I Want To Build A Amd/intel Machine?

I am on the verge of deciding to either build a new computer or buy one and save money.

However, I think the only way to save money building my own machine would be to build AMD.

But I was thinking: maybe I will put 2 chips on the motherboard: 1 AMD and 1 Intel.

Does anybody know whether or not I could find a motherboard where I could put an AMD and an Intel chip on the same motherboard and not run into problems?

I think it might not work because of bus conflicts, etc.

I am a newbie, so please understand my ignorance.

Thanks a lot :P B) :)

u can only have one chip on the board, unless it is a dual cpu. then u can onyl have 2 of the same type, eg amd or intel.

personally i would go for an amd system, where bout u from. i would recomend doing it urself with some help from a mate that has done it b4

I reccommend building an AMD system.. you can get a 2.0ghz 2400 amd chip for only $100 on the internet (originally cost $200-$300) goto www.pricewatch.com

Then get a good motherboard. I bought a Gigabyte brand mobo that supported 2.0ghz+ althon xp cpus, 3 ram slots, 366mhz bus, etc for only $70.

Get some DDR ram, You can get 512mb ones for like $20 each I think.

now you need your other parts... i.e moniter, cdrom, floppy, etc.

When your done.. the computer will probably cost less than $400-500, then later plus the moniter cost.

With the internet, you can get brand new parts for really low prices.. ;) :rolleyes:

here's the AMD 2400 2.0ghz althon xp CPU list of online stores which sell it for $80+whatever tax= around $90-100.

http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4928-1.htm

also check out the 2 pinned topics, to give u the best places to buy parts, and also some info on how to build a computer

The best place to gets parts in at www.newegg.com. They have the cheapest and fastest shipping and good quality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dave computer@26 May 2003 - 19:39
The best place to gets parts in at www.newegg.com. They have the cheapest and fastest shipping and good quality.

---

not if he dont live in the us it aint

I've only heard of AMD dual processor mobos. It is a unique processor. It is denoted by the "MP" in the model#(e.g. AMD Athlon MP 2000+). Not many mobo mfg make a dual processor board. Only Windows XP Pro supports dual processors and very few software titles utilize them as well.



It's inane to even consider. Beyond even what a power user would ever need. Stick with a single processor.

Duties are not performed for duty's sake, but because their neglect would make the man uncomfortable. A man performs but one duty - the duty of contenting his spirit, the duty of making himself agreeable to himself.
Mark Twain

Thanks for all the help! :D

I know for a fact that Windows XP Professional supports dual processors:

"Supporting Dual Processors
Another reason to choose Windows XP Professional is if yours is a dual–processor system. Some high–end computers, graphics workstations, and supercharged machines built by gaming or computing enthusiasts have two processors on the motherboard. How can you tell if your computer has two processors? You can be fairly certain that if you aren’t sure, then your computer is a single–processor machine. For dual–processor computers, you’ll need to purchase Windows XP Professional instead of Home Edition to enable the second processor to work."

Source:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertz.../november26.asp

The idea behind building an AMD machine with dual processors is that you can achieve more efficiently what Intel is trying to do with "HyperThreading," but instead of executing simultaneous threads on the same chip, dual processors will probably do a better job; it really depends on how well Windows supports the dual processor machine.

The real issue is price. Why buy a $650 Pentium 4 3.20 GHz Hyperthreading single chip when you can get 2 AMD chips that cost less?

(If the real GHz is 2.0 GHz + 2.0 GHz = 4 GHz)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by adamp2p@26 May 2003 - 13:05
(If the real GHz is 2.0 GHz + 2.0 GHz = 4 GHz)

---

ideally a pc with two 2ghz processors in it would perform like a 4ghz computer, but "real life" performance will usually fall short of that.

this doesnt neceisarily happen, as most programs, may not be able to uttilize the dual proccesors. just stick with a single chip system. :rolleyes:

You can also have an Intel based dual CPU system. Not that I recommend this.

Dual CPU systems are a lot more complex than it appears.

You also say you want to build your own system to save money. Dual systems are expensive. Stick to the single AMD based system.

Thanks to all the help I have been getting, I found that very few motherboards even support dual AMD's, and not even the Barton chips; and what is the point in having that kind of chip bandwidth without dual channel DDR and a fast system bus?

I think I will wait until I hear several reviews of Intel Hyperthreading machines with dual channel DDR and an 800 MHz system bus to make a final decision. There just is not enough information out there yet.

Thanks a lot for your help, I appreciate it.

I always build my own PCs!

You should too.

Not only does it make you more knowledgeable of your PC, you also know how to troubleshoot it better. A good learning experience too. You'll feel good about yourself.

You can save money. look in eBay for items from reliable sellers. Visit computers shows. look for rebates in your newspaper. You will save hundreds like me!

Store bought PCs with software packages have too much crap installed for you to deal with. A clean install of Windows is always good.

I am a heavy 3D gamer, andI have tried AMD and Pentium4. My opinion is that Pentium4 is better. I am not saying this is a fact, it is just my preference. At least Intel calls it what it is (eg. Pentium4 2.0gHz is 2.0gHz, but the Amd 2000 is not 2.0gHz, just a model number, they never directly tell you the speed on the box, usually it is "up to xxxgHz").


