Author Topic: system upgrade. (Read 1527 times)

NOT · « **on:** July 15, 2006, 10:22:47 PM »

Hey guys, I'm planning on doing some upgrades to my system, any recomendations on parts? I am planning on new mobo, cpu, vid card, and mem, and maybe new case. I am open to intel or amd. Was actually leaning toward trying amd this go around. thanks in advance for your input. Looking for positives and negs. Especially of any products to stay away from.

handy169 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2006, 01:47:38 PM »

i would say athlon 64.. either 939 or the AM2 version .. i heard the Neo 4 chipset is nice. probably want SLI on the motherboard

heres a nice write up about the 939 vs 940 (am2) chips..

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2741

Mini D · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2006, 01:32:23 PM »

Read up a bit on the Intel conroe. The release date is July 27th. Pretty much every review site has had the chips for 2 weeks to evaluate them.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2006, 01:54:35 PM »

Yep, Intel's Conroe CPU is a very good part. It kills anything AMD has in like price ranges. Heck, AMD would have to cut thier price in half on some parts, to remain competitive.

Definately worth waiting for. It took Intel a while, but they are finally going to put the Prescott piece of crap behind them. And they are doing it with a quantum leap in performance with significantly less power consumption.

If you are looking to build a system, it would be a waste of money to build an AMD system. Intel now holds the price/performance crown.

Krusty · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2006, 05:39:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
It took Intel a while, but they are finally going to put the Prescott piece of crap behind them.

*sniff*

*wipes away tear*

But I have a Prescott!

*bawls openly*

Skuzzy · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2006, 09:32:22 AM »

Hard to have sympathy for you Krusty. It is common knowledge the Prescott CPU was Intel's worst version of the P4 to date. Even Willamette was better then the Prescott, in many areas.

The Prescott single-handedly gave AMD a pretty big jump in market share.

Conroe is a pretty significant design and market change for Intel. And it is the first time Intel has gotten a hold of the price/performance crown from AMD. Even when Northwood was faster than the top of the line AMD (before the 64 bit CPU's), it still cost more than an AMD part.

Unfortunately, you will need a new motherboard to use Conroe. I just wonder if Intel has any plans, at all, to roll out a Conroe based 478 pin P4 to replace the Prescott 478 pin part. Sure would be nice, but I doubt that will happen.

Kev367th · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2006, 01:00:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Yep, Intel's Conroe CPU is a very good part. It kills anything AMD has in like price ranges. Heck, AMD would have to cut thier price in half on some parts, to remain competitive.

Definately worth waiting for. It took Intel a while, but they are finally going to put the Prescott piece of crap behind them. And they are doing it with a quantum leap in performance with significantly less power consumption.

If you are looking to build a system, it would be a waste of money to build an AMD system. Intel now holds the price/performance crown.

Funny you should mention price cuts.
If the expected cuts go ahead the end of this month (July 24) -

AMD X2 around -
$282 5000+ (2.6GHz/512KB)
$224 4600+ (2.4GHz/512KB)
$175 4200+ (2.2GHz/512KB)
$149 3800+ (2.0GHz/512KB)

Intels should be around -
E6700 (2.67GHz/4MB) $530
E6600 (2.40GHz/4MB) $316
E6400 (2.13GHz/2MB) $224
E6300 (1.86GHz/2MB) $183

4 options -
a) Get a Conroe, if you can (most are speculating 'joe average' won't see them until September)
b) Wait for AMD "Torrenza" (basically way of having 2 x dual core on same mobo, due end this year.)
c) Wait till Q1 2007 for the AMD K8L (it is on schedule for socket AM2, delayed for AM3)
d) If AMD price cuts go ahead, makes them very competitive with similar performance Conroes. ( AM2 mobos will take K8L's in 2007)

Skuzzy · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2006, 01:22:22 PM »

Assuming they actually do drop thier prices that much.

The E6300 ($183) is faster than the 4600+ ($224).
The E6400 ($224) is faster than the 5000+ ($282).

The E6600, E6700, and E6800 ($999.00) are all faster than the FX-62 (over $1,000).

There is no way they will drop the FX-62 price to $320, which is where it will need to be in order to compete.

Kev367th · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2006, 01:33:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Assuming they actually do drop thier prices that much.

The E6300 ($183) is faster than the 4600+ ($224).
The E6400 ($224) is faster than the 5000+ ($282).

The E6600, E6700, and E6800 ($999.00) are all faster than the FX-62 (over $1,000).

There is no way they will drop the FX-62 price to $320, which is where it will need to be in order to compete.

I don't think they'll drop the FX-62 that much either.

Lucky I don't need to upgrade until first half 2007

.

In gaming benchmarks the 5000 is faster than the E6400, unitl you hit insane resolutions where they all tend to be about the same.
It's also faster at multitasking.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=7467&head=0

By contrast yup the E6300 holds about the same advantage over the 3800 that the 5000 holds over the E6400.

So performance top/bottom
5000
E6400
E6300
3800

Schutt · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2006, 01:47:58 PM »

Intel definetly has a good offer there... AMD will have to cut prices or present a new processor verry fast.

Currently i would really give it 2 weeks before upgrading.... it will either be much cheaper or a lot faster.

Kev367th · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2006, 01:55:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Schutt
Intel definetly has a good offer there... AMD will have to cut prices or present a new processor verry fast.

Currently i would really give it 2 weeks before upgrading.... it will either be much cheaper or a lot faster.

Thats the big prob, AMD sat on it's collective *** the last few years.

The new rev f cores later this year will claw back some of the advantage, but the one that will get it back is not due until Q1/H1 2007.

Thats why AMD is releasing the "Torrenza" platform end of this year, although they claim it was always slated for release at that time.

Grits · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2006, 02:38:34 PM »

It seems that all the MB's for Conroe are going to be DDR2, which I thought was a step down from DDR? Does this newer MB/CPU make DDR2 and non issue?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:27:36 PM »

AMD is going DDR2 and Intel has been there for a while. There are fast enough DDR2 modules to compete with DDR1, but they run very hot.

We are pretty much stuck until they transition to DDR3, which has the speed of DDR2, the latencies of DDR1, and the lower power consumption of DDR1. Best of all worlds. Still a couple of years out though.

Kev367th · « **Reply #13 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:35:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grits
It seems that all the MB's for Conroe are going to be DDR2, which I thought was a step down from DDR? Does this newer MB/CPU make DDR2 and non issue?

DDR2 - Higher latency than DDR, but greater bandwidth.

Latency helped by Conroes large cache and AMD's memory controller in the CPU not on the mobo.

Interesting side effect -
Intel - If they ever make a mobo with space for 2 x Conroes, they will share the memory controller. Communication would be between front side bus.

AMD - With "Torrenza" each CPU adds a memory controller, each with it's own bank of memory. Communication between CPU's through HTT 3.0 bus.

End of this year, H1 of 2007 is going to be very interesting for both sides.

If I can't get a sweet system for around 2k by then, there's something way wrong.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #14 on:** July 19, 2006, 04:15:00 PM »

Ahem, multiple CPU's, regardless of the physical location of the memory ccontroller, cannot access system RAM at the same time. The operating systems will not allow it.

The only time multiple CPU's can be operating at the same time occurs when they are operating out of thier own cache and that is only true if the operating system does not invalidate the cache.

Just FYI.