used that I made work to new SPECs, so I've played with them a little bit.

This thread sort of went the way I expected, which is to discuss specs and performance that generally don't add up to much IRL. We can get all geeky about specs and "mines faster than yours." But at the end of the calculation we waste more time scratching our heads than waiting for the CPU.

The Intel is probably the way to go in terms of chip performance, but unless it's surrounded by the proper peripherals for the video and RAM it's not going to make a big difference. As one person pointed out, the big question is "what are you using it for?"

If you're just running MS Office stuff for college studies then the AMD will do nicely. If you're going to be running CAD or some heavy duty FEA or simulation package like SPICE then you probably want the Intel, but the difference in most calculations are going to be measured in seconds.

If you're going for exteremly high video rates for gaming then you need a fairly high end system, including the Intel chip set. And if you're playing online games your connection will matter more than the computer in most cases.

For me the bottom line is to buy what I can comfortably afford. There's definately no reason to spend a ton of money for incremental performance improvements.

I would ask the IT student what he needs/wants. Give the kid a price and he should be able to figure it out.

I would never trust my mother to pick out a computer , especially if I was in IT...

It is true at this moment that if you buy top of the line, Intel have (after some years of only being 2nd) squeaked back into the number 1 slot.....

The question was though about slightly down level components and there the AMD wins hands down. For a few bucks more, it could be even faster!!

In "Bangs for Bucks", AMD is still the best I feel with regard to reliability and longterm ownership. (not that the PC market is very "long-term"!!)

I dislike the marketing policies of Intel, and only buy from them when I absolutely must....(one Laptop last year was Intel), ever since they started cutting the legs off CPUs to stop people using them "two-up" on certain mainboards in 1999.....

Also, there is a court case (still pending I believe?) between the two companies, because of possible unfair marketing tactics practised by Intel, a few years ago.....according to the press reports at the time, they paid PC companies not to stock AMD....

All of my PCs since 1999 were AMD, and all the ones that I still possess are still running without problems (4), still doing the work they were either bought or built for.

Generally speaking AMD run much cooler than an equivalent Intel and use less power....but, if needed, most AMD chips can also accept much higher temperatures than Intel, without getting damaged (if a fan stops for example!). I have never had to replace a CPU for damage, just occasionally to upgrade...

Intel chips are seemingly more fragile and less forgiving, at least up to last year...I must admit that in 2007 I have not really kept up with the race as much as before...

I am sure that AMD will be back in first place again probably within 12 months as they have made a better job of the new multi-processors (or so I have understood from the press reports).

If you are an out and out Intel fan, then go for an Intel as you will not be happy with an AMD then, but if you really want reliability, AMD is your chip supplier...

Best of luck with your choice either way.

CPU at moderate speed for IT purpose is adequate. When you build the system should be deter which is being run or type application dedicate to be run.

Such as, video editing system, AutoCAD, Solidwork or any type of simulation process; therefore, CPU cycle processing time is importance, Tera bytes of Hard drive Raid SATA configuration that benefits from true bandwidths of bus speed, dual channel (4 Bytes ram or more), high quality video card (had high ram that is dedicating its own processes). Whenever digital media encode or decode is requiring CPU performance tremendously. Otherwise, you'd make simple purchased goes from here.

The processor is rarely the constraint. The bottleneck is usually the busses.

I helped do some of the development on the Pentium II etc. at Intel. At that time I built a PII 266Mhz with fast busses using a micron high end mother board. It did 625 MIPS for $5,000 and lots of horse trading. Now my AMD 2x mid range processor, in my laptop, is 23 times faster and has over 100 times as much ram of all types.

Due to software becoming obese there is not allot of difference performance but the whistles and bells are sure pretty.

If you want speed, look for forward compatibility. The day it is released the system is obsolete, bugs and all.

If value is a concern, ride the tech wave just not the top prices of the wave.

In IT the school should give him the experience on all the different hard and soft ware he needs.

What he will get from the latest tech, high end system is down time fixing the bugs in his own system instead of a stable platform to do school work on. Once he is proficient he will build his systems for their use. School peer pressure is probably more of a driving factor for speed right now. Contact the school for their suggestions.

Hope this was of help.