Help me please.

[phen0m]

I was almost positive about everything that I want in the computer I'm building.
And, it was pretty expensive for me. I wanted a mobo+proc bundle and I found some around $300 with a 2.66GHZ, 8MB, Quad-Core, and about $100 mobo's. The processors were $250 by themselves. Well, my stepdad made it pretty clear that this is way too expensive for me to get, since I would be asking for it for Christmas. I would love to have it but I am going to have to go for a $119 processor and a $75-$100 mobo. I am lost in deciding. I picked out a few but from there, I don't know which one out of them. And, I know there are many many more out there. Will you please tell me which of the mobo's out of my selection are the best and recommend me some more.


I need the following:

Overclock-ability
Onboard wireless-ness so I won't have to buy an adapter.
Socket 775
ATX
4GB RAM Support, at least
1 PCI x16 Express port, at least


I do not need the following:

Many USB ports.
HD Audio
Integrated Graphics


These are the boards that I found and liked:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3975892&CatId=1533
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4016449&CatId=1533
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4008504&CatId=1533
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4143796&CatId=1533




You guys have no idea how I feel, I was sooo excited about my Quad-Core processor but now, this feeling is worse than any feeling I've ever had before; I guess I could upgrade over next summer if I grab a job (which I must, but if I spend $250 on a new processor then I am going to have a really hard time buying insurance for a car and all the other crap).
My heart has a huge black void() in it now :(

[ContraptionMaker]

Ever consider AMD or a triple core processor?
Check this out:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103253

For a mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813186141

You'll get a lot more bang for you buck than you do with Intel.

[phen0m]

But everyone says AMD sucks. And as for the mobo, I don't want microATX.

[Bopher]

I use an AMD 64 in my system. It runs really well and has the option to Overclock. But working off a budget that has bills and baby overruling any upgrading or replacing anytime soon keeps me from messing around too much. But then again I upgraded from a 2.0Ghz Celeron. I've used AMD many times before in builds for years and haven't had any troubles, knock on wood.

[FuzzyPlushroom]

Anyone saying that "AMD sucks" isn't doing their homework. In general, AMD processors these days are just as efficient, just as powerful, priced comparably or lower, but aren't as overclockable - though they have plenty of overclocking potential compared to anything but the Core 2, which has spoiled many people.

Either platform will treat you well, and you may well find an AMD-based system to be a better deal.

[Bopher]

Either platform will treat you well, and you may well find an AMD-based system to be a better deal.

The whole reason I went with AMD. I needed a faster system to run games but I didn't want to drop my whole budget (approx $500) into the processor

[progbuddy]

Anyone saying that "AMD sucks" isn't doing their homework. In general, AMD processors these days are just as efficient, just as powerful, priced comparably or lower, but aren't as overclockable - though they have plenty of overclocking potential compared to anything but the Core 2, which has spoiled many people.

Either platform will treat you well, and you may well find an AMD-based system to be a better deal.

I agree.

AMD's are great for memory-intensive processes such as games and multimedia. Yay HT. Running an AMD Phenom X3 over here. It's truly amazing. hence *points out the new sig*

[ContraptionMaker]

But everyone says AMD sucks. And as for the mobo, I don't want microATX.
Well, not Everyone! My first processor, over 25 yrs. ago, was Intel, my second processor was AMD. Every processor since then? AMD! All chip makers have their problems. Remember Intel's floating point error? AMD usually delivers the same performance as Intel, but about 25 - 30 precent cheaper. They may not always be the fastest on the block, but they are stable and long running. With AMD taking over ATI it makes a winning combination. For my hard earned money, I'll always buy more for less and buy AMD.

Try this MOBO:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128081

Look for the combo on the board and 9950 Quad cor Black Editon for 237.00

[Vitz¥^]

ive recently built 2 new systems, one with amd and one with intel. with the 1st one, at the time i coulda gone down either amd or intel route for about the same money, i chose amd. that system has been passed over to my mrs for here general work and browsing as it didnt come up to the spec i expected with the compents (amd athlon x64 dual core 6400 3.2Ghz black edition with 8800GTS gfx and 2g RAM (from memory it got about 10000 3dmark06 score). Since then I went down the intel quad core route and now have a Q6600 OC'ed to ~3.2Ghz with the same 8800GTS in and everything i run runs WAY better (3dmark06 score of about 14000).

In terms out outlay, i Paid ~£115 for the intel chip and ~£100 for the amd. so clearly it was more expensive, but worth every penny of it.

Why dont you look at getting a slightly lower specced Mobo and the intel quad that you really want? plus, when you get the money or feel the need you can always upgrade the mobo...

my money would go on a Q6600 again in a flash. for me its a better chip that has superb overclocking potential.

Just my 2cents.

[progbuddy]

ive recently built 2 new systems, one with amd and one with intel. with the 1st one, at the time i coulda gone down either amd or intel route for about the same money, i chose amd. that system has been passed over to my mrs for here general work and browsing as it didnt come up to the spec i expected with the compents (amd athlon x64 dual core 6400 3.2Ghz black edition with 8800GTS gfx and 2g RAM (from memory it got about 10000 3dmark06 score). Since then I went down the intel quad core route and now have a Q6600 OC'ed to ~3.2Ghz with the same 8800GTS in and everything i run runs WAY better (3dmark06 score of about 14000).

In terms out outlay, i Paid ~£115 for the intel chip and ~£100 for the amd. so clearly it was more expensive, but worth every penny of it.

Why dont you look at getting a slightly lower specced Mobo and the intel quad that you really want? plus, when you get the money or feel the need you can always upgrade the mobo...

my money would go on a Q6600 again in a flash. for me its a better chip that has superb overclocking potential.

Just my 2cents.

In case you didn't notice, the Athlon X64 came out a while ago, and is based on the old K8 architecture. the C2Q was based on the new Core architecture. It's the only reason why the Core2Quad is faster, save for the two extra cores. Many of these benchmarks were built around Intel anyways. I bet if someone would build something specified for an AMD it would do circles around an intel. Also, some of the fastest computers, including the IBM Roadrunner (world's fastest at the moment) utilize the K10 Barcelona Opterons in their setup for the HT and its high memory bandwidth, as well as its flexibility to connect to many different interfaces.

[phen0m]

So, if I go with a triple-core, will I notice a huge difference in performance? Because, I found a 3.1GHz dual core for < $100 and most triple cores that are lower than 3.1GHz are higher than $125. So, will it be worth the extra money?

[nevermind1534]

I think it is. If you're going to be gaming, or doing anything that's CPU-intensive (multitasking or multi-threaded applications), it will be well worth it.

[phen0m]

Well, I only use photoshop about once a week and I won't be a heavy gamer. Just play CS:S a good bit. Will I need triple-core?

[nevermind1534]

You don't need it, although it can still help, it will especially in the future, as the requirements of everything go up.

[progbuddy]

So, if I go with a triple-core, will I notice a huge difference in performance? Because, I found a 3.1GHz dual core for < $100 and most triple cores that are lower than 3.1GHz are higher than $125. So, will it be worth the extra money?

It's not always the speed. It's the number of transistors on chip, HT bus speed, number of cores, etc.

[phen0m]

Okay. Well, I think I might have to put my computer on hold until I get more money so I will be able to buy better parts.