Intel/AMD now? AMD later?

[Miasma]

Well it's summertime again - the time once a year I upgrade my computer, except this time around, I'll be buying a new computer.

Currently my budget is not a problem (Yay I have an extra $3000 sitting around...) but something else is: I want to buy the absolute best system you can possibly buy (aside from the nVidia vs. ATI debate). Intel is getting the better of AMD right now and their P4 3.0ghz chips are proven (thanks http://www.tomshardwareguide.com) to be faster at the moment.

However AMD is releasing their new chipset, the Athlon 64 (ironically on the 30th of September). Being a 64 bit chipset it can process double the amount of information at one time, therefore a 2ghz 64 bit processor can run close to the same speed as a 4ghz.

However my current computer is a piece of crap and want a new computer ASAP. Obviously I won't buy the Athlon 64 as soon as it comes off the market because the first chips are obviously never the best and won't be fully supported right away (64 bit CPU with programs made to run on a 32 bit?)

I wan't everyone's opinion right now. WHEN OH WHEN will I throw away this shitty AMD Duron for a high-end computer? Shall I wait until AMD releases the "next revolution" in high-end computing or shall I blow my money early on a nice stallion from Alienware?

 

[Jagermeister]

Are you gonna build the system yourself or are you gonna newb it out and buy a gaming machine?

 

[$pazmatazz]

Actually, 64-bit doesn't mean it can process twice the amount of information per clock cycle. A 64-bit processor is designed to take advantage of a 64-bit platform (ie. Windows XP 64-bit edition) giving you advantages like better memory addressing, support for much larger memory sizes, etc. The core processing power of the CPU will still be based on cache, FSB, pipeline..

Also, it's hard to say if 64-bit addressing will really be that huge of a benefit. There isn't a whole lot of 64-bit software that the average consumer uses. The new Athlons are backwards compatible with 32-bit software, but when running in compatibility mode, the processor sees none of the benefits of 64-bit.

Even with the introduction of Athlon 64, Intel will be soon to follow with their Prescott core for the Pentium 4. There's even speculation that Intel has already integrated a 64-bit extension (codenamed Yamhill) into Prescott. This is a similar move as to Hyper-Threading, sinse Hyper-Threading was integrated all the way back into the Pentium III line of processors, only locked.

If you wanna go with something for HL2, I'd upgrade now. Even if Athlon 64 or Prescott comes out right when HL2 is released, it'll cost a good chunk of cash for the chips. And even if cost isn't an issue, it's hard not to be deterred by the fact that buying top of the line is like throwing away a good hundered bucks you could have saved if you waited a month.

 

[righte0us]

dude, getting a 64bit machine isn't gonna help ya.
wanna know why? cause none of the current operating systems can even use the 64bit tech. not even Windows Longhorn which is due only to 2005 will be still using 32bit.

so.. yeah \:

 

[Majestic XII]

gabe said somewhere that HL2 can run in 64bits mode, i forgot where i saw that though.

And dont use http://www.tomshardwareguide.com as a resource for Intel vs AMD. Everyone that are alittle into hardware and visiting hardware sites knows that tom have been in some trouble with cheating and so on.

I whould never trust Toms again after those things.

 

[EVIL]

yeah.. i was warned also not to trust thier reviews

 

[Miasma]

wanna know why? cause none of the current operating systems can even use the 64bit tech. not even Windows Longhorn which is due only to 2005 will be still using 32bit.

This is true. I was getting mixed up information from different sources. My father who is a complete AMD geek (he has a shitload of AMD stock) was saying something like upgrading to a 64-bit processor was going to basically double the amount of information passed through per clock cycle. I was skeptical because I hadn't heard of much hype around the Athlon 64. I also knew that it probably wasn't going to be compatible or at least optimized with current software (which is why I started this thread to ask).

gabe said somewhere that HL2 can run in 64bits mode, i forgot where i saw that though.

Yes, and they are putting Opteron support for the serverside.

And dont use http://www.tomshardwareguide.com as a resource for Intel vs AMD. Everyone that are alittle into hardware and visiting hardware sites knows that tom have been in some trouble with cheating and so on.

Also don't go to http://www.amdzone.com to get your information. :dozey:

Are you gonna build the system yourself or are you gonna newb it out and buy a gaming machine?

I am not a newb if I wan't a professional to build me a nice optimized machine. I would build one myself but remember I'm not working on a tight budget.

 

[EVIL]

I think its smarter to build it yourself.. you learn a lot more.. knowledge is AWSOME!

 

[Draklyne]

I forgot where I heard this, probably in a PCGamer magazine, but a 64-bit processor will allow a higher degree of detail.
Hopefully by then, a 64-bit version of windows will be available, and HL2 will be compatible with the 64-bit windows version. (64-bit windows = Windows Anvil)
For now, I'd get a 2.4C GHz Intel P4 processor and overclock it to 3.0GHz or over. More for your money! Just make sure to buy the retail version, as the OEM versions of the 2.4C are cheaper (according to Hardocp.com). The new 800MHz Front Side Bus in the Intel boards really packs a punch.

 

[Remedy]

Originally posted by Miasma
Intel is getting the better of AMD right now and their P4 3.0ghz chips are proven (thanks http://www.tomshardwareguide.com) to be faster at the moment.

