AMD or INTEL?

[chu]

I plan on building a new rig. My current is a:

AMD Athlon 1ghz - Asus A7N266-C nForce 415-D
256mb DDR SDRAM
GeForce 2 Ultra 64mb

This machine may run HL 2 but I won't play the game unless I can max out everything.

My knowledge to computer parts isn't extremely high. I really need recommendations for mobo and processor.

I definately plan on getting ATI 9800 pro, around 1 gig ram, harddrive and other parts to be decided, just worried about the core components right now.

My current fundings right now is around the $1200 mark, may be higher once I get a job. But $1200 should be plenty.

help if you can, thanks

 

[Owskie]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8528

 

[rec]

You would probably be a wiser man waiting 4-6 weeks before your upgrade. By this time, AMD's Athlon64 will have been released, as will the KT800 and nForce3 chipsets!

Anandtech recently published a preview of the Athlon64 with nForce3 chipset and threw it head-to-head with a range of other Intel and AMD setups. You'll be pleasantly suprised when you see how well the A64 performs. If you're looking to setup a top notch gaming rig, AMD's new solution is definately the way you want to go.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1856

The gaming benchmarks were a very pleasant surprise on our Athlon64 level Opteron. The 2.0GHz Opteron on an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro video card significantly out-performed the same setup with Pentium 4. As you can see in our benchmarks, the older Quake 3 is about 10% faster on the 2.0GHz Opteron than it is on the fastest P4 that we have tested.

Even more surprising is the performance of the A64 level Opteron on Gun Metal 2. This DX9 benchmark is an up-to-date gaming benchmark that shows the Opteron out-performing P4 and Athlon 3200+ by a whopping 42% to 54%. As we continue through Unreal Tournament 2003, our Opteron running at A64 speed is the clear gaming champion at 12% to 19% faster than number 2.

This gaming performance is very good news for AMD, as Athlon64 appears capable of mopping the floor with the competition when it comes to gaming. The on-chip memory controller has had the promise of making this kind of difference in gaming performance. In as much as our Opteron at 2.0Ghz is representative of Athlon64 gaming performance, the Athlon64 will be a must-have for dedicated gamers. Keep in mind that this is a comparison of 32-bit gaming performance. As effective as the Athlon64/Opteron appear to be in this area, we can’t wait to see 64-bit gaming results.

As for RAM, make sure you're buying two 512mb DDR400 sticks to run in dual.

 

[Tork]

id go with AMD since I own one right now and loving it and for the price you cant go wrong with AMD.

 

[KiNG]

ok this question has been asked since the dawn of AMD and INTEL. your asking for a war. AMD is a good back for buck, not as expensive and INTEL but if u can afford it INTEL has the lead in the industry as of 3.2 Ghz. now with 1200(USD?) i would go with AMD only because you can get more for it. 1200 is a bit limited for INTEL but its definatly doable. now either way overclocking will be safe if u know how, best site i know of is www.overclockers.com forums. im going to give u some idea with wut u can do go either way.(note this is only CPU, MOBO, RAM, and HD)

AMD System:
9800 pro 128mb = 352
A7n8x-Deluxe = 125
1 GB Corsair XMS 3200 =245
AMD XP 3000+ = 262
80 GB WEstern Digital HD 8mb cache 7200RPM = 79

INTEL System:
9800 Pro 128mb = 352
P4C800 Deluxe = 179
1 GB Corsair XMS 3200 = 245
2.8C = 265
80 GB western Digital 8mb cache 7200RPM = 79

AMD Total: 1063 INTEL Total: 1120

as u can see intel is more expensive, both of these chips are overclockable and very dependable.

EDIT: if u wanted to cut down on cost and not lose much i would substitute AMD's 3000+ for a 2500+ and INTEL's 2.8C for 2.4C.
both of those chips can reach the the same speeds as the more expensive ones, but they do put out more heat. INTEL's HSF(heatsink and fan) is great and does not need to be replaced. AMD's would be better with a SLK-800 or SLK-900 with any good 80mm fan. that is if u plan to overclock. if u dont want to overclock go for the more expensive one.

