Intel vs. AMD

That review must have missed some because I used to have McAfee and the CA av software I have now is much better imo.

 

sam, what cpu did you order? And the other specs? Wanna give me free parts? lol

 

Lol I would but this is no upgrade, it's an additional storage PC. At least at the moment it is, it's eventually going to become a secondary gaming system when it gets my current X1900, after I upgrade that.

CPU: Core 2 Duo E4300
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro / Arctic Silver V
Motherboard: Asus P5N-E SLI
RAM: Corsair 2x512MB XMS2 PC6400 CAS5
GPU: Radeon X1600 PRO 256MB
PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W Black (existing component)
HDD:
Western Digital Caviar 160GB IDE, 250GB S-ATA x2, 500GB SE16 S-ATA, Samsung Spinpoint 250GB S-ATA, 400GB S-ATA (existing components)
Case: Antec Nine Hundred
Cooling: Stock 200x1/120x3 fans, plus Noctua 120mm & Nexus 120mm, using Explorer FX4 Rheostat.
Optical drives: none permanent.

 

You might want to reconsider the GPU choice. For not much more you can move up to an X1800 Radeon, which has the specs to rate Best for Vista support. You may not think much of it now, but who knows, when they get some of the bugs out of Vista, you may want to upgrade the OS (If you're not installing Vista up front).

 

I paid £47 for my X1600, I've not seen an X1800 for anywhere near that little. It's a pretty temporary card anyway, when the R600 is released, I'm buying one and my X1900XT's going in it.

 

I'm seeing about $60-$70 difference between them. It would mean your leftover card would be better suited for the new Vista, whatever you decide to do with it. But at about $92 US the card you're getting isn't too bad.

 

It's the cheapest card I could find that would run my monitor (2560x1600 Dual Link) and wouldn't steal system RAM (turbocache / hypermemory).

 

You say that like the X1600PRO is crap. It's a decent mid level card and full capable of running most new games and Vista decently.

 

Hi guys,

what's your opinion on amd's Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400??

thanx

 

Estuansis: That's the irony, it really isn't that bad, and yet it's the cheapest card that suits me.
Tranquash: It's a decent processor, but unless you find it cheap, Core 2 Duos are looking better value.

 

that was quick...

thanks a lot sammorris

Cheers!

 

No worries, what are the other components you have or are considering getting?

 

something about the middle. most probably 2GB sdram and an nvidia geforce 7300le

 

SDRAM? We use DDR RAM at the very least nowadays. I assume the PC isn't for gaming? There are far better value graphics cards that don't cost much more than a 7300LE.

 

yup! no gamer, and as you see not well versed with computers, ddr it is. lol

thanx again!!

 

no problems, any further enquiries, just ask.

 

does anyone now wat does nm stands for?...eg 65nm

by the way has anyone played Supreme Commander?

 

Yeah: 65nm (nanometres) is how wide each transistor is on the CPU.
As for supreme commander, yes I have, it RULES!

 

Unless you're in the US where they spell it nanometer. Just to add to what Sammorris said, that is the process on which they build the processors. The new C2D is 65nm and the older stuff is 90. Intel just reached a milestone recently. They're producing over half of their CPUs on the 65nm process. The future is looking bright for a 45nm CPU.

 

Something to help you sleep
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/01/27/intel_45nm_technology_overview/1.html