First, my personal definition of "budget" basically means the CPU should cost $100 or less, and the video card (if needed) should cost $50 or less. I'm not a gamer so I don't need blazing cutting edge video, but I'm still looking for good overall bang for the buck and quality hardware. I'll spend a little more here and there if I have to, but I don't want or need to spend $500+ each on a CPU & video card.

As a point of reference (and maybe for a good laugh), my current system is a socket-A Athlon Thunderbird 1000 MHz with 512 MB RAM, overclocked to a whopping 1035 MHz. It was originally on an ECS K7S5A, but that board started acting up and a few months ago I replaced it with a recertified PC Chips board from Newegg for $17. At that price I figured I'd take a chance since I didn't want to dump much money into it. So far so good, but I want a new system.

For another good laugh, I've just gotten familiar with XP in the last 6 weeks or so. Haven't even activated it yet since I don't have the hardware for this upcoming system. My customized minimal Win98 install has served me well for years, but there are 2-3 programs I want to use that won't run on 98, and I want to use larger HDDs and go SATA and don't want to deal with 98's HDD size limitation, so I finally felt it was time to give XP a shot.

This is just going to be a 'general duty' PC. The most demanding thing I use my rig for is music editing, with files seldom larger than 100 MB. Mostly what I want advice on is which CPU & motherboard to get because I can't make up my mind after doing plenty of reading the last couple months. I'll either be running XP by itself or in a dual-boot with Win98, can't make up my mind there yet either.

I'm leaning towards an AMD Athlon 64 (not X2 or FX) because the last system I built was AMD based and I'm just more familiar with AMD CPUs. Initial research during the summer led me to a socket 754 system, but after more investigation it seemed pointless to go that route so I turned my attention to a socket 939 system because I thought it would be cheaper than a socket AM2 system with more expensive DDR2 RAM. Fast forward to the present, and DDR2 is pretty much the same price as regular DDR.... so is there any reason whatsoever to consider a 939 system over an AM2? I know AM2 doesn't offer any significant performance advantages, but it is AMD's current socket design that supposedly will be compatible with their next generation CPU.

I've considered an Intel system using an Intel chipset on the motherboard because I thought I read on this forum that Intel chipsets were more stable/forgiving with a legacy OS like Win9x, so I thought that might be the way to go if I dual-boot with Win98.... but after doing more reading it seems there are/were some major heat issues with the P4 Prescott CPU, which I *think* is the Intel equivalent to my Athlon choice. I'm not anti-Intel, I'm just not as familiar with their CPUs and don't know what the equivalent versions of Intels are compared to AMD, so feel free to chime in in that regard and suggest a CPU if you think it's a better choice than the Athlon I currently have in mind (AM2 Athlon 64 Orleans core, $90 or less at Newegg).

I'd like to use two SATA 3.0 HDDs for XP and archive material, but I haven't fully researched if there are any issues with SATA and Win98, so since I have a few decent PATA HDDs already I guess I can use one of them for Win98 if I go the dual-boot route?

For a motherboard, I guess I should try to get one with at least two SATA 3.0 connectors, preferably 4. A big source of confusion for me is the chipsets used on motherboards. I don't know what I should be looking for or what to stay away from, why someone chooses a VIA over nVidia, or vice-versa.

I guess it's kind of nice to be able to read through the reviews on Newegg, but a lot of them look like they were written by imbeciles, and there's no way to contact the people to ask them any questions so I take much of what I read there with a grain of salt.

Final question for now is LAN speed. I used to see just the 10/100 Mbps spec on boards, but now I see 10/100/1000. For whom is the '1000' spec important? I mean who can take advantage of a board with that spec?

Thanks for any forthcoming replies, looking forward to seeing some opinions.

My suggestion is as follows:

Antec SLK1650B, $69.99
ASUS P5L-VM, $94.99
Intel Celeron D 331 Prescott 2.66GHz, $51.00
OCZ Value Series 1GB DDR2 667, $99.99
Western Digital 80GB 7200RPM 8MB SATA, $43.99
Pioneer DVR-111D DVD+/-RW, $31.99

Total Cost: $391.95 (+ taxes)

If you want a basic dedicated video card, you could just add something like ASUS EN6200LE @ $35.99.

Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to get a DVD burner too but I didn't want to clutter an already long post with that, but thanks for the link.

