[puntoMX]

All depends if you overclock or not. Intel’s new E8xxx line would be the best pick for overclocking now. If you keep everything at stock speeds then I would look for an AMD.

For what are you going to use your machine for any way?

[Access Denied]

No OC'n for me, I prefer to stay at stock. AMD 64 x2 the best(dual core) out there?

Everyday use: email, web browsing. watching videos. playing a game every now and then. Yeah, my current pc is fast enough for all that as it is, but it was built in 2003 and was a monster back then. I want that again, maybe the last build for me for a long time. I want something like dual core with DDR2 and the new pci video card thing. I already have a pair of WD Raptors ready and waiting to be unleashed in raid on the new system.

This post has been edited by accessdenied042: 25 February 2008 - 08:58 PM

[cluberti]

accessdenied042, on Feb 25 2008, 09:55 PM, said:

No OC'n for me, I prefer to stay at stock. AMD 64 x2 the best(dual core) out there?

Everyday use: email, web browsing. watching videos. playing a game every now and then. Yeah, my current pc is fast enough for all that as it is, but it was built in 2003 and was a monster back then. I want that again, maybe the last build for me for a long time. I want something like dual core with DDR2 and the new pci video card thing. I already have a pair of WD Raptors ready and waiting to be unleashed in raid on the new system.

As I am not a fanboy of either side, here is the unfortunate truth about the Phenom chips - a phenom X4 won't be as fast per-core as an Intel Core Quad (faster than most Core Duos except the higher-end Extremes), so if all you run is things that are single-threaded or not thread-safe, or you want a quad-core processor and want to have the fastest per-core chips, go with the Intels (they will indeed be faster as I've mentioned before the dual-die dual-core allows for faster "in-processor" operation). They'll also do better in video games and video content applications (it's relative, but they are better - the Phenoms are somewhere between the Athlon X2 and Core Duos and the Core Quads, almost right in-between in benchmarks). If you are sticking dual-processor, the fastest Athlon X2 and the fastest Core Duo are about the same performance-wise, so that boils down to what motherboard, memory, and video card you want and which platform fits your budget for the features you want to throw into the box.

For what you're stating you do, you aren't compiling code or doing a lot of VM or large file set work, I'd say the x6600 Core Quad from Intel with a good video card is a much better purchase right this moment than the Phenom X4 or an Athlon X2, especially stating that you spent a good deal on your last rig 5 years ago meaning price might be a consideration, but not a barrier. If you ask me in 12 months, this will probably change and AMD will bump up the clock speed and the L2 cache on the X4 chips, but for "home use" scenarios like video games, regular everyday browsing/email/document editing and maybe a little photoshop or Windows Movie Maker or what have you, the Intel Core Duo/Core Quad or an Athlon X2 are a much better choice than the Phenoms at the moment. Which you choose is highly subjective at this point, but the Core Quads that are on the upper range (the 6800s and the Extremes) are REALLY fast if the benchmarks are fairly accurate for what you're looking to do, but you'd be better served buying a cheaper Core Quad 6600 and spending more on fast RAM and a good video card than sinking the budget into the processor .

[Idontwantspam]

cluberti, on Feb 25 2008, 11:11 PM, said:

[...]
As I am not a fanboy of either side, here is the unfortunate truth about the Phenom chips - a phenom X4 won't be as fast per-core as an Intel Core Quad (faster than most Core Duos except the higher-end Extremes).
[...]

Cluberti! I'd expect you to know this....
The Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo are NOT the same. Core Duos are older, and there IS no Core Quad.

Don't get a core anything... core 2 duo, core 2 quad and core 2 extreme are where it's at.

[Access Denied]

Sounds like a real fast Core 2 Duo that I was looking at is the way to go then. I have always been an Intel guy but I did help my friend build an Athlon 64 x2 system that is a smoking gun, lol. I do make backups of DVD's with programs like DVD Clone and DVD Shrink. I never use the originals or loan them out. Anyhoo, I just wanted to make sure the Core 2 Duo would be a beast with a good mobo and fast ram. I will for sure get a top end video card to make sure I get a 5.9 in Veesta, lol. Also a side note, the mobo MUST have about 8 SATA 3 ports with 4 of them min for raid. I love my Raptors.

I think I was on the right track before, but I needed to be sure before I shell out some major bux on new system guts. I was just torn between the Athlon 64 x2 and the Core 2 Duo. I think that C2D was I looking at is 64 bit too. I am definitely gonna be major picky when I pick the cpu, mobo and ram.....making sure to get the right stuff. I want this new pc to fly so fast it will break a new speed barrier. No need for a quad core unless the price drops down to where the C2D I am looking at now is. It may be several months or late 08, early 09 before I build this pc though.

