hey-looking to basically build a complete system, meaning:

-CPU
-Motherboard
-Ram
-Video Card
-PSU

I was wondering if you would suggest an Intel-based core 2 duo system or an AMD x2 based system, and what motherboards you recommend.

since my budget for this system is pretty low (500-600), im looking at no more than around $300 for both the CPU and Mobo.

currently i am considering:

For Intel:
-C2D e6300
-GIGABYTE GA-965P-DS3
($320)

For AMD:
-X2 3600 w/
-Biostar tforce 550 (bundled)
($160+ cooling)

-or-

-X2 4000 and a motherboard (suggestions please)

*should i go for the renowned c2d and gigabyte overclocking station
or a cheaper AMD system plus more expensive ram/video card

AHHHHH

thanks

the c2d system will outperform the amd system. instead of getting the gigabyte ds3, look at the s3, the only real difference is solid capacitors
GIGABYTE GA-965P-S3
with that low of a budget the amd route looks better, with intel you might end up goin a little over. here's a good budget intel system to look at link

You want Intel.

Look at...

Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 - $175
Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 mainboard - $118
Corsair ValueSelect 1GB PC2-5300 (DDR2 667) RAM - $70
EVGA GeForce 7600GS - $110
Coolmax CP-500T EPS12V 500W power supply - $50

Total for those is $523. You will probably need a case, hdd, odd, fdd, and an OS.

The eVGA 7600 GT not GS is $110 and $90 after rebate.
EVGA 256-P2-N615-TX GeForce 7600GT
Just in case you had it mixed up...the GT is a better choice.

Go to Tigerdirect and get a barebones deal with an E6300 and spend the rest on a video card

I will warn you right now...that card is as loud as a Soviet-era jet.

do you mean the eVga graphics cards
-the newegg reviews all say that

i was considering the xfx version of either the 7600gt or 7900gs
-are those loud?

I went to Newegg for my barebones. I went AMD knowing that it's a bit slower (but not horribly slower), but also expecting that the backwards compatible AM2+ K8L quad cores will equal or beat whatever Intel has out at the time.

My older system is a P4 Northwood 2.8, so the X2 3800+ was a nice upgrade while the Northwood is a nice second PC (until I build my next one).

The specs are in my signature and here's what I spent:

MSI Mbox barebones at Newegg: $89.99

MSI 7600GS at Newegg: $109.00

1 gig stick of DDR2 667 Kingston Value RAM at Newegg: $67.99

Windows Media Center Edition 2005 with Vista upgrade coupon $109.00

I had two SATA and one IDE hard drive in my Northwood, so I transferred the Western Digital SATA and got a 200 gig Maxtor SATA at Fry's for $49.00.

The Athlon X2 3800+ was bundled with the exact same motherboard as in the Mbox from Newegg, and that cost me $179 at Fry's. I plan on building another AM2 system in a couple of months as the second PC, and the Northwood will become the third legacy single core PC.

What I plan on doing first is upgrading the Mbox's Apex 400 watt power supply with a Seasonic 500watt (35 amps on the 12 volt rail), and then I can go for the better of the two out of an 8600 Ultra or an X2800. Considering Purevideo costs money and Avivo doesn't, I think I'll go ATI.

I also plan on getting another stick of 1 gig Kingston in a week to get ready for a Vista dual boot when the Vista DVD arrives in 6-8 weeks from the coupon upgrade offer.

What I expect to do by mid 2008 is get the least expensive quad core AM2+ CPU for both of the K9N6SGM-V builds. It might only have hypertransport 1.0, but it should be viable for whatever I throw at it multimedia, 3D modelling, modding and gamewise.

Were it not for the better price performance of the X2 3800+ on the MSI build, I would have gone cheapest C2D. As is, I expect AMD to catch up to Intel the way ATI and Nvidia leapfrog with every other GPU release. The only bad choice for a build nowadays is a single core system, whether Athlon 64 or P4. Well, the Smithfields and Presslers aren't the best deal either. Still too many of them floating around in the budget market.

Is Intel really faster than AMD?? On paper yes... but for most users... probably work the same with Intel having a slight edge (based on the benchmarks). AMD is definitely a mid range build just like it historically has been. Intel is higher end and will cost more to get the right components ($1000 vs $800 for example)... seems like it has been over the long term.

The system yipsl listed sounds about right... I didn't realize 1 GB of value ram went for $70, nice find.
Another thing to note about AMD systems... seems like they are more friendly toward ram (DDR800) and upgrades, not to mention more variety of motherboards. Hopefully the sockets aren't changed like they were in the last year or three years (Socket A - > 754 ->940->939 ->AM2)... always annoying. But my hunch is that AMD will keep the AM2 socket for a long time (like they did with the socket A) since they kept switching over last 3 years. Intel might be due for a switch soon... but its tough to speculate or base a decision on that. To me thats important if you want to upgrade the processor later. I keep my systems for years... my current 2700+ system is going on 4 yrs, still runs most everything I do with it (BF2, BF2142, Civ4, Railroads, NFS:Carbon, Photoshop, etc). The one before that (a 1.2 Ghz Thunderbird) my parents use, its 6 yrs old.

