Building a computer. Need feedback.

Post Reply New Topic

I'd made an AMD build

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Publi ... r=20753667

and an Intel build

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Publi ... r=18135086

Other than the CPU, MB and RAM this build shares the same AMD build's components.

A note on Intel versus AMD. I was opting for Intel because I've had problems in the past with AMD. Games run great on AMD but I use my computer for much more than gaming and I've had my share of problems with the processor lagging very badly on apps like Photoshop. In all fairness these problems happened in the 90's. I have no idea if AMD processors today can handle rich media apps with as much ease as games.

Anyhow in either case I'm happy with the fact that whichever build I choose both will ship out the door for less than $1k.

I'd appreciate any feedback on these builds and their component choices. Perhaps you could help me shave a few dollars more without sacrificing performance. Thanks!

I have an AMD Phenom II x4 955 and it runs without any problems. It can handle anything I can throw at it, and I haven't even tried overclocking. I haven't ever had an Intel build (I'm really showing my age here I guess), so I can't comment on that. I know a lot of people prefer Intel, but AMD is good enough for me. It all comes down to how much you're willing to spend. If you spend the extra money on the Intel build, you'll get more performance, but do you really need it?

I've never bought an AMD, but they usually don't stay ahead of Intel for long, when they do get ahead.

In the 90's is was possible to buy a bad computer, however today that's rarely the case. You can usually expect a decent level of performance out of most computers on the market.

What I can tell you is that the Intel Sandybridge architecture excels at graphics performance over the more expensive, first generation Intels ix architecture.

Does that performance translate into apps like Photoshop and Vegas?

If you do go with AMD, I would wait until the new CPU Architecture named BULLDOZER is released.

I was floored when I saw the benchmark scores for the Intel Core i5-2400 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz (my Intel Build CPU) vs AMD Phenom II X4 955 (AMD build CPU). Most especially on the StarCraft 2 results. I'm not saying I would play any of the games in the benchmark scores but it's nice to know that the Sandy Bridge can handle modern games quite well. I currently have my eye on Cities XL 2011. That sim looks like a blast!

I would recommend Intel, especially for games.

Having seen benchmarks between Sandy Bridge and AMD's new Llano platform, Intel is a clear winner. And with Intel set to release Ivy Bridge later on in the year, I don't see that changing. The simple fact of the matter is that Intel spends far more on R&D than AMD can afford to.

I think what we will see in the future is that AMD markets to the low-cost demographic, embedded systems and the like. They simply haven't been able to compete with Intel since the Core architecture was released.

Sure, Intel has better performance, but they're so much more expensive it's ridiculous. I bought my 3.2GHz quad core from AMD for $125. Keep in mind that while it is on a 45nm process, it has 8MB cache and a TDP of 125 watts with an unlocked multiplier. For that same price, I'd be getting a Core i3. The Core i3's cannot easily be overclocked, only have 2 cores, and 6MB cache. The only advantage to buying Intel in this price range is for a lower TDP because of the 32nm process. As a gamer, I don't care about that.

For anyone who does anything with graphics, go AMD and save yourself some money, then put that money towards the graphics card. For things like gaming, the processor is hardly important anymore. Even a cheap $80 processor on the market today is good enough to play games, provided the machine has an adequate GPU.

I would spend hours on Newegg trying to find the best computer for the money.

The best deals by far are AMD. If you know a thing a two, you can get an excellent PC for the money.

Many people don't know this, but AMD manufacturing process goes like this. They make Quad Core CPU's and they used to have a lot of failures if one core was malfunctioning they would disable the CPU make it an X3 and if two cores were defective they would make it an X2.

As their manufacturing process developed they began to have fewer and fewer X2 processors, but the demand for X2's were still high enough to justify it. They didn't want to make dual core CPU's because of the cost of building a new production line so what they did was they took perfectly good X4 CPU's and disabled two of the cores.

Some motherboard manufacturers realized this and they incorperated an CPU unlocking feature on their motherboards (only certain motherboards can do this) so you can get a Quad core CPU for the price of a dual core.

As someone who owns a Sandy Bridge desktop, go Intel. You will not be disappointed

how would I go about getting (internal) hardware for upgrading my computer with the only the I know about it being it's on an Asus motherboard, that and it's a six year old machine that I want to be able to run windows 7 on.

He's right you won't be dissapointed. However if you are looking to save money and you don't need a particularly good computer (not looking to overclock) then there is no reason to pay the extra money.

Also if you go on ebay, you can buy slightly used PC components for much less money. That's what I did, I got insane deals. $190 for a Radeon 4890, a 550watt power supply and two brand new games. (This was more than a year and a half ago).

The entire PC (with the two games) cost me about $600. AMD X4 955(equivalent) M774TD Pro motherboard, ATI radeon 4890, 4gb ram DDR3 1600MHZ

I have owned both AMD and Intel systems. As of right now, the only AMD system in the house is my wife's old laptop, and it's going to her grandmother so that she can email and use the Internet. After that, our network will be all Intel.

I'm not saying that AMD isn't a good value. It is. And for a value proposition, the new Llano platform is hard to beat.

However, that being said, I tend to buy (or build) systems for the long term. And Intel usually has a longer usable lifespan than AMD.

im switching from my old core 2 quad Q9560 to the new sandy bridge, sold my old mobo, ram and cpu and im gonna use the money to upgrade (plus a sizable chunk of next months paycheck im afraid, oh well )
i already have a ATI 6970 and it does wonders for relatively few money so i might be getting another one as well.

]

Ive always been more for AMD CPUs for various reasons. Ive actually had far more problems with intel CPUs for one. Also, in my own experiences AMDs have been much better for overclocking without having any sort of issue. There is also the fact that as a company, Intel is just as bad, if not worse at times, than microsoft. And you can't really beat the price to performance ratio for the most part.