Printable View
Im thinking about getting a new pc arroound $3,000 . I have been reading about the new amd 64 bit processers with the hyper transport tech. and the p 4 with the hyper threading tech. I heard that the p4 is still the best. I want to use this for gamming so what do you think is the best ????
wait another month or so and get the new pentium that's coming out, loads better than amd64
Wait 6 months from now and who knows?
I'm sure that for 3k you could build a nice system with either chip.
any proof to back that up?Quote:
Originally posted by Broken@17 October 2003 - 05:15
wait another month or so and get the new pentium that's coming out, loads better than amd64
<_<
exactly - shit changes so much nowadays - i'm sure AMD is workin on somethin new as well!Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@17 October 2003 - 05:18
Wait 6 months from now and who knows?
I'm sure that for 3k you could build a nice system with either chip.
3 grand will buy u a killer system w/an LCD. wish i had that much money, i'd fix my car - :D
I believe Pentium is quite much better than AMD. Don't wait for anything coz after every few months a new product will come out. So I suggest you to buy Pentium whenever you want...
hmmm....Don't hear nothing about 64bit technology. Thats what its about to be ALL about! Its a HUGE step in CPU's. Wait for the Intel "Prescott" which is 64 bits and buy it! Nothing against the Athlong 64's, just the Intel will be much faster and also 64bit. Wait and buy the 64bit Intel!!! P4s are all about to be outdated (within reason, I'm just saying that 64bit is out now, so I wouldn't buy a 32bit chip.)
Now about that budget! That is really nice!! Heres what I would get!
Intel "Prescott"
ASUS mobo to support Prescott (ASUS all the way)
Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra 256MB
1GB of the FASTEST ram (Prob PC4000 Dual Channel! CORSAIR XMS!)
Thermaltake case! You can afford it! GET IT!
Dress the case up with neons!
Sony LCD....nothing else bud
$3000 will get you a NICE gaming rig....
honestly, i love AMD better, but thats just my opinion..... if you really want that extra 5-7% in performance, then go for it.... otherwise, i'd stay AMD...
btw... the 64 bit crap IS out, but it didnt exactly amaze the testers or anything.... not a HUGE inrease like they thought...
as for the rest, he didnt ask our help on deciding it, just the CPU....
but, if it IS guna be a gaming rig.... Asus mobo, GeForce5900AGP 256DDR, ....shit im copying the dude before me.... oh well, you get the picture...
1 GB DDR, no more, you shouldnt NEED any more than that, seriously...
LCD , i would recommend a ViewSonic... Sony are good also....
cheers, and tell us how it ends!!! :D :beerchug:
I like the way you think Metal ;) lol Yeah I know the 64bit wasn't AWESOME, but still its the future, and 32bit CPU will be outdated. Software will become based on 64bits and everything, but not for a while! good luck! And yes tell us your thoughts now! and what you will get.
Yeh I think you are right I better wait for 6 mo. I got a 1.7 gig. with 512 sdram and it seems so slow even I know its just as faet now as when I bought it 2 yrs. ago. I got a 400 sys. bus and with amd talking about a sys bus of 1600 and a 3.2 gig. :o That is so much faster than mine... Where did you here about intel going with a 64 bit system ??? I havent heard nuthn... Also what do you think about the alienware system ???
Intels Prescott man..wake up! lol just playing. Your system is pretty good. I would wait about 3 months...NOT 6! and buy the stuff i posted earlier! INTEL PRESCOTT
Small tip; if your opinions are not based on facts, they won't be heeded.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@18 October 2003 - 01:48
Intels Prescott man..wake up! lol just playing. Your system is pretty good. I would wait about 3 months...NOT 6! and buy the stuff i posted earlier! INTEL PRESCOTT
IMO 64-bit technology will take a while to catch on. It would be best to update your current rig just now and wait until 64-bit tech becomes widely used; only then will the benefits outweigh the price.
We will also have seen and tested the new processors. To say "Intel is better" or "Athlon64 ownz Prescott" at this point is ridiculous - there are no reliable facts to support it.
Just out of curiosity...
Even after the release of 64 bit chips won't you have to have software optimized for it to really see any big improvement?
