Bird Fan Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 I'm looking into making my own computer and I'm trying to make it as cheap as possible but I want it to perform well and I want it to look good. I've been talking with this IT Pro and he says that I shouldn't get AMD, but I've seen a few reviews around the site saying that AMD is good. Can anyone tell me what's better for just plain old web surfing, photoshop editing, and using simple programs? Here's the barebone kit I'm looking in to: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1596823&Sku=TC3J-2012 I'm also looking in to getting the Seagate 250 gig HD, ATI Radeon 9200SE 128MB DDR video card, and a cheap wireless adapter. And no, I don't need a monitor. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilatedpeoples28 Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 for websuring, photshop stuff and basic programs i would stick with Intel, as really the only advantage of AMD chips are for gaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Fan Posted October 4, 2005 Author CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 What about when Vista comes out? I think I'm going to upgrade to it when it comes out, will there be any advatage having a 64 bit with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6arett Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 Well if you havent saw the Specs needed for Vista. It needs 2GB Ram, a lot more...Over 1G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireXxX Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 I'm not an overclocker so i preffer Intel than AMD....having a 64bit system always an advantage :evil6: anyway if you want to make it cheap then why build a 64bit pc ?? then again there're only few software that use 64bit so it would be a waste....i won't rush to have vista as my OS before M$ release a patch :evil6: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilatedpeoples28 Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 What about when Vista comes out? I think I'm going to upgrade to it when it comes out, will there be any advatage having a 64 bit with it? Of course there is an advantage with 64 bit now but 64 bit wont be a necessity for Vista. On the other hand a high end gpu u will need to run all of the new visual's that vista will include. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTB Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 Can anyone tell me what's better for just plain old web surfing, photoshop editing, and using simple programs? Depends. If you're gonna go quite a bit of multi-tasking, then perhaps an Intel with HT, or even dual core Intel might be better. If not, you'll never notice a difference between the two. Here's the barebone kit I'm looking in to: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1596823&Sku=TC3J-2012 Not so good barebones kit, you'll definatly want socket 939 if you go AMD, as Socket A is dying. The CPU fan will be really noisy at 4500 rpm, 500 watt PSU is plain overkill, 512 MB pc2700 is too little too slow as you'll want 1 gig of pc3200. I'm also looking in to getting the Seagate 250 gig HD, ATI Radeon 9200SE 128MB DDR video card, and a cheap wireless adapter. And no, I don't need a monitor. If you're not planning to do any gaming on that machine, then you may as well get a motherboard with on-board video and use that. Saves money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsdailey Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 For what you will be doing I think that an Intel processor will do fine. Both companies make great processors, but as said before the AMD's tend to lean toward gaming oriented machines. As for Vista, I would wait till there is 64bit software to run on the machine, otherwise it won't do you any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indestructable Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 oh god, not the dreaded AMD vs. Intel Showdown again.... ps--AMD's are better. I overclocked my Duron from 885 mhz to almost 1 ghz, pretty amazing. Then the HDD died, well, actually it was already dead, well, i don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raptors892004 Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 Basically: Intel = speed AMD = more responsive cuz of their higher fsb speed Both do fine for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroOne Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 I have a AMD64 and its pretty damn fast. It opens and runs programs much faster than my Intel PCs. Actually, it does everything faster than my Intel PCs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTB Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 I bet it'll be slower than an Intel when doing video/audio encoding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organ_shifter Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 Both cpu's have their strengths. AMD is faster overall due to the fact that it's "HyperTransport" feature is a multi-ported, bus technology used to transfer data from a chip to other chips or other parts on the motherboard meaning that it can be operating several buses simultaneously at full bandwidth which makes is way faster than Intel's "Hyperthreading", which is a technology that disguises itself as a feature that is able to run multiple programs at the same time when they're really not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indestructable Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 so, it's (Intel's) fake 2 processors compared to (AMD's) real 2 processors, or fake chips compared to real extra chips... am i right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organ_shifter Posted October 4, 2005 CID Share Posted October 4, 2005 so, it's (Intel's) fake 2 processors compared to (AMD's) real 2 processors, or fake chips compared to real extra chips... am i right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted October 5, 2005 CID Share Posted October 5, 2005 Why do we keep going though this.. we have like 3 of these in the past month.. both chips have their advantages.. if you would like to know what performs best in the application arena I would high suggest heading over to tomshardware's cpu charts.. they have just about everything on the market benchmarked.. As far as vista.. 2 gig of ram for 64bit version, 1 gig for 32bit version with the minimum being 512.. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs Do remember that the most up todate system today is going to be old tomorrow.. just the way that the market is going.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indestructable Posted October 5, 2005 CID Share Posted October 5, 2005 Why do we keep going though this.. we have like 3 of these in the past month.. Swimmer, I'm not kidding, I had to restrain myself from saying that exact phrase about 4 times now! sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTB Posted October 5, 2005 CID Share Posted October 5, 2005 As far as vista.. 2 gig of ram for 64bit version, 1 gig for 32bit version with the minimum being 512.. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs The reason for 2 gigs is BS, as 64 bit doesn't double a program's size in memory. I think Vista will survive just fine with 1 gig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted October 5, 2005 CID Share Posted October 5, 2005 The reason for 2 gigs is BS, as 64 bit doesn't double a program's size in memory. I think Vista will survive just fine with 1 gig. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. That is what they are saying.. It will work just fine.. but you might end up having to hard drive cache alot.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.