Boy am I glad to find you guys. I'm thinking of building or having built a new computer and one person is pushing for Intel over AMD because they say the AMD's are "overclocked" and they run too hot.
I like the idea of a 64 bit. I mostly want a business system for trading stocks and currency at home with my broadband connection. I want to use 2 monitors. Anybody have suggestions for video cards and systems for dual monitors?
I'm a little confused about the difference between the, what is it, the 754 pin vs the 939 or 940 pin AMD 64's. I read the 939 pin model is supposed to be the future path. Is that true or relevant right now?
HP/Compaq is also selling a few models with AMD 64 3400's and I was thinking about buying a stock model rather than building a system. It seems almost as cheap or cheaper, but I don't know about the upgradabilty of "store bought" systems for RAM and addon cards etc. Whadda ya think? I want to use XP Pro, but the HP's are coming with MS XP "Media edition" whatever that is.
Thoughts, opinon's, rants always appreciated.
The 1700+ means that it is really a 1500 that is supposed to be equivalent to an Intel 1700. Yeah, just like the 14 oz cans of coffee really made the same as a pound of the old stuff.
The socket 939 parts are the future of the line. AMD has demonstrated, for example, that their upcoming dual-core parts will drop right in to an existing 939 motherboard and, with a BIOS update, work just fine. A 4-way motherboard can instantly become an 8-way. Very cool.
Intel processors are certainly good too, though they only take the trophy on a few benchmarks right now. Here are a few of the big difference between AMD and Intel right now:
So, currently Intel is on a downward slope and AMD is on an upward one. Nobody has any illusions that AMD will put Intel out of business, but the competition is a good thing. AMD forces Intel to be better, and vice-versa. Right now, AMD is a better deal.
The HP/Compaq machines should be fine. OEMs are, indeed, getting to be so competitive that systems often cost as little as the parts would if you were to build your own. As far as I know, everyone else but Dell are using industry standard components in their machines, so upgradeability should be good too.
As far as dual monitor graphics cards, Matrox seems to have the most history there. However, there are lots of nVidia-based cards with dual monitor support too. For more than two, look at Appian.
Intel is nowhere near as powerful or reliable as AMD. Your friend sounds biased toward Intel for some reason or another. Bottom line--AMD has been king o' the hill for a while now with no end to their reign in sight. If you don't believe me, just check out the Anandtech website in the article. They do run a little hot, but if you have a decent case with a few 80mm fans running, then you'll be fine.
The Athlon64 3000+ is a terrific processor. I built my ex-roommate a high-end gaming rig using that gem for the workhorse. It runs REAL fast...I gotta get one myself now...
As for 939 vs. 940, once again, check out Anandtech; they fully recommend 939, saying it will be the next standard. There are already many boards out there with it, but I would recommend waiting until the nForce4 boards are out, if you are indeed building an AMD rig.
As far as XP Media Center, it's only useful if you're building a HTPC (home theater personal computer). Unless you watch TV on your computer, you won't find much use for it. For all standard computer operations, XP Pro is by far the winner.
See this:
Price is down nicely...
Saw a note on the Inquirer that AIW cards are about to be announced on the newest ATI chips the X800 and X700 before year end....