 

[Woggy]

Id get a Intel P4 2.4C or 2.8C

 

[Arno]

Originally posted by KiNG
AMD System:
9800 pro 128mb = 352
A7n8x-Deluxe = 125
1 GB Corsair XMS 3200 =245
AMD XP 3000+ = 262
80 GB WEstern Digital HD 8mb cache 7200RPM = 79

INTEL System:
9800 Pro 128mb = 352
P4C800 Deluxe = 179
1 GB Corsair XMS 3200 = 245
2.8C = 265
80 GB western Digital 8mb cache 7200RPM = 79

AMD Total: 1063 INTEL Total: 1120

as u can see intel is more expensive, both of these chips are overclockable and very dependable.

Nice comparison. Keep in mind that an Intel 2.8C is quite a bit faster then an AMD XP3000+, so the Intel chip is definitly worth it's money.

It's probably a good idea to wait for the arrival of the Athlon64 chip. Even if you can't afford one, it will cause the other CPU's to drop in price.

 

[rec]

If you look at the AMD64 preview, you'll see that it clearly outperforms any Intel chip in gaming bechmarks.

 

[KiNG]

i honestly would go with the intel. even though i have a 2500+ .that is for right now. processors will "upgrade" hopefully by the end of this year.

 

[Meteor_of_War]

Originally posted by rec
You would probably be a wiser man waiting 4-6 weeks before your upgrade.

Anyone that's even half as excited as me about playing HL2 with settings maxed out when it's released will know that that's not an option.

 

[TrueWeltall]

While your at it if your going to wait for athlon 64 and pci express you should wait for btx too. /sarcasm

 

[ag3nt187]

That radeon 9800pro 128mb can be found on mwave.com for only $315


It's OEM, but something to think about if you don't care for the box/manual.

 

[KiNG]

its on newegg for 305 as well but i put a sapphire (352) down instead as i trust sapphire for qualty and performance.

 

[Asus]

I would think an Intel 2.4c or AMD 2500+ along with a Radeon 9800 Pro would be enough performance to max out detail for HL2.
Don't forget a good Monitor. If you have an old (non flatscreen) CRT, might be a good idea to upgrade that. A nice 19" Flatscreen CRT sounds nice.

But the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ is will be in stores very soon (launches Sept 23rd). It outperforms Intel's p4 3.2ghz fsb800 CPU. It even outperforms the P4 in memory bandwidth as well, with its 800mhz Hypertransport and memory controler that is intergrated right into the CPU. Price will be lower than the P4 3.2ghz (because there is going to be a Athlon FX that will be priced higher than the Athlon 64 3200+)...Ive heard somewhere around 400$ USD.
This is definatly a monster CPU for any gamer.
The option to run 32bit or 64bit OS is just icing on the cake.

I really dont care for ATI OEM just because they used to let the OEM parts be clocked lower. Not sure if they still do that though. Not to mention you dont get warrenty from ATI with OEM (except maybe 60days or whatever the policy is with the store you bought it from).

 

[Sgt.Igneri]

Ok, im going to simplify this. ATM Intel is in the lead of 32bit CPUs. The "C" intels outperform their barton "equivelents"

I dont like these threads at all, but ill let you discuss, and if ONE single flame is made it gets closed.

 

[mrk]

If you "want" to spend teh extra money on an intel based system then go ahead but the AMD 64 is clearly the winner on everything the latest intels have to offer and its cheaper too...

I know the intels are 32 bit and the amd64 well, 64bit! but the reason still stands, you wnat to upgrade soon and the fastest most powerful homeCPU ever is just around the corner and people are recommending a p4......... *SLAP*

 

[Sgt.Igneri]

Notice how i said 32bit CPUs.

 

[Asus]

Originally posted by mrk
but the reason still stands, you wnat to upgrade soon and the fastest most powerful homeCPU ever is just around the corner and people are recommending a p4......... *SLAP*

Originally posted by Sgt.Igneri
Notice how i said 32bit CPUs.

I think the *SLAP* still stands. :-p
lol