Thanks for the answers/help on this guys. I am still open to the Athlon if the FSB on the C2D is slower.

[nmX.Memnoch]

accessdenied042, on Feb 26 2008, 05:40 AM, said:

Also a side note, the mobo MUST have about 8 SATA 3 ports with 4 of them min for raid.

Most newer motherboards have up to six SATA ports on them. Six is plenty for most people. I have two RAID0 arrays setup in my machine using four drives...which still leaves me with two SATA ports available (my optical drives are still PATA for the time being).

How are you planning on configuring the drives and why do you need eight SATA ports? If you really need that many you can get a nice PCI Express based add-in RAID controller and throw it in the second PCIe x16 slot (if you're not going to do SLI/Crossfire). Put your optical drives on the onboard SATA ports and use the add-in controller for the RAID array(s). I have to, yet again, throw in my recommendation for a 3ware SATA RAID controller should you decide to go that route. If you're going to use RAID5 I really have to recommend getting an add-in RAID controller. The onboard controllers all use the CPU to do the RAID calculations, which will decrease overall system performance.

One thing of note that some may not be aware of. The onboard Intel RAID solutions "limit" you to four drives per array. If you plan on using more than four drives in a single array you'll have to get an add-in controller.

[TravisO]

accessdenied042, on Feb 25 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

I have been thinking about getting an Intel E6600 Dual Core. Is there a better AMD dual core for the same price without an FSB bottleneck/slowdown?

Just buy one of the Intel e8??? chips, the e8300 (comes out any day now) is only $163 and runs faster, cooler and with less watts and can even offer 30% additional boost (real world) for apps that support the brand new SSE4 that's in the chip. If you read any article that talks about the new 45nm Core 2 Duos, they'll always say "if you're going to get a Dual Core cpu, only get a 45nm one". They're faster and cheaper, and the new 45nm quad cores are true quad cores now, not dual cores welded together.

cluberti, on Feb 26 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

I'd say the x6600 Core Quad from Intel with a good video card is a much better purchase right this moment than the Phenom X4 or an Athlon X2

Actually the q6600 isn't as good as people think it is. For starters it's 1st generation Core Quad, you can buy a e8400 for $200 and it will be faster for desktop apps and video games. In video encoding the results will me mixed: the new e8xxx line supports SSE4, which if supported, give a free 30% encoding boost. Also DiVX only support 2 cores fully, so with the e8xxx having 2 faster cores, it will beat a q6600 in DiVX encoding.

Overall, just get a e8xxx, they're cheap, fast, cool, quite and use even less watts than any other multi core on the market. It's basically the best thing to happen to CPUs since the first Core 2 Duo.

This post has been edited by TravisO: 26 February 2008 - 07:48 PM

[puntoMX]

cluberti, on Feb 26 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

If you ask me in 12 months, this will probably change and AMD will bump up the clock speed and the L2 cache on the X4 chips, but for "home use" scenarios like video games, regular everyday browsing/email/document editing and maybe a little photoshop or Windows Movie Maker or what have you, the Intel Core Duo/Core Quad or an Athlon X2 are a much better choice than the Phenoms at the moment.

Well, in a few months AMD will bring out a new revision of there 3 and 4 cored CPUs, this time at a higher speed and without the TLB (L3 cache "forgets" data simple said) problem.

[Access Denied]

Sounds like an e8300 is where its at then. I'll check on it more when I do buy one, as I want the biggest cache on the cpu for the buck.

As for the 8 ports it was to have 4 Raptors in RAID with 2 more optical drives. I just want/need the other 2 for additional drives if I choose to add later. I looked at an Intel board a while back that had 8, that is where the idea came from. I think the 3ware card is the better idea. I used to have a 3ware 8006-2LP for a long time, but one port quick working last year after the warranty was up. That was the fastest **** RAID I have ever used and it was just 2 drives, lol.

I believe I am set. Just need to make the loot to get it now.

Thanks to everyone

This post has been edited by accessdenied042: 26 February 2008 - 03:44 PM

[nmX.Memnoch]

accessdenied042, on Feb 26 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

I looked at an Intel board a while back that had 8

My Asus P5B-E has eight...but it's six via the ICH8R southbridge and two more (one of them being eSATA) via an integrated JMicron controller. Odds are, the one you saw is the same way as the ICH7/8/9 southbridges only support up to six SATA ports. I believe that NVIDIA's and AMD/ATI's southbridges also only support up to six SATA ports.

[Access Denied]

you are correct sir.

