You can't build an Intel rig for $350 that will beat an AMD at the same price, Nuff Said. If you are on a budget, you are on a budget. If he is currently running a P3 933Mhz, do you really think upgrading in 1-2 years is of much concern?
If youre on a budget, then you shouldnt be upgrading. Not to mention that if youre such hard pressed on money, why waste it on already obsolete hardware that wont allow proper upgrading? That sounds like youre just throwing it away.
Why not spend it on 3 month obsolete hardware, instead of paying a 300% premium for hardware that will be obsolete in another 3 months anyway? Upgrading a P3 933Mhz with an AMD X2 setup for $350 is one hell of a bargain. Not everyone likes to spend thousands of dollars a year on PC hardware.
If I were to build on a budget RIGHT NOW (I'm looking to upgrade in the Fall), AMD would be the cheapest and most cost effective/efficient way to go. Intel may have the upper hand with the Conroe, which I understand, but AMD are still pumping out extremely nice processors for the money, not to mention the native motherboards are cheaper as well. I've seen some crazy deals on Newegg. More bang for your buck, IMO. Read the original post. He does some moderate gaming and DVD encoding, and the usual net surf. It's silly to recommend him getting a Quad-Core or top of the line Intel processor right now, along the lines of someone trying to talk him into an SLI/Crossfire configuration. People, including myself, build on a budget. We can't all have the latest and greatest. But make your money stretch where you can. At this stage in the game, AMD would offer that stretch. No you won't have all the new crazy features that Intel will 'supposedly' offer, but you still have the latest hardware available to you. It's not like we're talking about pre-DDR2 X2's here.
Well whatever I decide to do it won't be an end of the world decision on my part. Like I said earlier the family will get the AMD which is more than enough for what they do which consist of web surfing, emailing and watching youtube videos. Now that I know Intel is the way to go will wait for the price drop and take advantage of that. In all honesty my family doesn't care what's in the computer they only want it to work fast with no problems. Just so you know, I walked away from computing for awhile because I got burned out on it but now I may have a need to keep up to date again and my comp can't cut it anymore. I really appreciated everyones input but this doesn't have to become a democrat vs republican catfight over computers.
You are severely exaggerating the cost increase. For a similar setup speed wise youre talking maybe $50 more, and thats if you dont shop around. Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 - $117 Gigabyte 945 MicroATX - $69.99 Intel CPU/Mobo Total - $186.99 + s/h AMD CPU/Mobo Total: $143.98 + s/h Thats not even $50, wow intel is so fucking expensive... That E4300 will outperform any amd cpu near it in price, and can be overclocked to over 3ghz easily which then will make it faster than any amd cpu available, even the very top of the line. Being able to overclock extends the usefulness of a cpu and keeps it from being obsolete. My argument above is that spending money now for a quick upgrade is stupid when you can wait and save up for a more logical upgrade. That will pay off later on, where as an amd upgrade is very short sighted. Although Heavy-D said that he was getting this so he can pass it to family who wont need anything more. So thats okay.
You people must not understand what building on a budget means. $50 could buy you a DVD burner or 1GB of RAM or even a PSU. We get it. Intel is great, and price cuts are coming. I'm not arguing that....
Ugghh, more than $50. That motherboard blows ass, only 1 PCI-E slot. Where is the upgrade path??? We aren't talking about overclocking, too many variables. No guarantee that the Intel will overclock as far as you may think. AMD chips can overclock too. AMD systems are the best bang for the buck when you are on a budget, even if Intel owns the performance crown.
Ahem.... Please pay attention to the conjunction or, which connects alternatives. Example: Either one or the other, but not both. DVD Burners < $50: Newegg.com - Buy Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more! OR 1GB of RAM < $50: Newegg.com - Buy Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more! Newegg.com - Buy Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more! OR PSUs < $50: Newegg.com - Buy Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more!
The board was an example, but the board ivanalo posted was no gem either. The upgrade path is when considering the cpu. AMD cpu's at the moment have no upgrade path, what is out there is all there is. The next iteration may turn out to be a new socket, or some restriction. As far as Intel is doing with their new chips is making it relatively easy to upgrade. My argument against spending money for a quick fix is, again as I have said this twice now, that if there is no real upgrade path or options then it is a waste of money. There is no value in the components because they cant be used again. Im also mainly talking about mobo and cpu since ram/videocard/other are relatively easy to move around. So you can go on and keep telling people to buy AMD and waste their money, while I will enjoy the possibilities Intel affords me. Its like spending $5,000 on a used car that will only last you a few years with no warranty vs a new car for $10,000 with a full warranty. I guess its harder to compare the two, but why would you want to spend money on something that wont last as long when for just a little more you get that piece of mind.
