New computer, first time building

[Particle]

Sli is overkill if you spend $500-600 on the setup.  Especially all at once.  But say you buy a 7900GT.  You have it for, say 2-3 years.  By now, the GeForce9999extremeedition has become mainstream, and your 7900GT no longer holds the weight it once had.  Hey man, at this time, you can pick up the same 7900GT you bought a few years ago for around, lets say, $120.  Getting those 40% extra fps in Duke Nukem Forever might sound like a pretty sane idea, then, wouldnt it?

Not really, considering that DirectX 62 will be out by then and the feature set of the 7900 will be obsolete...incapable of running games of that era with good visuals.  The solution at that point is to upgrade to a new video card, considering that mainstream ($200) cards will be faster than even SLI 7900s and have a more complete feature set for games of that time period.  Why continue to dump money into an outdated solution?  There's no reason to.  Doing SLI initially makes even less sense.

The RE is just the model.  It signifies "RAID Edition", which is what they are designed for.

[Darwin]

I am against the upcoming DX10.  It will leave the WINE project even further behind  (as far as games go).  Also, it will alienate alot of PC users as it will not be available for WinXP users.  I don't care to rant any more tonight, I am on my green tea/ginseng low, and need rest.

[Particle]

How dare Microsoft make a better 3D API for use on their operating system.  Damn commies!

[IceCube]

AND THEN LIEK WHEN U START IT UP HELP THE CUMPUTOR OUT AND LIEK CTRL ALT DELETE 5000+ TO MAK IT BETTER MAN YEA!!!11!
THEN U CAN LIEK STOP THE FAN WITH UR FINGERZ CAUSE IT HELPS U SAV POWR.

KNAWLLEDGE IS POWR!!!!111!!!!1!

[Sako]

Damn.. Particle is the craziest PC builder/supporter that I've seen of my life..

-Not a insult.

[DeinGesicht]

When the Core 2 Duos get out to the retailers, who should I look to for one?

[Darwin]

Core 2 Duos are out to some retailers.  Check the monarch computer link I posted.

[Particle]

Newegg, Zipzoomfly, Chiefvalue, and eWiz are some good choices.

[Particle]

eWiz has the 6400 in stock:

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=E6400BOX&c=pw

[Particle]

It might be an option to go with an Athlon 64 X2 instead of the Core 2 Duo.  I'll explain why.

In 64-bit benchmarks comparing dual Opteron 285 CPUs (dual core 2.6 GHz, 2MB L2) against dual Xeon 5160 CPUs (dual core 3.0 GHz, 4MB L2), the Opterons are marginally faster in about half the tests.  It's fairly even.

"Why does it matter then?" you might be asking.

Well, first realize that the Xeon 51x0 series processors are based on Core 2 Duo architecture, just like the desktop chips are.  They perform almost identically. The only real differences are that the Xeons have more cache in some comparisons against the desktop chips and can run with more than one processor in a system.

Secondly, realize that the Opteron dual core chips and the Athlon 64 X2 chips are both based on 90nm K8 architecture.  The Opterons are capable of having multiple processors like the Xeons are.  The Opterons do not have more cache than the X2s.

The third point is the frequency difference.  The Xeons were operating at 3.0 GHz and the Opterons were operating at 2.6 GHz.  Since both of these architectures scale linearly (almost), it's safe to guess that a 2.6 GHz Xeon machine based on the Core 2 Duo architecture would have been slower on every account, up to about 15%.

So, if the AMD K8 dual core processors are faster than the Core 2 Duo processors at a given frequency with half the cache, what is the price difference?  The AMD is actually about $30 cheaper.

Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (2MB L2, 2.20 GHz, Dual-Core, Socket 939)
$237.93
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=A64-44CDBX

Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 (2MB L2, 2.13 GHz, Dual-Core, Socket T)
$264.71
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=E6400

Remember that this argument is for 64-bit performance.  Right now, that isn't terribly important as most people run 32-bit Windows XP and the 64-bit edition isn't really "ready" IMO.  The Core 2 Duo processors are faster than the AMD hardware in 32-bit performance.  They do not appear to be as fast at 64-bit performance.  As of early 2007, 64-bit performance will become important to those people building for Windows Vista.  So while XP might be slightly faster on Intel hardware now, Vista will be slightly faster on AMD hardware in four or five months.

This recommendation holds true so long as you do not intend to overclock.  The Intel Core 2 Duo processors will overclock more than the AMD processors as a rule.  Since you could get an E6400 to clock high enough to overcome an overclocked AMD processor, the price difference would also be negated.  However, since you do not want to overclock your computer, these points I've presented should be rather interesting to you.

[DeinGesicht]

Wow. I'm shocked that Intel wouldn't make their newest processor line superior to their one-year-old rival's, regarding any category of performance, especially since Vista is almost here (if MS doesn't push it back AGAIN). So, let me get this straight, because your post confused me just a bit.

