OK, Assuming I have to build myself a new machine

[BaldEagl]

I looked at the Gigabyte board and the Abit board mentioned above when I built my system.  I ended up going pretty high end on my Mobo (EVGA 780i... great board but expensive).  Had I decided not to go with the board I got I probably would have bought the Abit although I also looked at some other Gigabyte boards in your price range ($100-150) and there are some nice options there.  These are all Intel P-35 chipset boards.

As someone already mentioned, if you want to go SLI in the future, you'll need an NVidea chipset, and if you want to go ATI Crossfire, you'll need an Intel X-38 chipset but odds are you'll never need to go SLI or Crossfire.

I originally recommended the board I did as you mentioned you were on a buget and it's a nice board for a buget build but still pretty future-proof

One thing to note with the Gigabyte boards (or any boards for that matter) is that you should visit their web-sites to check the compatible memory list before buying your memory.  The list is pretty specific with the Gigabyte boards.

The 775 socket fits all the new Intel dual and quad core processors.  No options there if you want an Intel CPU.  The Core2Extreme processors have larger L2 caches (and probably higher internal clock speeds) than the Core2Duos but are WAY expensive.  The E8400 Wolfdale Core2Duo (3.0 Gig) is nearly on par with the lower end Core2Extremes and Quad Cores but the Allendales and Conroes are fast, stable, overclock well and represent good bang for the buck if you don't have the extra cash for the E8400.  I bought the E6750 Conroe (2.66 Gig) and it's been great.  Go to Tomshardware.com and check out the processor performance charts.

As mentioned above, choose your processor first (or at least the family), then build around it.

[EDIT]  I forgot to mention, make sure that whatever board you buy has the slots you need for whatever add-in cards you need to install, and that it has the ports that you need for your peripherals.

Two things to consider for the future; DDR3 RAM will one day come along but prices are currently quite high and with the current saturation of DDR2 RAM you should be OK for several years before you'll need to change.

The other consideration is PCIe x16 slots.  PCIe x16 2.0 is quickly becoming the standard although current video cards don't fully utilize the added bandwidth and the only boards with the 2.0 slots support either ATI Crossfire or SLI, thus have multiple slots you may never use.  If you do decide this is important, then also consider the bandwidth for the available slots.  Few will run both (or all) slots at full x16 bandwidth.  Many run at x16/x8 or x8/x8 in SLI (or Crossfire) configurations.

If I were building on a budget, I wouldn't worry about either of these things at this time.

[DREDIOCK]

Ok good to  know the potential future of those boards

CPU wise. When selecting I guess Im looking at a combination of speed (ghz) and L2 Cache size for the price?

From what I am looking at. This is what makes the E8400 so popular.

Example. Im looking at Newegg right now

    Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Processor - Retail

    *  1333MHz FSB
    *  45 nm Wolfdale
    *  6MB L2 Cache
$199

And


    Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Processor - Retail

    *  1333MHz FSB
    *  65 nm Conroe
    *  4M shared L2 Cache

$189

The difference seems to be the L2 Cache

It also seems that to go up on the processor to next best is the

    Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz LGA 775 65W Processor - Retail

    *  1333MHz FSB
    *  45 nm Wolfdale
    *  6MB L2 Cache

But thats $100 more then the E8400. So it becomes a matter of is the 8500 $100 worth of better?

That about the size of it?

BTW Im leaning to the 8400 provided that price holds and unless someone suggests something better. or  reason not to go with it, considering all the positive feedback on the Gigbyte board.
With the price of that. It makes the price of the 8400 more affordable.

But for now We will stick with the $125 range on the Motherboard

Unless someone gives me a really good reason to go SLI we will not plan on doing that.

But. if that option is available in the future. all the better. but its not a must



My current hard drive is alredy a SATA so no real concern there.
I'd prefer to have at least one ide slot though as there is still and old hard rive I have with some files I'd like to get at.

Other things Im planning on hoking up PCI Sound card and PCI Ethernet card. Assuming its still better to run both on seperate cards then off the mainboard. And inasmuch as I already have em.

[DREDIOCK]

OK so here is where we stand so far.
Barring the unforseen or a great deal on something better for around the same price.