As I said, I don't know much about Intel CPUs so please explain why you selected that one. Also, is their Socket 775 likely to be around down the road a bit yet or is it already being phased out in favor of something else?

I picked that CPU because it's the cheapest Intel CPU you can buy at the moment. At 2.66GHz even if it has a smaller cache then a Pentium or is only single cored or is not a Core 2, still is 2.6 times faster then what you're used to. However, the motherboard I picked supports up to the Core 2 Extreme, which means that no matter which CPU you'd like to upgrade to down the line in the next two years or so, you'll be able to.

I don't know... according to the Wiki page on the Celeron D, the CPU you suggested was released over 2 years ago. For $30 more I can get a socket-AM2 Athlon64 that was released a few months ago. I don't know how they compare performance-wise, but I would think the Athlon would be superior being so new. For a system I'm going to use for several years the extra $30 is nothing.

I know I'm not building a very exciting system by anyone's standards here, but if anyone has a socket-AM2 system please chime in.

well if u rly want amd then go and get it.

What kind of reply is that? I don't "really want AMD," I just pointed out that the AMD CPU is only a few months old and only $30 more than the Intel that's a few years old.

I only suggested that processor to keep the price down. I don't think you understand the concept of what I did. The motherboard is core 2 compatible, but building a core 2 system would blow your budget because core 2 CPUs are several hundred dollars. But having a motherboard that's core 2 ready give you the options to upgrade to it in the future. You can build the same machine with a Pentium D 930 or any other LGA 775 processor since the motherboard takes them all.

Ok, I understand better now, thanks. So Intel socket-775 motherboards are 'modern' enough that they're not going to be phased out for a while yet then?

Edit: I don't really have a 'budget,' I just don't want to spend more than I need to for what will be sufficient for my needs. I already know I'll be getting two 320 GB HDDs and one smaller one, but I'm not enough of a power user to require a cutting edge video card or CPU. I don't mind buying a little behind the leading edge of the technology curve in other words.

If anyone could address my question about motherboard chipsets I would appreciate it. What makes someone want a particular motherboard chipset?

if u dont want amd then why did u even mention it? i was assuming that u liked amd and was wondering about their new socket. in which i suggested that you get it since you will be future proofed for amd.

Socket 775 has a lot of variation in it. CPU compatibility for Intel CPUs typically goes by socket and chipset. AFAIK, you'll need the 945 chipset in order to run Core 2 Duo CPUs. AMD's typically work by socket for the most part, and then by whatever the motherboard can handle (My Abit NF7-S motherboard can handle up to a XP 2500+ if I remember correctly, but it's currently running a 2000+).


As for wanting a particular chipset - it comes down to compatibility and features and performance. The system that jcarle specced out for you will be stupidly fast compared to your old system (I know - I've built several similar computers, and they make my XP 2000+ look like a slug on valium). It also has the futureproof where it's needed - at the motherboard level. You'll be able to upgrade to any processor that's on the market today. Just imagine a year from now when the X6800 has come down to being only $100 or so... you'll be able to pop it right in and go from there. Want a new video card? PCI-E x16 isn't going anywhere for a LONG while. Need more RAM? Just buy more and pop it in.

The system as it is will handle Vista - albeit not incredibly well. A beefier video card and a dual core CPU will help in that regard. My suggestion though, is that you get what's listed there and then upgrade it when needed. Prices will have come down considerably by the time you ever get around to running Vista.


And as a last note - being familiar with one CPU manufacturer doesn't mean that you have to be locked in to them forever. Intel fell behind a bit a year or so ago, but they've really thrown a big curve ball at the market. The only reason AMD is still in the running is because they slashed their prices by a big margin.

Absolutely, I agree. It's just that I'm familiar with the AMD line and kept abreast of their offerings since I've used their CPUs for my last build and the 2 others I've done for friends. It certainly doesn't mean I can't start educating myself about Intel CPUs, but I am in the dark with regard to them so that's why I'm on here asking.

Then you've come to the right place.

Did you get most of the answers that you were looking for? jcarle could better inform you about the differences between chipsets than I can, so if you want the nitty-gritty explanation, you'll have to wait on his reply.

The differences between chipsets are crucial, especially when dealing with Intel. The northbridge controls what processor, memory and video card you'll be able to upgrade to and the southbridge controls what kind of mass storage options you have, the kind of audio, usb ports, pci slots, and things like that.