I'm sure the chips will be backwards compatible with 32bit software, but will they run it any faster?
the real question is: do u need a computer at this very moment? wat i would do is just wait till next year, and c wat's up with pentium 5, which will most likely be a 64 bit cpu as well. then, amd goes down the drain. might be a bit more expensive, but u got $3000, u got nothing to worry bout. if u build urself, u'll have enought for almost two seflbuild alienwares. lol. almost 2, prob 1 and halfQuote:
Originally posted by ricochet@17 October 2003 - 05:05
Im thinking about getting a new pc arroound $3,000 . I have been reading about the new amd 64 bit processers with the hyper transport tech. and the p 4 with the hyper threading tech. I heard that the p4 is still the best. I want to use this for gamming so what do you think is the best ????
dude, a 5900 ultra? with that much money? u got be nuts. he could get like a super modded case, water cooling, max oced 9800 pro 256mb using a gpu water block, pentium 5 at watever speed, dvd +- rw, 1 teribyte (4*250gb SATA or ATA), and Sound Audigy 2 Platinum, and some more stuff. if u wait till next year dude, that 1 terabyte of storage will be much cheaper.Quote:
Originally posted by metalrebelzz@18 October 2003 - 01:20
$3000 will get you a NICE gaming rig....
honestly, i love AMD better, but thats just my opinion..... if you really want that extra 5-7% in performance, then go for it.... otherwise, i'd stay AMD...
btw... the 64 bit crap IS out, but it didnt exactly amaze the testers or anything.... not a HUGE inrease like they thought...
as for the rest, he didnt ask our help on deciding it, just the CPU....
but, if it IS guna be a gaming rig.... Asus mobo, GeForce5900AGP 256DDR, ....shit im copying the dude before me.... oh well, you get the picture...
1 GB DDR, no more, you shouldnt NEED any more than that, seriously...
LCD , i would recommend a ViewSonic... Sony are good also....
cheers, and tell us how it ends!!! :D :beerchug:
yea ur system is good enuff for sometime....Quote:
Originally posted by ricochet@18 October 2003 - 01:44
Yeh I think you are right I better wait for 6 mo. I got a 1.7 gig. with 512 sdram and it seems so slow even I know its just as faet now as when I bought it 2 yrs. ago. I got a 400 sys. bus and with amd talking about a sys bus of 1600 and a 3.2 gig. :o That is so much faster than mine... Where did you here about intel going with a 64 bit system ??? I havent heard nuthn... Also what do you think about the alienware system ???
wait it out :)
DWk
Im with DWK...its good enough for now wait a while.
Not sure about Prescott, but the AMD Athlon64 chips will run just like a normal Athlon in the "legacy mode" for 32-bit applications with a 32-bit OS.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@18 October 2003 - 12:50
Even after the release of 64 bit chips won't you have to have software optimized for it to really see any big improvement?
I'm sure the chips will be backwards compatible with 32bit software, but will they run it any faster?
Their true power will only be realised when using a 64-bit OS; then they can run in 'long mode', running 64-bit code with full 64-bit capabilities while also supporting 32-bit applications in 'compatibility mode'.
M$ are designing a version of Windows XP which will utilize 64-bit capabilities, and game designers are also looking at the possibilities of 64-bit processing.
So yeah, not many applications at launch, but they will certainly come.
For further reading, Ars Technica have an excellent article on the Athlon64.
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html
A friend said he could build me a system with dual 2.5 cpu, for a 5 gig. system, does this sound right???
If you are running multiple applications, you will certainly get a lot better performance, but since most of us only use one processor intensive application at any one time, you are unlikely to see the sort of benefits you are hoping for.
Multi-processor systems are ideal for servers, but they are normally not much use for desktop situations simply because the applications are not written to use more than one processor.
I think AMD
You have to consider that even though in the past Intel have been slightly faster on their competing processers, but not by that far for example the Athlon XP 3200+ and the P4 3.2 the benchmark results were incredibly close considering the clock speeds for both of them, in fact theres almost 1ghz in the gap which shows you what they had to do to get ahead.
get a dual p4 rig. Quake 3 has some multi-processor support and im sure that more and more games will also in the future. but until then you can encode video and play games at the same time :)
The reason why people saying the Amd64 sucked, well didnt do as well as they thought was because the base core to the Amd64 is a 2ghz chip, and what they tested was only the 32 bit side of it. Im not sure the actual design of the amd64 but i think they have a seperate 32bit legacy chip on the dye and not a 2* split 64 chip ( think nitendo 64, 2*32 bit chips linked together )
when 64 bit stuff comes out then we we really see the power of the amd64. untill then think of the amd64 as a 64 bit chip with a 32 bit chip bolted onto it.
correct me as this is only an educated guess