On 64-bit performance, dual AMD Opterons, operating at a frequency of 2.6 GHz, beat out dual Intel Xeons, operating at 3.0 GHz and using double the amount of L2 cache.

Xeons are, generally speaking, superior to Intel's Core 2 Duo line. (Are Xeons the server processors?)

The AMD Athlon 64 X2's amount of L2 cache memory is greater than or equal to the Opteron's (equal, correct?).

Due to fairly linear scaling, dual Opterons perform better than dual Xeons at the same clock frequency. The Opterons have half the L2 cache of the Xeons, as well.

Because of architectural association, the Athlon 64 X2 and the Core 2 Duo are analogous to the above AMD and Intel processors, respectively. Carrying this analogy, we can conclude that the Athlon 64 X2 line is superior to the Core 2 Duo line at the same clock frequency, with regard to 64-bit performance.

Interesting. I do have some concerns, though, Particle. Your assessment is conjectural rather than conclusive, or at least it appeared that way, due to wording. Also up for consideration is future-proofing. You believe--and it certainly seems a valid extrapolation--that Vista will run better with the X2 than with a Core 2 Duo. Is there anything I should be made aware of that would deter me from buying the X2? It's already a year old and its successor may be just around the corner. How much does the Core 2 Duo one-up it on 32-bit performance? Will the X2 be adequate for gaming?

In short, having read what I want to do with my rig, and keeping money and future upgrades in mind, do you stand completely behind your recommendation?

And, by the way, thanks. I didn't think there was a question as to which processor to buy. Everyone seems to be gushing over the Core 2 Duo so much that I've been of the impression that it's completely superior, and will be, until AMD rolls out something new.

[DeinGesicht]

Check out these gaming marks:

http://http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996938,00.asp

[Darwin]

What is most important to me is the fact that the Core 2 Duo can hold its own against the $836.00 Athlon FX-62 in current-gen

Let's be honest here.  Either way you go, I am certain you will be extremely satisfied with your purchase.  

Now, for me, I'd go with the Core 2 Duo.

[Particle]

Yes, you are correct on all counts.  However, the 2.6GHz Opterons were about the same as the 3.0GHz Xeons.  It was hard to declare a clear winner.  That does mean the Opterons had a higher IPC for 64-bit processing, however, due to the 400MHz frequency disadvantage.

The Core 2 Duo core is substantially faster than the Athlon 64 X2 line in 32-bit performance.  You can get a good idea of how much when you look at the benchmarks in your link you gave me.  However, when running 64-bit software on a 64-bit OS the X2 still has a higher IPC.  Vista will be primarily a 64-bit OS.  Running the 32-bit version of Vista would be sorta nuts at this point.  For the next few months, you will get better performance out of Windows XP with an Intel processor.  After that, you'll get better performance out of Windows Vista with an AMD processor.  Months after that, the AMD will shine better still as software is optimized more for 64-bit operation as opposed to a 32-bit focus by developers.

I'm not saying that Intel's Core 2 Duo architecture won't improve.  It's just beginning right now and will improve some with BIOS refinements and newer chipsets.  However, anybody in the market for a computer now has to look at the here and now.  Right now, this is what I'm seeing performance wise.  I see the K8 architecture being faster per clock for 64-bit software.  I see that Vista will be a 64-bit arena primarily.  I see that Intel's Core 2 Duo architecture is young and will likely improve throughout the next year.

You asked about a disadvantage.  There is one.  If you get a Socket 939 processor, you will not be able to upgrade again without a motherboard change.  This is both good and bad.  It's bad because that means you will need a new motherboard and RAM (DDR2 instead of the DDR used with 939) if you ever upgrade a couple years down the road to a Socket AM2 or AM3 based CPU. (if you stay with AMD)  This is good because within a couple years, you'll have to get a new motherboard which means a later, more-featured, faster chipset instead of sticking to an ancient (by then) one.  If you want to future-proof still, the AM2 AMD CPUs were launched not too long ago.  The AM2 socket will be the mainstay for years and is already known to be forward-compatible with Socket AM3.

I sound speculative now for good reason.  I know what I see today and do my best to estimate the near future.  I cannot, however, read the future for certain.  Because of this, I have a hard time ensuring somebody of how the future will be with absolute certainty.



I've been discussing the finer points of difference between the two choices today.  I've brought up an aspect to this topic a lot of people don't appear to have caught onto yet.  If you take a step back and look at this from the outside, either processor will be an excellent choice.  The differences we're talking about are hairs, not hurdles.

[Particle]

What is most important to me is the fact that the Core 2 Duo can hold its own against the $836.00 Athlon FX-62 in current-gen

In the $250 price bracket [his] for somebody who does NOT want to overclock [him], that isn't exactly true for 64-bit performance.  Like I said before, 64-bit performance is going to become a lot more important than 32-bit performance when Vista ships.