But you have to keep in mind the person in question is upgrading a machine 4-5 generations old now. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he gives two flying fucks if he can upgrade his CPU 1, 2, or even 3 short revisions later. The fact that his current machine is so old ties into my point that it's unlikely he could give a shit about "potential" features down the road (and a short one at that). If he continues his current "upgrade" trend, the next time he'll have to upgrade will also be a completely new build. Because we don't all live in 'the OC' and we don't all have money pouring out of our noses. A budget is a budget. I'm sure everyone would love to buy a new car with a 'full warranty'. Sadly that isn't the case with everyone. I'm done in this thread, I've made my point: If you want the cheapest deal with the best performance for your buck, it's AMD currently. In this industry that could easily change overnight. If tomorrow Intel slashes their prices so much that it beats out AMD, then my opinion would change overnight as well. I'm not a fanboy or biased toward any side. Cutting edge right now = Intel. Best performance for money = AMD. Period.
Let me correct you. Best price = AMD Best performance for money = Intel If you want to argue that, then we could always bring out the performance data and extrapolate that with the cost. If you want to go with AMD because it is the cheapest, fine go with AMD. The fact remains that per dollar Intel has the best performance. I dont live in the OC, I own used old cars. Im now sitting with a cpu/mobo combination that I will have to replace if I want to upgrade. If I didnt want to upgrade, I guess it wouldnt be an issue. Instead Im going to sell it, and get something else down the road.
Just to clarify, I wasn't implying you lived in the OC. Just thought the analogy was bad, that's all. /steps out
what i got for $405.57 shipped from newegg a month ago. seagate barracuda 7200.10 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s amd athlon 64 X2 4400+ Brisbane core generic 18'' 2-head sata cable sata power adapter Asus m2a-vm socket amd amd 690G mobo Wintec 2gig ddr2 800mhz ram lite-on 20x dvd+/- dvd burner I was coming from a amd 1.2 tbird, so the system is wayyy more than adequate and with no need for oc'ing. Also, all I have to do is pop in a 8800gts one day and bam it's a gaming machine. I wanted to go with a c2d setup, but it would've been another 100 for proc and mobo with features I wanted. Some of you guys are intel fanatics, I've yet to find a budget guide out there that doesn't recommend going with amd x2 setup. You can't really argue performance at this level...the 50/100 dollars doesn't equate to a significant real world difference...Especially for people who are coming from p3/tbird setups.
As Ive said, AMD is the cheapest route to go, hands down. But it is a bargain. I came up with a better car analogy. Its like buying a low end Kia vs a low end Honda/Toyota/Saturn. Yeah you will spend a bit more, but there is just more quality and performance. Sometimes you just have to grab for the bottom of the barrel and get what you can afford.
That's still a poor analogy. x2's are reliable, plenty of performance, and run cool (at least my 65 watt guy does). And I'm willing to bet I got a much better mobo for the price than what I'd get with an intel. I can't emphasize this enough, I (budget minded people) are not going to notice the difference between a x2 and a c2d in any tasks that we do. They offer more power than we will ever need. And even if there was a performance difference in the tasks we use it for, it's so insigificant that to pay 50-100 dollars for it is absurd. If you want a car analogy, it'd be more apt so say something like honda accord to a honda accord lx. Or a v8mustang to a v8mustang svt, or a subaru wrx to a subaru wrx sti. Both are great, but if you're going to obey the speed limit...there's very little incentive to get the better version.
Ivanolo, I wasn't talking about the $50 in your post. I actually agree with your post, in a sub $400 system, saving $50 on the CPU means the difference of having 1GB or 2GB of RAM or maybe the next tier video card, which makes a much bigger difference than a C2D over an X2. Chapel, lets just agree to dissagree then? IMO: Intel is the smart choice in the mid-high range computer builds, hands down. But in a sub $400 system, you can't really go any other direction than AMD. You could build a Pentium D machine, but AMD owns Intel at that price. AMD still owns the low end PC market, hands down. Someone asks for recommendations for a sub $400 build, I'm not the type of person to tell them to spend more. Obviously if they spend more they will get a better machine. You seem to be the type of person who likes to go straight for the higher quality product and doesn't mind spending the extra bucks. I'm going to assume you don't buy store brand food at the supermarket? You don't shop the low-end, thats cool, but some people do.
I can't say I've really studied the AMD benchmarks as I'm shooting more towards the upper end of the performance curve, but Roca is probably right. For the person who surfs the web, does some light gaming, jerks off to porn, etc. the AMD is probably plenty of CPU. But so is a Pentium 3. Why upgrade at all? My only suggestion would be to study the benchmarks closely and figure out a) what is the best bang for the buck now and b) what platform would provide the best upgrade path in the future. I think it's Intel at this point in time, but I could be wrong.
You upgrade because file sizes of even office documents, web pages, video files, audio files, etc are still getting bigger and bigger, and the programs to handle the new formats are getting bigger and bigger. That means more memory and more processing power. Eventually an upgrade is needed even for the modest of PC use.
