I'm loyal to intel...Thus my suggestion would be to get any of the new Intel Desktop boards.....they perform very well and have satisfied a whole lot of performance tests....Unless ur an extremely heavy user of ur machine, the differences between AMD and Intel aren't even noticable

quote:

Originally posted by Funkyfun ...Unless ur an extremely heavy user of ur machine, the differences between AMD and Intel aren't even noticable

...Except on your pocketbook

quote:

Originally posted by amb_ ...Except on your pocketbook

Well...if ur talking about the pocketbooks notebook....then AMD is a clear winner price wise....But Intel still rules if you take performance into consideration.....

quote:

Originally posted by Funkyfun I'm loyal to intel...Thus my suggestion would be to get any of the new Intel Desktop boards.....they perform very well and have satisfied a whole lot of performance tests....Unless ur an extremely heavy user of ur machine, the differences between AMD and Intel aren't even noticable

if the differences aren't noticeable, then why not go with AMD? they're CPUs are way cheaper..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by mr. poopyhead if the differences aren't noticeable, then why not go with AMD? they're CPUs are way cheaper..

True...if price is a concern then AMD is the way to go...I use my PC quite heavily and even after installing the barebone applications with a few games and vid edit stuff makes it hang...Therefore , while making the investment I don't care abt a few extra dollars and try to get the best solution available at the time...Also Intel hasn't let me down and passed most of all the benchmarks that really mattered to me....So i went with Intel..

quote:

Originally posted by Funkyfun True...if price is a concern then AMD is the way to go...I use my PC quite heavily and even after installing the barebone applications with a few games and vid edit stuff makes it hang...Therefore , while making the investment I don't care abt a few extra dollars and try to get the best solution available at the time...Also Intel hasn't let me down and passed most of all the benchmarks that really mattered to me....So i went with Intel..

Paying a "few extra dollars" for a P4 that uses old architecture which is pushed to its limites, rather than paying less for an Athlon64 that utilizes architecture that has only begun its life.

What happens when the majority of applications go 64bit? Intel's attempt at that with the Itanium is pathetic at best. Not to mention a "few extra dollars". Might be a few for some, but it's a small fortune for others.

quote:

Originally posted by mr. poopyhead if the differences aren't noticeable, then why not go with AMD? they're CPUs are way cheaper..

stick with AMD, i hardly noticed the diffrence when i bought my computer i still am using a AMD Athlon 1600 XP, no problem whatsoever.


A computer does not have a appreciating value, its a a depreciating value, and if your just using it for work/school and editing it should be fine, i feel.


lets just put it this way, with the new technology everyday, its not a investment.

quote:

Originally posted by Funkyfun Well...if ur talking about the pocketbooks notebook....then AMD is a clear winner price wise....But Intel still rules if you take performance into consideration.....

pocketbook==price

Lets get one thing str8....I'm not a millionaire either and whatever i suggested is based on my personal experience using Intel based systems thus far...so talks about 'few extra dollars' meaning more to some than others is not necessary....

quote:

Originally posted by Slag Paying a "few extra dollars" for a P4 that uses old architecture which is pushed to its limites, rather than paying less for an Athlon64 that utilizes architecture that has only begun its life.

Pentium 4 is not dying by any means and neither has it been pushed to the limits.....Intel has just taken a different route this time.....previously they were keen on producing super fast processors and judged systems performance on the basis of processor speeds....Now they r working towards optimizing other components of the system such as cache to improve the overall experience.....Pentium 4 has a new life now in the shape of pentium 4 6xx series processors which are based on Prescott2 M technology which will support EM64T (Enhanced Memory transfer technology) and carry a 2meg L2 cache buffer....

Pentium 4 4 ghz processor plans have been shelved for now, since Intel has come up with some other strategies to stay in the market w/o devoting too much time on R&d....But i won't be surprised if that changes later on in 2005 and Intel starts working towards rlsing it as it's still technically feasible and possible....

quote:

Originally posted by Slag What happens when the majority of applications go 64bit? Intel's attempt at that with the Itanium is pathetic at best.

Well...I'm not 2 sure if thats happening anytime soon...MS has been testing Windows XP 64 BIT and Win2k3 64 bit edition for a while now in their labs & publicly....According to them the new 64 bit os's will support Intel 64EMT/ia32-e standards With athlon 64s.....So until a real OS/application comes out that can put a 64 bit processor to test, we won't know for sure.....Also Intel had a 64 bit processor in the shop long before AMD rlsed Athlon64 But wasn't being shipped to retailers again due to the lack of 64 bit System apps....But they were being shipped to system integrators/solution providers for lab testing....

Itanium on the other hand is a diferrent platform that has been introduced to capture RISC based server Markets....the princiapls on which CIsc (Desktops/Low end servers) and RISC (High end Servers) work are different...Therefore there is really no comparison between Itanium and IA-32e based platforms except that they both support 64 bit tech but through different means....