CPU- E8400

Motherboard. Leaning to the Gigabyte board but its still up in the air and Up to around the $125 price range

One thing we havent mentioned. CPU at that price probably doesnt come with a CPU heatsink&Fan

This is important. I want it to stay cool but I also want it to stay QUIET.
the case has 4 fans already so airflow isnt a problem.
Doesnt have to be liquid cooled. Just reasonably priced and reasonably quiet.


--Edit--

Yes I know im going a bit higher priced on the CPU for a budget build.
But overall it seems to be the best bang for buck.
this is my logic

[BaldEagl]

The intel processors come with a heatsink and fan.  Many buy aftermarket coolers.  I didn't.  I'm using the stock Intel units and my CPU idles at 27-28C and runs at 36-38C under load.  Max recommended operating temp is just over 70C.

Here's what the stock unit looks like:



As far as motherboards go, I took a look at newegg.  Here's a product comparison sheet on a few that I might consider (the earlier recommended Gigabye and ABit boards are included here):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=Property&N=2000200280%201070509908&OEMMark=0&Manufactory=1283%2C1312%2C1314&PropertyCodeValue=705%3A9908%2C707%3A25639%2C707%3A31640%2C717%3A28997%2C757%3A7618&CompareItemList=N82E16813130096%2CN82E16813128086%2CN82E16813128082%2CN82E16813127030%2CN82E16813128059&bop=And&Order=RATING

This one in particular looks like a nice board to me, and it allows you the option to move to DDR3 memory at some point in the future:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128082

[Irwink!]

I use the standard equipment Intel cooler too. Contrary to many comments on Newegg it works just fine as long as you take the time to fully understand how the mounting fasteners work. I've at various times used the stock thermal pad that comes with it or Arctic Silver just to see if there was any difference in running temps. Works about the same for me either way. I've installed several over the last year or so.

[1701E]

I am sure you will get a lot of opinions on this, but with the power supply you have, I would stick with an Intel CPU as they consume much less power than the AMD counterpart these days.  You will also come out ahead on the performance side as well.

Currently AMD consumes much less power than an Intel CPU.  However Intel is better at Multi-tasking than AMD, and AMD is better for people who don't Multi-task a lot.

[Fulmar]

Currently AMD consumes much less power than an Intel CPU.  However Intel is better at Multi-tasking than AMD, and AMD is better for people who don't Multi-task a lot.

I thought I remember reading on Tomshardware that AMD processors used less power in idle than Intel C2D's.  But at load, Intel won hands down.

[Skuzzy]

That is correct Fulmar.  Running any application at all the Intel CPU's will run cooler than the AMD counterpart.  Much cooler. (i.e. they consume much less power when they are actually doing something).

[1701E]

Power Consumption and cost rates for Intel and AMD

                                                                Intel      AMD
     No Load
Power consumption                                 182 W    161 W
Consumption per year                              1594 kWh    1410 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)           $135.49       $119.85
     Full Load (including graphics)
Power consumption                               342 W    269 W
Consumption per year                             2995 kWh     2356 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)        $254.58     $200.26
     Full Load (without graphics)
Power consumption                              295 W    228 W
Consumption per year                            2584 kWh    1997 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)          $219.64       $169.75

[SIK1]

Power Consumption and cost rates for Intel and AMD

                                                                Intel      AMD
     No Load
Power consumption                                 182 W    161 W
Consumption per year                              1594 kWh    1410 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)           $135.49       $119.85
     Full Load (including graphics)
Power consumption                               342 W    269 W
Consumption per year                             2995 kWh     2356 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)        $254.58     $200.26
     Full Load (without graphics)
Power consumption                              295 W    228 W
Consumption per year                            2584 kWh    1997 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)          $219.64       $169.75

Ummm source please.

I must say that this doesn't make sense to me. If everyone is telling the truth about how cool their intel Core 2 Duo's are running.