For a video card... wouldn't go eVGA, definitely loud... nothing more annoying than a buzzer in the box. Go with the gigabyte card Geforece 7600 GT, its going for $120 right now with the silent pipe fan in it. Quiet is worth it.

Good luck with your decision... Intel vs AMD... you'll hear all sides, some very passionate. I've been a happy AMD customer for years...

P.S. to answer your question... get the X2 4600+ if you can. Its on par with the C2D systems (beats 4300 and 6300 unoverclocked) for the same price @ $175. The X2 3800 is a bargain @ $109, just an FYI.

SPET3R... if I gave you a P4 with HT and a C2D, you would barley be able to tell a difference in a clean-install of Windows XP...

The point isn't casual-user preformance, it's what you want to do... photoediting, videoeditiong, multimedia (HD, not normal), encoding, gaming, etc... most people care more about benchmarks but it's definately not about benchmarks... the basic thing is to go for the lowest-price product in the current line (like the C2D E4300) and have fun with it. Overclocking on home systems is great with Core 2 Duo... you can make a sub-$200 processor preform similar to a $1000 processor (E4300 or E6300 vs X6800). It's basically the same hardware, except you void your warentees (mainly CPU and motherboard, sometimes RAM).

When I get a computer, I don't want to overclock it out-of-the-box. Wait till it is actually a limiting factor in what I do... better go through 1-2 years with a good processor, then overclock, then to go 4+ years overclocked.


EDIT: I'm a bit biased to Intel, though I find AMD's new 6000+ line to be quite interesting for preforming on-par to the E6600... it will definitely drive Intel prices down (thus the reason I don't wish AMD to hell). Competition is key in computers; I want the best I can get for the least amount of cash...

I prefer nVidia and Intel over ATI and AMD... call it experience but it's what I know and what I feel works well. I can't wait for the R600 launch and the next big thing from AMD for processors. Whatever it does, it will drive down Intel and nVidia prices...

thanks bobsama, ill take that advice

so you think i should buy a e6300, and only overclock when its a limiting factor to my performance, save money. keep it real right?

off-topic: everyone has suggested DDR667 and not 800. is that a better value? -i know 800 has better overclocking capability but im not a hardcore overclocker.

on-topic: So do you suggest an e6300 with a gigabyte ds3 or say an x2 4200 with a cheaper motherboard and better ram/graphics card?

Not disputing what you posted, but AMD has always been mid range. If you want highend, Intel is the way to go but the price is up there most of the time and the motherboard options are usually $110 or more compared to a $70-90 AMD compatible board.

You're right, the release of the 6000 is awesome... that means the X2 3800 will drop below $100 and the 5600 may drop below $300. The last time I bought a processor was my 2700+ which went for $276 in February of 2003. Although its near retirement it still processes away today just fine at 35 degrees C. The thing I like about AMD is that they'll release a chip like the FX-62 and they'll go back and perfect it into the consumer line to be cooler and more efficient.

The 4300 is a good processor... but I wouldn't buy it when a X2 4600 is better and the motherboard flexibility is better at a cheaper cost. That has always been my gripe with Intel. I don't overclock... my computers last longer that way

Colt... its your call... but I'd go with a X2 4600 versus the 6300. The benchmarks give the 6300 a slight edge... but the 4600 fits your budget and is competitive. The reason others have suggested DDR-2 667 is because DDR-2 800 is tough to get working on Intel boards. From what I read, AMD will run most DDR-2 800 memory sets. This is the motherboard dilemna I keep running into with my theoretical builds (if I were to build today). Intel released their C2Ds... but the motherboards haven't caught up with them. After a few more months, manufacturers will release better chipsets to allow DDR-2 800 and even DDR-2 1066+.

My gripe with Intel is that I had a Prescott box for awhile. I had a P4 630 and I hoped that with a bios flash that it would accept a decent Pentium D (this was before C2D) later on. Well, that ASUS P5RD1 mobo not only had SATA issues (had to use an IDE drive for C: and the SATA for the second drive), but it was reported it would only accept an 805.

I kept running across posts where people couldn't get Pressler series Pentium Ds to work on it. I must mention that it was an ATI chipset, so I don't blame Intel for the SATA issues, but I do think that Intel encourages their budget motherboard vendors to not provide a better CPU upgrade path.

So, I gave the motherboard and processor to a friend and went back to the 2.8 Northwood, which didn't overheat as much and was just as fast in games as the 3 gigahertz Prescott. I also remember that Intel forced a motherboard switch on their customers just before the first Smithfields arrived. The voltages were different and a bios flash didn't cut it, unlike AMD which has been friendlier towards processor upgrades.

Intel upgrade support changed from the days of my D865PERL board where I could go through 3 processor upgrades. I originally had a 2.6 Celeron to afford the original build, a 2.4 Northwood 400fsb and then a 2.8 Northwood 533fsb (it could take a socket 478 Prescott 3.4 if I wanted to get one at Pricewatch). In my opinion, a motherboard should be good for at least one new processor upgrade. If they want to make us buy new motherboards every time, why not just solder the CPU on the board like in the 386SX days (okay, I'm just kvetching with this)?