Umm which proceesor did tom run against the P4. If it's the review against the 3000+ than its bullshit. Thos two processors are practically neck and neck. AMD performed better on the 3Dmark tests and the Adobe product tests. P4 did better with business Apps, tested with SYSmark 2002. But we all know about the controversy with SYSmark2002.

Anyway, Go with the new barton core, HL2 will just fly by.

 

[A.A]

Tomshardware....I wouldn't trust all he writes.

 

[RoyalEF]

Miasma..from your last response I couldn't tell if you were building it yourself or not. The grammar was all fakockta.

Having monitored professional systems for performance I have some recommendations.

Go for a 10000RPM disk if the cost doesn't push it out of your range. A really high end would have a dedicated SCSI card with a significant cache 16Mb+ on board. With SCSI you could buy up to 15000RPM drives. However then you enter other possibilities and more complex configs(3+disks in RAID 5 being choice).

A 2.4/2.6 Ghz could save you hundreds off a 3.0 GHz. The motherboard could support an upgrade in the future to 3.0ghz or beyond. If you really start using it (most of don't use this 99% of the time). While you don't have budget problems, you will pay a rather useless premium and the machine may not make a noticeable difference.

Another option is to get a dual CPU motherboard and only fill one CPU. Latter on when the CPU prices fall, buy a second one cheap. In that case I would push for a higher CPU as the cost will be offset when I upgrade the machine with a second cheap one.

Get the fastest memory speeds-- I think DDR SDRAM 800Mhz is the fastest now (400Mhzx2)...I think.

If you buy a prebuilt machine don't load it up with memory. COmpanies charge a big premium for memory. Price out what the memory would cost you. For high end dells I priced that the best config was to get 1x128Mb or 1x256Mb and populate the rest yourself, saving several hundred dollars. The average person has no idea how simple adding memory is.

If you build yourself spend extra and buy a quality motherboard. Chipsets and construction are critical factors in performance and realiability.

skipping the obvious video card selection... these are the things that determine performance.

Sound cards are more a feature set thing. With good speakers it may be arguable whether a $250 sounds really better than a $50 one.

 

[spamboo]

amd if for people who lack money (like me) you get more bang for your buck with amd, but intel is defentley the fastest. well until amd comes out with a 800mhz fsb, they are still at 533.

 

[$pazmatazz]

Originally posted by Majestic XII
I whould never trust Toms again after those things.

I'm undecided about Toms. They do seem very Intel/nVidia biased, but sometimes for good reason.

Apparently when AMD wants a reviewer to benchmark their CPU, they ask for them to test it under very strict conditions. Basically by adjusting/disabling settings any normal user wouldn't do. Tom's refuse to do this, and also have informed the public on what AMD asks. To say the least, many people were quite pissed when they found out. Perhaps that's why Pentium chips beat out AMD chips much more on Toms than on other sites like Anandtech. Hard to say..

Originally posted by RoyalEF
Get the fastest memory speeds-- I think DDR SDRAM 800Mhz is the fastest now (400Mhzx2)...I think.

I believe there's also DDR 433 and DDR 466 now too. But no chipset really takes advantage of it.

Originally posted by RoyalEF
Sound cards are more a feature set thing. With good speakers it may be arguable whether a $250 sounds really better than a $50 one.

More expensive sound cards give you more processing power onboard, taking a bit of stress of the CPU. You also get many more features you wouldn't get with an onboard sound card. My Audigy 2 has: support for 6.1 surround, true 24bit audio, EAX & ADVANCED HD, firewire port, etc.

Originally posted by spamboo
amd if for people who lack money (like me) you get more bang for your buck with amd, but intel is defentley the fastest. well until amd comes out with a 800mhz fsb, they are still at 533.

Actually the fastest FSB on AMD chips is 400MHz on the Athlon XP 3200+.

 

[ThePiston]

If you HAVE to spend that money, I can build you a $500 machine that will scream.... my fee will be $2500.

 

[Miasma]

ThePiston: Try 1500 dollars. I'm not going for a Athlon 2000+ with a GeForce 4 - I'm "buying" the highest end computer you can get out there.

Guys, I finally ordered my computer. I have a friend building it so it wont cost a shitload. Here are the specs:

-Intel PIV-C 3.0ghz 800fsb-1gb Corsair XMS PC3200 CL2 DDR RAM
-Enermax 420 watt PS
-nVidia GF FX 5900 Ultra 256mb 8x AGP
-120gb 10000rpm SCSI HDD
-Audigy 2 6.1 Platinum SC w/ Front Drive Panel
-19" NEC Flat CRT
-Creative MegaWorks THX 5.1 550watt
-Windows XP Professional

Price: $2500

This thread is closed. :sniper:

 

[ShinRa]

wow, i have the exact same thing, cept u have more hd space, and a worse vid card, and i got mine for $1200 less than u u shoulda asked me man

 

[Remedy]

looks good miasma.

Originally posted by guinny
wow, i have the exact same thing, cept u have more hd space, and a worse vid card, and i got mine for $1200 less than u u shoulda asked me man

hey guinny, the FX 5900 Ultra 256 is the fastest card on the market currently.