Here's three chipset diagrams where the southbridge stays the same, but the northbridge changes:
975X NorthBridge: http://www.intel.com/products/i/chipsets/9...75x_diagram.gif
955X NorthBridge: http://www.intel.com/products/i/chipsets/9...55x_diagram.gif
945G NorthBridge: http://www.intel.com/products/i/chipsets/9...45g_diagram.gif

Notice how the configuration of the PCI-express graphics slots change as well as the processors supported yet all the southbridge (ICH7R) options stay the same.

Now, put aside the fact that the northbridges are different, look at the differences between the southbridges:
ICH7R SouthBridge: http://www.intel.com/products/i/chipsets/9...55x_diagram.gif
ICH8R SouthBridge: http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/q96...965_diagram.gif

10 USB vs 8 USB, 6 SATA vs 4 SATA, Gb LAN standard not optional.

Motherboard manufacturers revolve around what the chipset can do, some manufacturer will add on 3rd party chips for, say audio, sata/ide or usb, but at the core, certain things cannot be changed without changing the chipset, such as processor support or memory type.

Hence were the importance of choosing the right motherboard. The manufacturer you choose determines the additional features (aside from the reference chipset features) as well as the quality of the part. One of the reasons why ASUS is so highly recommended is because most of their motherboards are of great quality with more features then anyone ever needs.

And that's why I listen to jcarle when I make my hardware purchases. He's a walking Intel encyclopedia.

Thanks for the info, jcarle!

Question - how are Tom's Hardware's product comparisons viewed here? I mean what do people think of them? This may be old news to other people but I just found it, it's his CPU comparison page. You can select 2 different CPUs and then compare them to each other with a variety of different benchmarks.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

Spent about an hour there last night comparing 3-4 CPUs I've had in mind, found it pretty informative.

i don't use his comparison guide, but i have looked into some of his BIOS tweaks and i've really sat down and read 18-30 pages about processor technology, and how its evolved.

the guys a really smart person when it comes to computers, must have a lot more free time than i have [and if you knew my hobbies you'd think i have too much]

in my sig the link about the Xeon processors is there...i have a server board that i'm going to get running soon from 1997-8 that runs a pair of Pentium II Xeon processors. now they don't seem like much, but its the first dual processor setup i'll ever get running alone. i don't consider myself a guru or a real smarty when it comes to computers, but i've found my ways around.

"the best way to learn about computers is to just fart around with them until you figure out what you're doing"

I've been doing just that since 1996! My first bold PC move: really wanting to try out "this new Windows 95 thing" and trying to figure out how to get rid of DOS & Win 3.1 off the second hand PC I picked up. "Hmm, 'deltree,' that looks like the right command"......

Just my 2 cents:

- AMD Sempron64 AM2 CPU
- AM2 motherboard with nVidia 6100/6150 chipset

But that´s ONLY when you want a 32bit OS. It will not work well with Windows 98 because of the 16 bit code.

For the S775 upgrade question: Look at it like this, when you upgrade your CPU, you will upgrade your motherboard and your RAM too like you are doing now. The motherboard jcarle advices runs only 1066MHz FSB and there for less suitable for future upgrades as the newer Core2Duos will have higher bus speeds then 1066MHz.

Other thought are: If you continue running 16 bit apps then you have nothing on AMD, then you are stuck with iNTEL CPU´s. I would drop Windows 98 and go for the AMD Sempron64 AM2 with a motherboard from ASUS.

Just make your pick…

I am leaning towards just running XP alone on the new system and not dual-booting, but could you explain your last statement in more detail please? Do you mean that nVidia chipsets won't work well with Win98? What about an ASUS board with a VIA or ATI chipset?

its not the graphics, its the 16bit process handling. graphically it would be equal. but in terms of processing, it would be a ton harder, AMDs are meant for 32 bit and up, windows 98 doesn't really fit that bill.

My pleasure. Glad it helps.


You just have to pay attention to which benchmark you're looking at. Some benchmarks don't really focus entirely on the CPU and the difference in performance can be attributed to the difference in the platforms. For example, AMDs often run higher scores in games because of the integrated memory controller... except that it takes away from the benchmark of the actual CPU. Yes, the memory controller is part of the CPU but you're talking about a reduction in memory latency and NOT an increase in raw processor power. But if you select a different benchmark which is completely reliant on the CPU, such as DivX encoding or RAR compression, it's a whole different story.