Why dual Chips? Are you planning on hosting a server. That is about the only benefit that dual CPUs will offer. It won't make normal (or even heavy) use of your PC any better.

Quote:

---

At least Intel calls it what it is (eg. Pentium4 2.0gHz is 2.0gHz, but the Amd 2000 is not 2.0gHz, just a model number, they never directly tell you the speed on the box, usually it is "up to xxxgHz").

---

AMD are trying to get people to get away from megahertz. A lot of people are hung up on that number, but it's only one factor.
Bus speeds, and chip architecture also have a large impact on performance. Relying on just frequency as a measure of performance is faulty logic.

yeah, i agree. also youd be better wi a single amd sys, do it yourself, if u dont know how, get a mate to help who does. :) then yall know what to do if u need to do anythin

I think it would be a smart move to save my dough for now until the Intel Prescott comes out later this year. I think I will be able to save enough by then to buy a 3.2 GHz Prescott with 800 MHz fsb and 1 MB L2 cache (built on the 90 nanometer process). Not to mention, DDR 2...

Right now I have a P4 @ 2.0 GHz and 768 MB PC800 RDRAM, so I think it would be dumb to upgrade with the Prescott coming out relatively soon.

I should be happy with what I got for now.

A word of caution on waiting for a chip to be released.
The release schedules can slip by as much as 6 months especially when they are trying something as problematic as shifting to a new processing scale.
Check out http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t479-s...2135056,00.html
U might want to look at how much AMDs schedules slipped with clawhammer which was originally due out September last year.
So u could still be waiting come march 2004 :)

A few areas to consider when thinking about very high frequency chips:

1) EM radiation - this can severely affect other chips in the system; the higher the frequency the worse the problem. This leads to increased mobo cost.

2) Mobo design - track lengths are critical at high frequencies; again, the higher the frequency the worse the problem. Again, increased mobo cost.

3) Heat generation - this rate of change is affected by the RMS law - double the frequency = approx 3.2 times the heat (given the same voltages etc).

However, multiprocessor systems also have their drawbacks:

1) More complex mobo design - leading to increased mobo cost.

2) Symmetrical multiprocessing does NOT mean both processors share the load, it simply means they are capable of doing so. If only one thread is running, only one processor will be in use = half performance. BUT any program which is highly processor intensive should be designed to be multi-threaded - don't blame the hardware for software shortcomings.

3) There is some overhead in scheduling tasks to run on multiple processors so you don't get double the performance. And since the processors do not share the cache, there is a performance hit if a process has to swap from one processor to the other.

However, a dual processor system should be more efficient than a single processor one since one of the processors can be transferring data whilst the other processor is acting on data in cache (although hyperthreading should get round that anyway).

Considering heat transferrence, the primary objective is to remove the heat from the chip; this puts the heat into the air inside of the case. The secondary object is to remove this hot air from the case.
You could run dual processors at well above half the speeds of a single processor (eg [email protected] [equivalent] against 1@3GHz). It then only takes a linear increase in fan performance to remove that extra heat from the case.

My personal recommendation would be to go for the AMD dual processor option - the hardware is available now, it is cheaper than current Intel hyperthreading options and should give performance (for well written apps or multiple concurrent apps) at least equal to the Intel offering for at least the next couple of years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx@29 May 2003 - 01:38
2) Symmetrical multiprocessing does NOT mean both processors share the load, it simply means they are capable of doing so. If only one thread is running, only one processor will be in use = half performance. BUT any program which is highly processor intensive should be designed to be multi-threaded - don't blame the hardware for software shortcomings.

---

that's exactly what i would tell people to expect. if you get a dual processor computer, both cpus will not be running full bore on every program, because many programs are not multi-threaded. if you're going to invest in such a computer, you should find out whether the programs you use regularly are multi-threaded.

@ Ian, 3RAN1AC, etc. Thanks for the tips, and ian_, that is a great article.

It appears that the complications of the 90 nanometer process will get worked out, because, it is possible, and Intel has supposedly already had success producing 90 nanometer chips and began marketing them.

However, you are right that there are no guarantees.

But I still think it is a better idea to wait until the next exponential advance to upgrade; do you really think that I would notice a performance upgrade if I don't play any games? I think I would notice the difference only when something radical changes like the 90 nanometer chips, etc.

I am on a computer 8-12 hours a day working, and I appreciate my computer, and want the best I can afford, if it is worth it. Performance is important to me, as I am sure it is important to you.

Thanks for all the help. I have been to many forums, but have never run into people as knowledgeable or kind as on this board. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;)

I run an AMD MP machine, mobo by Tyan, but it is seriously over-rated. The mandrake linux core works fairly well, but the win2k kernel doesn't utilize the 2nd processor much.

Oh, after dragging the mobo manufacturers into making multi-processor boards (about 3x the trace densityand 1.5x the retail price) they have dropped the multi-processor idea. From what I hear, Windows will no longer support it in later iterations either.