Intel vs. AMD on Vista build

[AKA_RA]

The age old question...Intel or AMD. Personally, I've always favored AMD over Intel, but thats a judgment passed back in the days before the thoroughbred cores were even released for the Athlon.

In short, I want what we all want: the best bang for my buck. Though I feel I've fallen behind when it comes to tech related news. I guess thats where you all come in.

Key points are simply these:
1. I game, a lot.
2. I don't need to think about upgrading.
3. I can wait for the next big CPU if need be.

I've heard good things about the E6600s from Intel, and I'm definitely a fan of a big OC. Considering I'm an AMD oriented gamer, I find it odd that I don't know much about AMD and their future lines, and knowledge on their current CPU line is limited. I already heard mention of AM2 being phased out in the future(I forget how near, likely not too close), and just reading that quote (that, and the fact that it was close enough to mention) was enough to break my confidence in getting an Athlon 64, like I had originally planned. I don't want to buy something when the next big thing is right behind it. No one wants to end up in the shadow of something great because they jumped the gun 2 months early. Can anyone help point me in the right direction, or am I better off playing a game of "Heads-or-Tails?"

While I'm at it, I may as well ask for a motherboard to go along with that CPU, just to get opinions.

[Mitternacht]

This topic is very similar to my ATI Vs. Nvidia thread. Mostly preference if anything. I myself will be running an Athlon 64 X2 processor. One review on the processor I bought, someone said they were playing counterstrike, downloading a torrent, and burning a DVD at the same time and the computer laughed at him, and said "is that all?"

[Silenced_Coyote]

I noticed you were looking for something that gave you the best bang for the buck and that you are a fan of a big OC.

If that is so, I say go with Intel. Maybe not the E6600. You can go further down the line and OC a lot too. I say go with the E6300. Intel recently released the E4300 which you might want to check out. Later on, Intel will release a E6320 (I think that was the number) that will be the same as the E6300 but with a total of 4MB of cache instead of 2. But if you want to buy now and want 4MB of cache, the E6600 is perfect.

[AKA_RA]

Hmm, 4mb cache is certainly preferable to 2mb, lol. Although if the E6300 cores are good overclockers, i have a feeling that it may not transition over to the E6320(or whatever it might be) because they'll prolly modify the core, but who knows. I've actually got some time to think about it, but at the same time, im a bit behind on upgrades as is.

[Ronyx]

If you want to go with extreme overclocking then go for the X6800. But if you want bang for buck then yea either an E6600 or an E6700 will get the job done well for you. Or you can combine the two and get an E6300 or an E6400 and overclock til you drop.

As for motherboards i'm not completely sure. Depends on what chipset you're thinking of going for and what brand. If you're like me and trust Asus then either get the:
P5N32-E SLI (680i chipset)
P5N32 SLI SE Deluxe (590 *or was it 570, scratches head* chipset)
Those are two motherboards i'd recommend.

[public_eyesore]

I say all the way with the e6600 and get 3gigs of ram

[AKA_RA]

ok, not to sound dumb...but whats with this 3gig of ram thing i keep hearing about. ive never really seen anyone having an odd number like that. can it run dual channel that way? what size would the sticks be?

[Silenced_Coyote]

That isn't a dumb question at all. This is the first time I've heard someone recommend 3 gigs of RAM. Some please explain because I'm curious too.

I'm assuming it is 2x 1 GB stick + 2x 512MB stick. Because my motherboard manual only tells me which channel to install 1, 2, or 4 sticks of RAM (EVGA 680i motherboard).

Maybe this is some joke?

Anyways, I say stick with 2x 1 GB kit because RAM is kind of expensive. That is unless you have a lot of money and will be running Vista.

[Bucko]

My old motherboard only had three slots, so 3Gb would be about the max. I had 1.25Gb in it (2x512 and 1x256).
My new MoBo only has 2 slots, so 2Gb is all I can do.