More power means more heat, there is no way around that. Unless you figured something out that you are waiting to share with the rest of the world

[Fulmar]

Power Consumption and cost rates for Intel and AMD

                                                                Intel      AMD
     No Load
Power consumption                                 182 W    161 W
Consumption per year                              1594 kWh    1410 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)           $135.49       $119.85
     Full Load (including graphics)
Power consumption                               342 W    269 W
Consumption per year                             2995 kWh     2356 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)        $254.58     $200.26
     Full Load (without graphics)
Power consumption                              295 W    228 W
Consumption per year                            2584 kWh    1997 kWh
Cost per year (at 8.5 cents per kWh)          $219.64       $169.75

Your chart doesn't even say what processors are being compared.  If this was 3-4 years ago, the Prescott (PresHOTT) Intel P4's sucked a lot of juice.

[Fulmar]

Here's the Tomshardware article I found:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/truth-pc-power-consumption,1707-7.html







"Here are the facts from our test results:

Power consumption must not only be looked from a minimum and maximum power consumption standpoint, but must be tracked using applications and benchmarks that truly simulate PC use over time. Performance and energy efficiency are closely related, and you cannot have ideal energy efficiency without a certain level of performance.
The Athlon 64 X2 system we used consumed more energy than the Core 2 Duo E6400 machine Compare Prices on Core 2 Duo E6400, whether it was idle, running our power consumption benchmarks, or under maximum load. I want to make clear that faster Athlon processors would look better, but they would also require more power. The same applies for faster Core 2 processors.
The Core 2 Duo E6400 system completed the SYSmark 2007 Preview run 14 minutes earlier than the Athlon 64 X2 5000+. As a consequence, the Intel system went back to an idle state earlier, which of course results in considerably less total power consumed. During the same time, the AMD system had to stay at a higher activity level for a longer period of time, which eventually meant that it required as much as 50% more power than the Intel system! "

[DREDIOCK]

The intel processors come with a heatsink and fan.  Many buy aftermarket coolers.  I didn't.  I'm using the stock Intel units and my CPU idles at 27-28C and runs at 36-38C under load.  Max recommended operating temp is just over 70C.

Here's what the stock unit looks like:

(Image removed from quote.)

Im familiour with that fan from the build I did a few weeks ago.
Isnt that bad once you figure out how it goes on.
HELL of alot better then the ones Im used to.



That machine was a bit loud. but Im thinking it was the PSU fan.
Wasnt sure if the CPU came with the fan though.
Past experience is some do.some dont

I'll possibly be ordering the CPU as early as next week.
The Job Im doing tomorrow is going to bring me some pretty decent money.
Soon as the check clears.....

[lambo31]

Drediock,
 if you need a fan for it I have an extra fan and heat sink that came with my E6850, since I bought an after market that I'm using. I don't know if it would work, maybe one of the tech guys here could say for sure. Your welcome to it if you want it.

Lambo

[Pudgie]

Hi All,
 
On the memory compatibility issues I would like to point out something w/ the P35 chipset:

This chipset was designed to optimize usage of DDR2 800 series memory running around 1.8v so the compatibility w/ the P35 chipset is much, much better. The rest of the compatibility issues will lay w/ the mobo makers choice of parts, quality of manufacture & quality of BIOS used when OC'ing.

The majority of mem incompatibility is when DDR2 1066 series memory is used (which is basically overclocked DDR2 800 mem) due to primarily voltage & density disparities w/ the P35 chipset. I'm NOT saying that DDR2 1066 mem won't work, I'm saying that the potential for problems increases when trying to run DDR2 1066 mem vs DDR2 800 mem & the problems will further escalate when trying to OC w/ DDR2 1066 mem vs DDR2 800 mem. Just read all the reviews where mem problems occurred regardless of mobo make, model & see which type of DDR2 mem was being used--you'll see a 2 or 3-to-1 curve toward the DDR2 1066 series vs the DDR2 800 series. Nothing wrong w/ wanting to use faster mem but most mobo makers who give you some overclocking headroom limit this to DDR2 1200 (O.C.), so what good is getting DDR2 1066 mem then TRYING to OC it? IMHO of course, you're asking for a problem.

Just putting this out there to consider when laying out your components.

I know that there will be some disagreement w/ what I have posted but the statistics are showing this to be true.

Hope this helps also.