First, EVERY SINGLE INTEL CPU that is on the market NOW runs at 533MHz, 800Mhz or 1066MHz FSB. Future Core2s will continue to run at 1066MHz. So your statement is flawed.

Second, there are three new processors (The E6650, E6750 and E6850) which WILL run at 1333 FSB, but that won't be launched officially until Q1 of 2007, maybe even Q2. So before motherboards become available for them AND the processors become available on the retail market AND prices come down to affordable levels, we're looking towards at LEAST Q4 2007, if not Q1/Q2 2008.

So is the fact that future processors will run at 1333MHz FSB relevant? No more then the fact that one day we'll be using DDR3 and SATA3 and USB3. You can't future proof against everything, there's ALWAYS going to be a new technology around the corner. And plus, is there really a relevance between going from 1066MHz FSB to 1333MHz FSB when E-66 is used to an old Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz? Nope.

It's a question of balance, and I'm sure anyone who is able to be objective can see I struck a good balance between price, performance and upgradeability with the motherboard I suggested.

You're absolutely right, and I noticed that last night when I spent an hour comparing the CPUs. I have a question about the CPU you picked, however. I certainly don't mean any offense to you since you really seem to know your stuff with regard to Intel, but I tried to pick benchmarks that reflected how I use my PC and in everyone one I chose the AMD CPU won. Celerons aren't even included in the CPUs to choose from, so in place of your Celeron D 331 Prescott 2.66GHz I chose a Pentium 4 531 Prescott 3.0GHz ($30 more). If the AMD CPU won out over the P4, I imagine it would win by an even wider margin over the Celeron.

So I'm still not quite sure what to do, CPU-wise. Spending a little extra on the CPU is no biggie, it's still well under $100. The chart says I should go for the AMD, but I don't want to dismiss anything you've said so far either.

The hitch right now is that AMD is slashing all it's prices on CPUs because it knows that it's current line-up can't compete with Intel's Core 2 Duos. So dollar for dollar, it's hard to compare the two, but performance for performance there's a good difference.

Look at this chart for example. Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 running at 2.4GHz using DDR2-800 vs. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ running at 2.4GHz using DDR2-800. Since the WinRAR test is mostly CPU based, Intel wins by a full 32 second margin. Even bigger margin in the XviD chart, which is also CPU based.

Thing is, the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 is $308.00 while the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ is $247.99.

The Core 2 performs better in a tit for tat comparison but you pay a bit more for that. Hence why I suggested the Core 2 motherboard, but a cheaper CPU to hold you over until the prices on Core 2s and such drop.

Ok, thanks jcarle, I'll give it some thought. I won't be ordering anything until December so I have time to think it over a bit yet.

Quick question about DVD burners & media. I added the Pioneer you recommended to my wish list on Newegg and looked through the others as well. The DVD burners are basically the same price as CD burners & combo drives, yet I still see recent reviews of both of them. Why would someone want one of them when a DVD burner takes the place of both of them and adds DVD burning to boot?

DVD media.... what kind should I get? Newegg seems to be equally stocked with DVD+R and DVD-R. I read about them on Wiki but still don't know which one I should favor. Thank god the DVD burners can read and write to either format, I can just see the confusion it would cause if someone had a +R burner but bought -R media and then couldn't get it to work.

Sometimes people cannot be understood. I don't see the point either, I don't think there's many people on this forum that see the point of buying a DVD combo drive when you can get a DVD burner for the same price.


Depends on what you want. For the highest compatibility with older dvd players and the highest quality, Verbatim DVD-R (Single or Dual Layer). For a higher maximum burn speed and high quality but less compatibility with older dvd players, Verbatim DVR+R (Single or Dual Layer). If quality doesn't matter, then any other brand which strikes your fancy.

the verbatim + or - dvds from newegg are the best imo, 100 packs are nice. i dont think ive ever had a coaster with a single one out of 200 dvds.

We were talking about future upgrades so why would it be flawed in your eyes?


There you go, so you know were you talking about. Why sell the man an old outdated model of the P4 series?


You started with your argument of upgrading S775. You know as well that upgrading is just a bad stated story of marketing.


