New computer, first time building

[Particle]

As for me, I'm still not sure if I want to go with Dual Xeon 5130s, Dual Opteron 265s, or wait for Socket F (and maybe 65nm Optys).  I'm running out of time to choose.

[Darwin]

I'm running out of time to choose.

We're all running out of time.  When the landmasses of ice melt, we're going to have to redraw the maps of the world.

[DeinGesicht]

So if I'm thinking about Vista, I should get the X2, since Intels that perform comparably, or superiorly, for 64-bit computing still lie in the future.

If I'm thinking about optimum performance pre-Vista (for my budget), I should get a Core 2 Duo.

Ok, so I'm thinking about going with a Socket AM2 X2, then. Really, if my spending were about the same next year, I would have no problem with upgrading from a 939 mobo, but I'd rather future-proof and save money. This X2 line seems to be sufficient for gaming; hopefully it will work well for Oblivion. How does the X2 line--or whichever X2 you'd recommend--stack up against what you had this last year?

[Particle]

I had an Athlon 64 3000+.  It is a Socket 939 with 512KB L2 and defaults to 1.8 GHz.  I had it overclocked to 2.2 most of the time up there.  The X2 would be considerably faster.  It is a dual core (mine isn't) and has twice the L2 cache per core (939).  The AM2 version of the 4600+ is a 512KB/core (1M total) but runs at 2.4 GHz instead of 1MB/core (2M total) and 2.2 GHz.  I think you'd get better performance out of the 2.4 with half the cache for what you do.  AMD processors don't get as much of a boost from cache as Intel processors, so it would be ok.

A motherboard change isn't a big deal really.  Every time I change processors, I get an updated motherboard anyway.  The only catch with sticking to 939 is that it uses DDR.  You'd need new RAM (DDR2) for your next platform upgrade if you went with 939.  You could keep your PCI-E video card, hard drives, etc.  Building for the future isn't a bad idea though.

[DeinGesicht]

Now is it just a matter of selecting the X2? I'll go look at Newegg's AM2s; there are about seven of them (the chip).

[Particle]

My best prediction says yes:  AMD will be the better route for you since you aren't overclocking.  If you were, I'd have to say Intel.

AM2 is a good idea, as AM3 K8Ls will be coming out next year (quad core and very much beefed up).  You'd already be able to use the K8L that way if you want to upgrade again next year.  The IPC on the K8Ls will likely be much higher than current K8s, so it'd probably be faster than quad core Intel processors that are coming out Q4 06 or Q1 07 definitively.  That's my prediction, but so far in the future can go either way.  Lots of room for change at this point.  :agreed:




Now.  I just have to figure out what the best solution is for me, with a dual socket overclocked workstation.  This decision has been driving me nuts for weeks!  

[DeinGesicht]

Hold it, hold it, hold it...! Scratch what I said/implied. My male parental unit has drawn my attention to something I hadn't even considered. I'll put it this way: the processor I decide on should be determined by when I intend to upgrade to Vista (as well as how soon I'm willing to upgrade to a new processor). Because the university isn't going to require that OS until at least next school year, and because I'm not likely to upgrade during the school year, I may just wait to get a good 64-bit processor (like whatever replaces the X2 or the current Core 2 Duo) until I'm ready to upgrade to Vista. Sound like a good idea?

[DeinGesicht]

If I were going after a non-overclocked single socket desktop to last a year without changing and Vista in mind, I'd bank on a socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2.  This seems to fit your requirements.  Don't forget to check zipzoomfly.com, chiefvalue.com, and ewiz.com as well as newegg for the best price.  All four of those stores are excellent.   ?

[Particle]

I think you misunderstood me.

"If I were going after a non-overclocked single socket desktop to last a year without changing and Vista in mind, I'd bank on a socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2."

Pulled apart:
- If not wanting to overclock
- Going for a single socket motherboard
- Want to last a year
- Plan to run Vista
>> Get an Athlon 64 X2 (AM2)

If you are wanting to overclock or don't want to run Vista (it's a want thing at this point more or less, not a requirement), get an Intel Core 2 Duo.  It's faster in 32-bit performance and will overclock a lot more than an AMD processor will on top of that.  If you are going to run Vista when it comes out though, 64-bit performance all of a sudden becomes important.  If you want to just use XP, it doesn't really matter and 32-bit performance becomes the important thing.

So, to pull -that- apart:
- Want to run XP, get a Core 2 Duo
- Want to overclock, get a Core 2 Duo
- Want to run Vista, get an Athlon 64 X2

That's what I was trying to say.

[DeinGesicht]

Yeah, in other words:

Vista sooner --> Athlon 64 X2

Vista later --> Core 2 Duo

I'll probably be among the later (not late, just later) adopters--not upgrading until probably right before the next school year--so I could do "Vista later".

BTW, why wouldn't the C2D last a year if I don't upgrade to Vista during that time?

[JayJay]

Vista later --> Core 2 Duo

If you're not going to upgrade to Vista anytime soon, I'd recommend going \with a Core 2 Duo.  When you do upgrade to Vista, there is probably going to be a more improved Core 2 Duo processor that can keep up with the X2's in 64-bit processing.  I'd go with the Core 2 Duo.

[DeinGesicht]

When does Vista come out?

Ya know, Particle, I guess I did say I wanted the system Vista fully capable... is that why you recommend the X2 over the C2D?

[DeinGesicht]

Particle, an AM2 X2 actually sounds better to me right now. Here's why:

1. It's capable of running Vista--a "resource hog" and an MS OS--better than the C2D.
2. I'll probably upgrade to Vista ASAP (despite what I said before and assuming buying it doesn't break the bank... also assuming OSs don't get their prices significantly slashed for a while).
3. It's cheaper than the C2D (at least the one you mentioned is).
4. It's superior to a P4 and, according to you, to what you were using this last year.
5. It's currently easier to locate and order than the C2D, and I need to get to ordering stuff SOON.
6. I could probably get an AMD superior to the C2D by the time I want to upgrade (of course, money is an object, so this is more speculative).

Now, I know that what you were using before worked very well (or at least it seemed that way to me). I also know that I don't need optimal performance. Finally, for something like Oblivion, I'm like you: eye candy > fps. After all, I'm playing Morrowind on the Xbox!

Those numbers on the site I linked to don't make the X2 bad... they just say the C2D is better. So maybe that $30 really isn't worth a marginal performance gain.

[Particle]

Vista is supposed to ship in January.  It should be better at that since it's 64-bit compared to a C2D of the same frequency.  It is a little cheaper.  It is available now en masse as well as boards for it, either socket 939 or AM2.  Your choice--they're both available.  There's no question about it toasting P4s, and yes it's faster than what I had.  C2D is still launching and hard to get.  Yes, I suggested the X2 over C2D in anticipation of Vista.  If you said you didn't want to run Vista, I'd have said C2D and that would have been the end of it.

JayJay, he's upgrading now, not in six months.  It doesn't really matter if they might[/i] manage to improve its 64-bit performance that far down the road.  The A64s perform better now[/i].

You have to look at what the hardware is doing now.  Look at what you know the software will benefit from then.  Both of these things we know for certain.  What we cannot predict with certainty is what hardware might do then and how the software will evolve.

[slorge_gridlock]

Here's a picture of me with my Cheddar PC.  I would recommend getting the round LCD screen as well.


and a closeup of the Cheese PC


PS: on the screen is the external dual DVD burner I've been thinking of getting.