[AKA_RA]

but ieven if yo udid have 4 slots, 2 gig sticks nad 2 half gig sticks, how would it benifet, youd get higher capacity and youd have to sacrifice dual channel. thats a bit deal in my opinion

[public_eyesore]

www.anandtech.com

We opened 104 images in Adobe Photoshop CS3 from our recent trip to Las Vegas for CES 2007; with all 104 images opened and loaded, we then timed how long it would take for Microsoft Word to start. In Windows XP, despite some swapping, Microsoft Word 2007 started in just under 8 seconds. On our Vista test bed, starting Word took almost 20 seconds due to constant paging to disk. The only difference? Vista's heightened memory requirements took a stressful situation that worked reasonably well under XP and made it far more painful with the same amount of memory.

We then upgraded the Vista machine to 3GB and ran the test again; thanks to faster application load times and intelligent prefetching, Word started in 1.31 seconds. If you thought that 2GB was the sweet spot for Windows XP, chances are 3GB will be the new minimum for you under Vista.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=3

[Indybird]

For Processors (I'm all for Intel) I'd recommend the E6600 or E6700. I have the E6700 and it is really nice. O.C'd to 3.66 GHz with air cooling no problem. Been running stable for well over a month (no BSODs or lockups).

As far as motherboards go, I am an ASUS fan. I have the P5W-DH, and I am far from disappointed with it. Lots of features, overclocks very well and does crossfire (if you want). If that's not quite perfect for you I'd recommend the ASUS P5N32-E SLI or the EVGA 122-CK-NF68-TR. If you want to spend lots-o-money on a state-of-the-art mobo go with the ASUS Crossfire.

As for RAM, I'd go for 2GB of DDR2 800 RAM. Nothing more to say here.

Lastly for graphics I'd so highly recommend the geforce 8800 series: DX10, 640/768MB VRAM, SLI-Ready. Im normally an ATI junkie (I can't wait for R600s), but these cards really are so much better than anything ATI has to offer right now.

Thats all I can think of, hope that helps ;)
-Indybird

[Airbozo]

I am also investigating the processor for my next system. Still not sure yet. In the end it may depend on the features I want out of the motherboard and graphics subsystem. Still on the fence on this one.

As to the ram, the way it was explained to me is that the 512 mb dimms have lower latencey than the 1gb dimms, so the "ideal" mix of memory and speed would be to have 2 paired 512's in the fist slots and 2 1gb's in the second slots. This "should" give the best performance with maximum memory. (with winXP pro anyway, not sure of vista's max)

[.Maleficus.]

I like the E6600 too. It's very nice. I have mine OC'd to 3.1GHz stable on air (haven't pushed beyond that; I'm happy where it is but I know it can go higher) and it is perfect. It is so much faster than my mom's 3.0Ghz P4 it's not even funny.

I have a Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 and it is a great board. Nice OC'ing options and very stable.

2Gb of DDR2 800 is definitely the way to go. I'm running 2Gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800 and again, compared to my mom's 1Gb it's amazing how much faster things load.

[Silenced_Coyote]

www.anandtech.com (http://www.anandtech.com)

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=3

That's a great way to really compare and show the performance gap between XP and Vista. But, I don't would never have that many images open in Photoshop. Even if I did, I would gladly wait 12 extra seconds than spend $100+ or so on RAM. Seriously... 12 whole seconds. For those that are that worried about wasting time, go multi-task. Get a drink while you wait. Buy a quad core CPU while you are at it so it can better handle all the open programs you are running simultaneously.

[Silenced_Coyote]

If you do decide to get the 2MB cache Intel CPU, I advise the E4300 over the E6300 and E6400.

It overclocks just as well as the others. But I like it better than the two mentioned above because the E4300 has a CPU multiplier of 9. So you don't have to worry wheter if your motherboard can reach a high FSB.

Here's a review on Firing Squad. (http://firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e4300_review/default.asp)

[klingelton]

get a new mobo and 2 2gb ram sets and clock that ****! 4gb of over clocked ram, that's the way forward!