[gdogg]

nmX.Memnoch, on Feb 26 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

accessdenied042, on Feb 26 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

I looked at an Intel board a while back that had 8

My Asus P5B-E has eight...but it's six via the ICH8R southbridge and two more (one of them being eSATA) via an integrated JMicron controller. Odds are, the one you saw is the same way as the ICH7/8/9 southbridges only support up to six SATA ports. I believe that NVIDIA's and AMD/ATI's southbridges also only support up to six SATA ports.

680i mcp supports 4 , so does rd600, for intel socket 775 ati/nvidia boards.

The other 4 ports use another onboard raid controller. (Promise , etc)

I had a Asus Commando intel p965 chipset board, like p5b-e, it only had 6 sata ports, but ich8r only supports a max of 4 drivers per raid set, so you can't run a 6 drive raid with it. But you can run a 4 port raid and a 2 port raid.

My Asus Maximus Formula though, intel x38 chipset board, has ich9r, which shows (untested) that I can add 6 drives for a raid vs 4 on ich8r

This post has been edited by gdogg: 26 February 2008 - 05:30 PM

[Access Denied]

I only need 4 for RAID unless it takes more to run RAID 0+1

I should have posted/spoke up before, I am learning alot over here.

EDIT: I have since been reminded of the 3ware card that I need instead, lol. I only need 4 ports in light of this.

This post has been edited by accessdenied042: 26 February 2008 - 05:31 PM

[gdogg]

accessdenied042, on Feb 26 2008, 07:30 PM, said:

I only need 4 for RAID unless it takes more to run RAID 0+1

I should have posted/spoke up before, I am learning alot over here.

EDIT: I have since been reminded of the 3ware card that I need instead, lol. I only need 4 ports in light of this.

The performance of the ich8r is much better then any cheap pci / pci-e raid card you will find. But if your looking to invest in a hardware raid card (ones with built in ram, intel processor) those are def worth the investment.

For a 4 drive raid 0 , on ich8r / ich9r , I get 2500MB/S + burst speeds (hdtach) and 260-300MB/S sustained

[Access Denied]

gdogg, on Feb 26 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

accessdenied042, on Feb 26 2008, 07:30 PM, said:

I only need 4 for RAID unless it takes more to run RAID 0+1

I should have posted/spoke up before, I am learning alot over here.

EDIT: I have since been reminded of the 3ware card that I need instead, lol. I only need 4 ports in light of this.

The performance of the ich8r is much better then any cheap pci / pci-e raid card you will find. But if your looking to invest in a hardware raid card (ones with built in ram, intel processor) those are def worth the investment.

For a 4 drive raid 0 , on ich8r / ich9r , I get 2500MB/S + burst speeds (hdtach) and 260-300MB/S sustained

Holy s***e! I can live with that. No 3ware needed.

[gdogg]

Yup nice part of ich8r also, is you can run a lets say a 60GB raid0 for OS/Gaming, then have a raid 1 for storage on the same drives.

Here is my 60GB raid 0 boot partition. Its 4 samsung spinpoint 250GB sata 2 from almost 2 years ago now, so my performance isn't upto date hardware.

Attached File(s)

•  boot_partiton.JPG (167.7K)
  Number of downloads: 10

[Access Denied]

Do you mean you can have RAID 0 and RAID 1 on the same disks, but different partitions?

This post has been edited by accessdenied042: 26 February 2008 - 05:57 PM

[gdogg]

accessdenied042, on Feb 26 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Do you mean you can have RAID 0 and RAID 1 on the same disks, but different partitions?

Yup that seems to be what it says. You just setup one raid , lets say using 100GB raid 0. Then create another raid 1, select the same 4 drives but select a raid 1 this time.

Intel matrix storage manager also said something along those lines , setting it up from windows.

This post has been edited by gdogg: 26 February 2008 - 05:59 PM

[TravisO]

puntoMX, on Feb 26 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

Well, in a few months AMD will bring out a new revision of there 3 and 4 cored CPUs, this time at a higher speed and without the TLB (L3 cache "forgets" data simple said) problem.

AMD fanboys have been chanting "wait till next time" for almost 2 yrs now, and nothing AMD has brought to the table has ever compared. I wouldn't even say the stuff AMD has released recently even compares to the 1st generation Core 2 Duos. Don't hold you're breath, Intel is ahead of AMD by leaps and bounds.

PS: I'm no Intel fanboy, just a "what's best" fanboy. I'm still rocking my old AMD XP1700+ as I type this. But an Intel e8500 + Nvidia 9600 GT upgrade is about to happen any day now.

This post has been edited by TravisO: 26 February 2008 - 07:51 PM