I don’t think so, S775 is going to stay but the chipset will not be good enough to upgrade in 1 year or so, or you have to buy bottom line CPUs again.

@ E-66, It’s your choice but jcarle is pushing you with his sales talk here. I sell computers too but I never say that people will do best to buy the lowest model and then upgrade later. Upgrades are irrelevant and most of the time not interesting. With this the statement of jcarle breaks and in my humble opinion it would be better to go with AM2 and a Sempron. If you move a lot of work, run a lot of programs at the same time then you could take the X2 as an option, it would even fit in your budget. But remember that you only can go for an AMD when you don’t run win98 any more.

Thanks for your opinion. I haven't made a decision yet, still thinking things over. I've decided not to dual-boot with Win98. I'll have more than one PC, so I can leave 98 on this one I'm using now and use the new one for XP.

A new problem has popped up regarding using Ghost 2003 with a socket AM2 or 939 motherboard. I don't know if I should post about it in Hardware or Software.

Goed Idea not to run both OSes on one PC.

A problem with Ghost 2003? That should be chipset related so you can continue posting it here.
If that doesn´t solve your problem then you can Always post in Software as well .

Never used Ghost 2003, I´m using Acronis TrueImage for that.

Ok, here's the sitaution. I was going to start a new thread so it would get more views, but I'll just put it here.

Someone I know who has used Ghost 1000's of times since it first came out told me that he hasn't been able to get Ghost 2003 to work with a Socket 939 motherboard. He told me that the board manufacturers have changed the way IDE is handled on socket 939 boards and Ghost 2003 can't read the drive types through the hard drive controller on the motherboard.

I don't know what that means in technical terms, but the bottom line is that he hasn't been able to get it to work. I don't really care about socket 939 boards because I'll use socket AM2 if I decide to go with AMD for this upcoming build, but if IDE is handled the same way on AM2 as it is on 939 then I assume I'd have problems using Ghost 2003 with AM2 as well, so I was looking for anyone who had successfully used Ghost 2003 with an AM2 board because I don't want to get rid of Ghost 2003, I prefer it to the newer versions.

looks more like a Ghost 2003 problem.
That version has problems with SATA, strangely Ghost 9 works fine.

Use other software or get an updated version of Ghost 2003 if it’s out.

EDIT: I never had that problem with ghost 2003, used it on machines from customers who bought the whole load from Norton (there choice ). Googled a bit and I see just a few people who have that problem with all types of chipsets so it’s not AMD related, just a problem with SATA.

It's flawed because I'm talking about upgradeability with technology available today. You're talking about upgradeability with technology that doesn't even exist yet.


Did you read the thread at all? First off, take a look at the title and the question... both mention "BUDGET". Second, I already answered that question:


Can you prepare yourself to be able to upgrade to every new technology available in the future? Of course not, but you can research and make decisions to give you the most options in the future.


That's simply not true. People are still upgrading Socket 370 and Socket A machines, so you're way off on that one. And simply because they come out with a 1333FSB processor in the future that means that a 1066FSB processor is bottom line? Again simply untrue.


I resent that. Never have I "pushed" anything and where the hell is the sales talk? So being informative is now sales? You are seriously delusional.


So you screw your customers by selling them a $2000 computer of which they will never use it's full potential because it's the "best choice on the market" when they could have saved $1500 and bought something more to the level of what they really use it for?


You haven't proved anything, and I haven't broken with anything I've said. All you've proved is that you're trying to win a who's got the biggest penis contest when all I did was try to provide information.


So you're saying that even AMD's greatest workhorse can't run little old Windows 98, yet Intel's entire range from Budget to Extreme Performance can all run Windows 98. Nice to know.

"It's flawed because I'm talking about upgradeability with technology available today. You're talking about upgradeability with technology that doesn't even exist yet."

So upgrade with today’s technology, which will be old(er) tomorrow.

"You can prepare yourself to be able to upgrade to every new technology available in the future, of course not. But you can research and make decisions to give you the most options in the future."

What options are you talking about?

Look 2 years into the future; there will still be DDR2, but faster. For example, 667MHz in a 1333MHz FSB clocked motherboard.

Months (not years) from now, the CPUs will have a DIE-shrink to 65nm or 45nm which needs updated voltage regulators. Soon most Intel CPUs will have 1333FSB.

Why buy an expensive but non-upgradeable motherboard? Why buy the worst CPU you can find?

