Electronic goatse dilemma

Post by **Alexander** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:46 pm

Dear DACers,

I have decided that it is high time for a computer upgrade... a complete overhaul. Seeing as how the last time I bothered doing anything of this nature was... eh... four years ago, I have lost track of what the market for components looks like.
Inspired by a conversation I overheard at work about the latest offspring of AMD and Intel, I spent the day reading up on the latest and greatest in the computer world of Today. After consulting with a friend I decided that there is no reason of getting anything less than a 64-bit dual core processor (especially considering that after this the next upgrade will be in 4-5 years).

So, the problem I am facing is this: Because superiority is no longer determined solely by clock count it has become increasingly difficult to choose the optimal CPU.
These are the two main options: Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 Conroe 2.13GHz / 1066MHz / 2MB and AMD Athlon 64 x2 4600+ / 2.4GHz Socket 939 Dual Core

I have always been inclined towards buying AMD products, but now I am considering switching to Intel.
The Intel CPU has more cache but slightly lower clock frequency and half the busspeed of the AMD choice, the difference in price is trivial. I am having trouble discerning which one of these will last longer before I need to make a new upgrade? What I want is to be able to do all-around work and play some games without any major slow-downs while doing this.

Deciding this will be the first step in my venture towards a new computer, graphics card and the rest will all depend on what I choose here.

I am thankful for any advice or insight you might be able to give me on this issue.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:11 pm

Go Intel. Right now, they are far in the lead, and hopefully the socket or slot or whatever it is the Core 2 Duos use will still be used for a while, allowing for further upgradeability, whereas socket 939 is probably on its way out as AMD scrambles to whip out something that'll allow them to keep up.

Splatterpope · Post by **Splatterpope** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:35 pm

They've already whipped it out with their X2's. It's a socket 940, I think.
They already had a socket 940, but this one has the pins in a different configuration.

I'd... probably be inclined to go for the AMD. If you're going for games, they're better, though no-one really knows why.

I'm guessing you're going for gaming, cause you're not really going for server-grade stuff. I dunno, I'm sure some tech wizard will blow in and berate us all soon, then you'll get your difinitive answer.

Thor Kaufman · Post by **Thor Kaufman** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:52 pm

use both intel and amd glue them together to get the best of both worlds

Jesus Christ · Post by **Jesus Christ** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:55 pm

Socket 940 is for servers only.

939 will last another two years at least, I would guess.

Post by **Alexander** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:05 pm

I am now 95% certain I will go for Intel, since it seems that they have quite a lead for the moment, like Spazmo said. Besides, when AMD releases their answer to the Core 2 Duo it will be quite expensive (check the prices for the 940 socket CPUs). Plus, it will be an all-new-and-exciting-world-thingy with the converting to the Intel sect and all that...

The next question is, is there a point in buying an entry-level CPU (read 2 mb cache) vs. spending a little more money on more cache (4 mb)?
If there is a significant difference, I may consider getting the more expensive CPU... though I dont really have the funds for it.

Thor Kaufman wrote:use both intel and amd glue them together to get the best of both worlds :salute:

Should I buy one of each, cut them in half and jam them in the CPU socket? Also, what type of glue do you recommend? Does this work with other components aswell?

Heil!

Edit:

Splatterpope wrote:I'm guessing you're going for gaming, cause you're not really going for server-grade stuff. I dunno

Yours truly wrote:What I want is to be able to do all-around work and play some games without any major slow-downs while doing this.

Jesus Christ · Post by **Jesus Christ** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:25 pm

940 socket CPUs are expensive because thay are for servers fucktard!

Splatterpope · Post by **Splatterpope** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:40 am

Well, socket 940's are generally enterprise grade server opterons, but the 940 pin M2 series (AM2) is a desktop grade dual core setup. It's their new thingo, and their rival to the X2. They're not all that expensive either.

Jesus Christ · Post by **Jesus Christ** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:32 am

Okay...

I looked and you are half right splaterpoop. The 940 X2 is cheap, but it's still for a server numbnuts. The 939 X2 is the only way to go for a good home PC, even with an existing AMD system.

Splatterpope · Post by **Splatterpope** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:00 am

'kay, well, whilst trying not to bring down the wrath of Jesus, I'll still venture another post.

The socket 940 is a server chip. It's been around since before the socket 939's, usually as an opteron.

The AM2 isn't. It's a dual-core desktop processor. But it does have 940 pins.

The FX-60 is a dual-core 939 chip, but it's also nowhere near as good performance for the amount you pay, and 939's are being phased out.

Unless you are doing really serious multi-tasking, or crazy database keeping, I'd go for the AMD, just cause they're better for gaming, and only a little worse at your all-around work.

From discussion to flame war in 3.2 seconds..

Splatterpope · Post by **Splatterpope** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:06 am

Oh, I forgot the main reason I'd go for the AMD.
As far as I know(and they may have released a new motherboard recently..) the Intels top end stuff only supports ATI's crossfire, while the AMD support crossfire and Nvidia's SLI.

Jesus Christ · Post by **Jesus Christ** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:09 pm

Splatterpope wrote:flame war.

Koki · Post by **Koki** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:37 pm

What the fuck? I though AMD owned Intel when it came to 64bit.

Jesus Christ · Post by **Jesus Christ** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:45 pm

Koki wrote:What the fuck? I though AMD owned Intel when it came to 64bit.

This was what I had been reading in the PC magazines. But DaC says no.

Splatterpope · Post by **Splatterpope** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:54 pm

As far as I know, they do. Hell, they just bought ATI, they've gotta be doing something right to have that much money laying about.

Post by **Alexander** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:20 pm

Koki wrote:What the fuck? I though AMD owned Intel when it came to 64bit.

You thought wrong.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:06 am

Last I heard 64 bit only matters when you have a 64 bit designed operating system. So the 64 bit arguement is a bit dumb unless your into servers or beta testing xp 64. Vista comes out in Januraury but if anyone was smart like i am they wouldn't buy any new operating system when it first comes out. Wait till they get most of the big bugs out but by then they will have new processors that are actually made just for 64 bit.

St. Toxic · Post by **St. Toxic** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:22 pm

You're telling me Xp64 is in the beta stage? What am I, from the fucking future?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:43 pm

Go for Dual-Core Intel. It's all hot potatoes at the moment, it seems.

The P4-generation has serious problems with going SUPAH HOTZ (I'm a victim of that, so I know) but I guess it isn't an issue with the latest and fanciest Intel stuff?

Post by **Alexander** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:04 pm

Kashluk wrote:Go for Dual-Core Intel. It's all hot potatoes at the moment, it seems.

I am, but how much difference is 2 mbs of cache? Should I buy a processor with 2 mb cache now or should I wait a little and get one that has 4 mb? I don't have enough money to get all the stuff at the same time unless I buy the one with 2 mbs.

Kashluk wrote:The P4-generation has serious problems with going SUPAH HOTZ (I'm a victim of that, so I know) but I guess it isn't an issue with the latest and fanciest Intel stuff?

I am assuming that you are refering to the energy comsuption and heat emission problem? Then your guess is absolutely correct, resolving those two problems was one of Intel's main objectives when developing the Core 2 Duo:

Tom's Hardware wrote:Key design goals were an ideal relation between processing performance and power consumption, which was a direct result of AMD's processors delivering better performance per Watt of energy, and the public complaining about unreasonably high power consumption and cooling requirements for Intel platforms.