With AM2+ processor backward compatibility with AM2 boards, my current budget board might just last longer than current Intel boards, but who knows what they'll do with their native quad core or future generations of C2D? Maybe they've gotten their voltage issues resolved like they resolved their thermal issues from late generation Netburst?

AMD will be coming out with AM3 or somesuch, but I expect we might see a situation like with socket 754 and socket 939, similar processors on both platforms to give people an upgrade choice. That X2 6000+ sounds like AMD's equivalent to Smithfield thermals, ie increasing clock speed to keep up with Intel before the new architecture arrives, but it is a viable upgrade for someone who already has an AM2 board and a PSU that can handle the added strain.

Though, to be honest, the Anandtech charts still make the budget X2 3800+ good enough for anyone but benchmark fps counters. I don't play at 1600 x 1200, but in Vista, where Oblivion runs more slowly than in XP, an X2 3800+ comes in at 54 fps whereas the X2 6000+ gets 76 fps and the E6700 80 fps.

Take that budget Intel Smithfield 805!

As for thermals, my X2 3800+ 65watt at load beats my old Northwood at boot. Yes, the C2D have better thermals, but I can't get the memory of 31 stage pipeline Netburst thermals and poor performance out of my mind, and that's why I went AMD this time around.

Can't wait for K8L

Get an 939 pin AMD.
You can use a DFI MB with some PC-4000 ram and a $69 Optron 146.


I have the same system overclocked to 2.950Ghz on stock volts and temps.
In a few years when software USES duel cores then that would be the time to buy one.....might get 3Ghz+ duel core for $69 by then also.

I wouldn't recommend a socket 939 for anyone. When building a PC, one should go for a motherboard that has some hope of being future proof. Socket 939 is no longer futureproof.

I don't know if Intel will change voltages with native quad core, which would end up negating the socket 775's that are out now, but at least those motherboards have a future in terms of newer C2Ds. Heck, I'd take an 805 Spaceheater on a socket 775 that could be upgraded to a C2D later over a socket 939 X2 3800+, if that were my only choice.

Both AM2 Athlon X2 and LGA 775 C2D have their advantages, with C2D as the current benchmark and thermals winner in some categories, but with AM2 Athlon X2 as the price performance winner with good thermals on the 65 watt processors.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that motherboards should be viable long enough for a couple of processors. I guess many people on the Intel side of things have gotten used to swapping out motherboards more frequently the past few years.

Software also uses dual cores now. 3DS Max for one. Vista makes better use of dual cores than XP. Games like Alan Wake will require dual cores by the end of 2007 or early 2008. The time for dual cores is here. It's just that not every software or game uses dual cores, but so many do that a dual core is worth it. Some software even makes use of a quad core, but that's mostly high end programs like 3DS Max.

yipsl you're the man.... lol I love your postings. Is there anyone that would use the same motherboard again? That would be me. Just too bad they don't make Socket A processors anymore... otherwise I would upgrade that way. I don't see AMD releasing a new socket for a long time. The 6000 series will use the AM2 socket... and I'm assuming their new "Fusion" core will as well. Just makes better sense when AMD isn't a thousand pound gorilla like Intel who can afford massive changes like that. Socket A was around for 4 years before Socket 754 (which is really a micro socket) and socket 939. AMD wanted to be more efficient, so they released AM2 with DDR-2... and soon DDR-3 support.

On a side note... I would never buy ATI ever... nothing but problems. I'm an nVidia person. nVidia had their issues with the FX-5000s but the newer cards and chipsets are great. Notice how they cater to AMD more than Intel...

That's changing. Intel's using Nvidia and SIS for alternate chipsets to come and ATI will cater more to the company that not only brought them to the dance, but performed a shotgun wedding by the punchbowl.

I was 50/50 back when I had a Geforce 2MX on one PC and a Radeon 64 (7200) DDR on the other. Then I went AIW 8500 128 and then AIW 9800 Pro in succession on my two older AGP boxes. First, I heard that they're cancelling the AIW line, then I heard they're bringing it back. I was going to have either an 8600 Ultra or an X2600 on one PC and an AIW 1900 on the other PCIe build this summer if that was all that was available.

Nvidia never did anything with their Pure Cinema cards that made it worth it for gamers, whereas ATI supported decent midrange gaming on their multimedia cards. When the PCI slots are finally replaced by PCIe x1 or x4, then I'll consider a separate ATI, Nvidia or Hauppage TV card, but until then, one of my PCs has to have an All in Wonder. That's why I've preferred ATI these past four years.

Besides, ATI used to have the drivers from hell, now they allegedly have their Vista drivers down for DX10 while Nvidia has the cards to market, but their Vista drivers sparked threats of a lawsuit.

It's like yin and yang or the light and dark side of the force. They're mirror images in all recent generations. You'd think their executives all hail from a mountain state where "it's all relative" they makes so many similar decisions despite the dissimilar approaches to processor design that they must all get together every Sunday for fried chicken and home distilled bourbon.