"That's simply not true. People are still upgrading Socket 370 and Socket A machines, so you're way off on that one. And simply because they come out with a 1333FSB processor in the future that means that a 1066FSB processor is bottom line? Again simply untrue."

Read my statements above.

"So you screw your customers by selling them a $2000 computer of which they will never use it's full potential because it's the "best choice on the market" when they could have saved $1500 and bought something more to the level of what they really use it for?"

I don’t sell them a computer of $2000 when a $1500 PC is fine. I discuss current and future intentions and base a good sales decision from that conversation.

"You haven't proved anything, and I haven't broken with anything I've said. All you've proved is that you're trying to win a who's got the biggest penis contest when all I did was try to provide information."

You seem hypocritical by saying one thing then another. Read over the posts again because I’m not going to quote you again. And about that penis; Size doesn’t matter, its how you use it and how much time you used it. Go with your trophy, I don’t need it.

"So you're saying that even AMD's greatest workhorse can't run little old Windows 98, yet Intel's entire range from Budget to Extreme Performance can all run Windows 98. Nice to know."

What can I say; removing 16bit instructions gives you more space on the DIE for 64bit instructions.

jcarle, dude, keep it cool, it was not suppose to be a cock fight .

You can't say things like "It’s your choice but jcarle is pushing you with his sales talk here." and not expect me to put up a fight. I'm well versed in computer hardware and I see no fault in any suggestions, advice, or information I have put forth.

The motherboard I suggested is nor expensive nor unupgradeable. Simply because you can't upgrade to EVERY technology that is about to come out doesn't mean you can't upgrade for years with it. You can never keep up with technology, it's impossible. So you go with what is the best choice available NOW and you go from there.

It’s okay; just don’t agree on motherboard type and CPU and the upgrade part. You know that most people will change the CPU / Motherboard / RAM (with DDR2 less important) all together any way.

Any way, why so much love for iNTEL? I sell them too, but also AMD. My CPU lists looks like this:

- AMD Sempron AM2 (till 1.8GHz)
- AMD Athlon AM2 (2.0GHz and up)
- iNTEL Core2Duo
- AMD Athlon X2 AM2 (2.0GHz and up)

iNTEL, for me, left a big hole in the budget market. This is why I would recommend AMD for budget systems with integrated VGA e.g. nVidia 6100/6150 chipset.

EDIT: I take "It’s your choice but jcarle is pushing you with his sales talk here." back, but I got a little p***ed there .

I agree to disagree. But you know, that's the whole point of these threads. To discuss what everyone's opinion is. There no way that everyone can agree, if we all did, we'd all have the same computers. The plethora of hardware configurations that everyone has is simple proof of how much difference there is between what people chose.

I say Intel, you say AMD. It's a bloody war that's left many casulties along the way and it's a never ending debate. I like Intel for it's stability and workstation performance. You like AMD because of it's low cost and (I'm guessing) gaming performance. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses.

Although I will say I don't quite understand how you can say Intel has left a hole in the budget market considering the cpu I suggested was $51. Hardly an amount that would break people's wallets.

I’m comparing the Celeron with a Sempron CPU, both have the same price but the

AMD Sempron AM2 offers:

- Better 64bit compatibility (Not used by all users but it’s starting with Vista)
- 3Dnow Multimedia Instructions
- Lower noise in general

I know that AMD still has 90nm technology vs. 65nm from iNTEL, but that will change in the next month(s).

Any thing I’m not seeing here?

If you compare strictly budget CPU to budget CPU, the Sempron is a better performer then the Celeron. And just a note, the Celeron is also built on 90nm. It's only Intel's newer, more powerful processors which have moved to a 65nm process.

But here's the upgradeability snag. Budget for budget CPU, the Sempron is the better performer, move to the high end, and it's no secret that the better performer right now is the Core 2 line up at Intel. Unless AMD releases a radical new design for their next generation processors, it's a clear concensus that they have a large margin to make up. So why would I suggest a Celeron instead of a Sempron? Because the Celeron can be upgraded to a Core 2 (the current champ to be for a while) whilst the Sempron cannot. It's simply that.

jcarle, there is a new stepping of the Celeron, check it out here. I could already order them here and that in a country like Mexico;

Intel Celeron D 347 (S775, 3.06GHz, 533MHz FSB, 512KB, 65W, Boxed)
Intel Celeron D 360 (S775, 3.46GHz, 533MHz FSB, 512KB, 65W, Boxed)

Not bad, they dropped from 84 to 65 Watts.

