Guest Raven65 Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 Go with AMD, as per the Venice core. Hummmm I would wait on that. Give AMD some time to tweak it. Although it is 90nm and will run cooler and AMD says it has virtually no bugs. As per a MoBo MSI Neo4 Platinum if you want to go with a PCI-E video card. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterRex862 Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 Go AMD for gaming, Intel for heavy graphic programs. Since you dont want the HSF to running full blast all day I would def go AMD since the new Venice cores are much cooler than the Prescott core. 470784[/snapback] Gigabyte K8nsnxp-939 yes it's NF3 U but it's the most stable baord out there and does pretty well with oc'ing with the f8 bios. Also Amd's can mutitake very well , Intel's are better at rendering and high graphics programs like 3dsmax and higher. 471020[/snapback] You are right on the money, Sovek. I was running a CeleronD 2.53GHz Prescott core, with an after-market cooler-master HSF and some AS5; it would never drop below 70C. On the other hand, my A64 3000+ is quite happy running full load at 35C, with the help of AS5. Shadowfactor- As it may be true that Intels are better at some 3d rendering programs, it does not mean that the A64's perform poorly. They actually perform quite well! I run MAYA, MS3D and 3DsMax all the time; I never really experiance any slow downs. The framerates stay real high and the menus are quick and everything werx great! A64 All the way, baby!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cchalogamer Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 There's only ONE thing that I miss my 2.66 P4 @ 3.19 for, and that's any kind of encoding, decoding, file compression etc. My laptop can beat my 3000+ rig for that sort of thing alot of times....its sad, but I still dont regret the move to a CPU that runs 36C load as OCed and deos pretty much everytign else faster and for the $$$ i spent Intel cant touch it. find me a retail boxed Intel CPU for $146 that'll beat the performance (looks like a 2.66 Presscott or a 2.53 northwood are the closest in price....both are 533 FSB and cant touch the 3000+ for most uses.) Definatly go AMD, save cash on the CPU then spend more on the vid card or jsut get an even better CPU....maybe instead of a 3800+ a 4000+? idk exactly what i would do (prob get the 3800+) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bost_ Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 Hmmm... I guess I should ask then, would it be worth it to wait for dual-core CPU's? I plan on building this machine over June/July, so I could wait. Would I notice a performance boost over a regular 64bit proc? From what I've heard, dual core processors won't be supported by most software makers for a while due to the high cost of developing software for such chips. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovek Posted May 2, 2005 Posted May 2, 2005 i would def wait cause dual cores seem to have hyper-threading built in them due to the dual core, so you can AMD and still get your hyper-threading. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martymcfly Posted May 2, 2005 Posted May 2, 2005 actually better than hyoerthreading. HT just has a virtual 2nd proc, which is detected as 2 logical procs, while a dual core proc actually has 2 physical procs., hence it multitasks better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now