Intel vs. AMD

the bigger the better right?

 

Well yeah, good for multitasking, even better for multimedia. I adore gaming at 2560x1600, I really do.

 

yeah gaming at that res helps more than people think... you can see more of what's trying to kill you

i was playing hl2 the other day and could see a lot more zombies than i would have at 800x600 or even 1280x1024 for that matter

 

Yeah. Funny, at the LAN parties I've been to, during games of UT2004, when people use the 'Invisible' Adrenaline combo, the people who picked them off were always the ones with the big widescreens, 24" and 30". On a 15" laptop screen they're nearly invisible, but on my screen, they may as well not have bothered!

 

there's a lot of small variables in gaming that give people an edge over one an other. A few small things here and there add up to be an amazing difference.

 

Yeah absolutely, beside the looks!

 

Ahh! The lan gaming nirvana that is Unreal Tournament

It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy*head shot*inside.

I tried dual DVI but I prefer one screen unless I'm working on a game that needs an e-Manual to figure it out. I just dig out my old Dell 15" flatscreen. Great quality but I love my 17" Sceptre Naga for it's excellent clarity and low response time. I've never seen ghosting in a game yet.

 

hehe yeah.

 

I was away for the holidays and missed the action. I would have suggested this board with plans for an upgradeable board, an open box P5N32-SLI for $129.99:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131564R
Look at the 8 phase power management on this board and all the bells and whistles. It has the full x16 slots for the SLI, if you ever decided to go with dual GPUs. With the OC options, it allows your system to perform at it's best. You don't have to turn up the power to where the board fries as some people have done. You can do a conservative OC and still have a stable working machine that doesn't have the system stressed.

Even at a bargain, I don't think I'd build with a single core anymore. Your choice though and with a good board the loss won't be too bad when you decide to move up to a dual core. Maybe you'll even be lucky enough to find a buyer needing a Prescott. Going with the newer processors, I'd look at the M2N32. Board choice has a lot to do with what's at hand and how the inventory affects future plans. With that in mind, the Gigabyte was a good choice (if you have the right parts on hand). Hopefully you paid attention to this note in the specs: Notice: Only DDR2-800 memory supporting JEDEC approved 1.8V operation with timings of 5-5-5 or 6-6-6 is supported on Intel Desktop Boards based on Intel 965 Express Chipsets. Definitely limits the choice of RAM and appears to exclude the DDR2 667 you have on hand. With about 1/2 off for the open box P5N32, I don't think I could have resisted, plus it supports a broader choice of RAM including the DDR2 667 which you're wanting to use. It also supports faster RAM.

If you have problems getting the Gigabyte board to work properly, make sure you paid attention to the note on the RAM it uses and the RAM voltage setting in the BIOS.

 

What's best between an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 in terms of gaming performance(I'm looking to change my computer for a true gaming computer) and overall performance(more gaming, though)?

 

Your choice, but you've been limiting your possibilities. Back when the P3 was Intel's top processor, Intel was still king of the hill. It was later when AMD started improving their memory management and later went to the dual cores that they walked away from the Intels. Intel hanging onto Netburst and going with the Prescotts was a long time problem. The last competitive processor to the AMD line (until the new Conroes were released) was the P4 Northwood. After that time and with AMD forging ahead, Intel fell farther behind till this summer when Intel introduced the new Core 2 Duo architecture.

As for the P4 2.8, I can only ask why? That's old tech and you could have built a better dual core Intel with far superior performance almost as cheap. Since Intel came out with the Conroe, both AMD and Intel have been selling their last generation processors at bargain prices. Your P4 Intel is no where near the best Intel has to offer. Unless you want to go with the latest Intel, none of the Intels compare to the AMDs. What I've said is nothing new, it's been proven over and over. I have a P4 floating around in the family and I can honestly say from first hand experience, it's a decent platform, but doesn't come close to the AMDs I've built.

 

Pacman: Seems a good buy, but I'm always a bit wary of openbox items. Amen to your most recent comment.
Ace_2: The E6300 is a better buy, unless you can get the 3800+ very cheap like we now can here in the UK (£30 less than the core 2).

 

Ace_2
Of the choices, the 6300 would win out. But consider spending a few more dollars for a 6600 if you're serious about gaming and performace. Then pay close attention to the board choice and make sure the RAM is the best for the setup. To top that off make sure you have a stable PSU as well as it having enough power to supply the system. Some of the RAM manufacturers are now offering good power supplies. I'm not saying buy one, but check the specs on the OCZ and Corsair units. That will give you a good source for comparison. A lot depends on your budget.

 

IF you can afford it. The 6600 may be a big leap in performance, but it's a big leap in price too, about £100 at present.

 

Often parts are returned due to compatibility problems and some beginners just can't get a board up and running properly. Besides, it should still be warranted by Asus. If Estuansis didn't pay attention to the spec note, he's going to have an issue with the DDR2 667 he was wanting to use and the Gigabyte board. If he did, then I wonder at the selection because it will entail getting specific RAM for the application. Theonejrs should have pointed that out as soon as Estuansis posted his build list (with the DDR2 667), since the Gigabyte was his suggestion. If he doesn't have it on hand or want to buy the RAM to use with the Gigabyte then this could end up as one of those open box items.

Making and taking suggestions holds a bit of responsibility for both parties. To make suggestions a person should be well aware of particular limitations. As the recipient, it is their responsibility to double check the specs and make sure all parts are compatible/supported. Since the end decision belonged to Estuansis, I hope he saw the note.

 

The difference is only about $133 US. The leap isn't that large unless the builder is on a seriously limited budget. With the significant performance difference, I'd figure some way of coming up with the $133 difference.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115003

 

yeah but the E6600 is well worth the extra money

 

Yeah, proves my point about you lucky americans, Costs £220 ($428) to get an E6600 here. I note they're $320 at newegg, which probably isn't even the cheapest place.

 

Ace_2,
Save up a bit more money and get the Conroe 6400. It's $32 more and far better than the 6300. On a decent MB you can OC it right around 40% easily with good air cooling and even more with water cooling depending on your case cooling. It's the best "bang for the buck" from Intel right now!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

When I ran it on PriceGrabber it came up the best. ClubIT had the best price on the 6300.