Talking about Watts, AMD Sempron uses less, so needs less cooling thus quiet operation;

SDA3000CNBOX, AMD Sempron™, 3000+ / 1600Mhz, Socket AM2, 256KB, 62W
SDD3000CNBOX, AMD Sempron™, 3000+ / 1600Mhz, Socket AM2, 256KB, 35W
SDA2800CNBOX, AMD Sempron™, 2800+ / 1600Mhz, Socket AM2, 128KB, 62W

PS: The AMD X2s are not that much slower the the iNTEL Core2Duos .

It really depends on the benchmark. Things that weight more on memory bandwidth in relation to CPU usage, such as gaming, AMD follows up closely. The difference is really large when it comes to things that are directly depend on the CPU and CPU only, like video encoding.

Tom's CPU Charts really illustrates that. A full minute and fifteen seconds difference in encoding time for the first 5 minutes of Terminator 2.

Figure that Terminator 2 has a run-time of 137 minutes, then you're looking at the difference of 2 hours 8 minutes to encode the full movie on the Athlon 64 FX-62 vs only 1 hour 33 minutes on the Core 2 EX6800. That's pretty significant.

Not to mention that you can get the same CPU-only performance off the E6400 (cost: ~$300 CAD) that you can for the FX-62 (cost: ~$975 CAD).

Price/performance ratio wins for the Core2Duos. Even with AMD's price drops, the market is shifting really really fast.

But start to use VMware or Microsofts Virtual Machine and you will see that the Core2duo will not perform that well compared with AMDs X2.

AMDs FX series are so expensive indeed, and for what?
Just for the cache, AMD missed the spot there.

Any way, I don’t think it’s in E-66 budget any way to buy a Core2Duo .


@ E-66,

I think you got a lot of info here, I hope you can make a choice now.

I ran across an interesting read today which illustrates how much of a margin there is using the Core 2 Extreme at the moment. There's nothing stopping AMD from taking back the crown with their next generation processors but it made for an interesting read none the less.

Tom's Hardware: GeForce 8800 Needs The Fastest CPU

Holy sh...

Look at the Doom 3 Benchmarks...

Any way, that would be a 6000US$ system and not a 600US$ .

That video card costs more than my whole proposed upgrade!

Another question. I have taken everyone's suggestions into account so far, and I'm not blowing them off, but I have an idea for an even more economical temporary upgrade, but you'll have to let me know if it'll work or not.

Will PC-2100 DDR1 RAM work on a motherboard spec'd for PC-3200? If it will, I was thinking that I could get a socket-754 motherboard and CPU for a combined cost of ~$120 if I went AMD (jcarle, you'd have to tell me what the Intel equivalent would be) and pop it right in my current case. I have a decent Antec power supply now, so as long as the motherboard accepted a 20-pin connector I think I'd be ok. These appear to be my choices as far as AMD goes:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....78%2C734%3A7577

What do you think?

DDR1 is not compatible with DDR2, but slower DDR will work in faster DDR motherboards (in 99% of cases).

Thing is, if you want to keep your DDR then you're better off with AMD, which puntoMX could advise you best. I don't recommend modern Intel motherboards with anything less then DDR2.

Aaargg, My ISP his DNS server is f+cked up again...

Okay, S754, there we go:

- ASRock K8NF4G-SATA2; Has PCI-E and works with the nVidia 6100 chipset, S754
- AMD Sempron64 2800+, 1.6GHz and 256kB cache, S754
- Stock cooling, comes with the CPU

It use the 20 pin ATX but also the 4 pin 12volt for the CPU.

Later I will take a look at the link, can´t do it now .

That's what I'm saying though, jcarle - don't the 'modern' boards use the newer ATX12V power supplies with the 24 pin power connectors? (in addition to whatever else it is that distinguishes them from regular ATX power supplies).

I'd never skimp on a power supply, so I'd definitely need a new/different one if I got the most modern of motherboards. I just figured if I got a board that'd work with my current RAM and power supply I could cut the costs a bit more.

Thanks Punto, I'll look up some info on that mobo, it's not listed on the 'egg.