Upgrading my current computer system parts: AMD or Intel?

Hello.

I am planning to upgrade my computers again since I need to replace my
very old single core Athlon 64 3200 Debian/Linux system (too slow to do
much!) with my current Intel quad-core Q8200 system.

I am trying to figure out if I should get Intel or AMD for my next
upgrade for my old 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 (all updates; will go
64-bit W7 when XP becomes unsupported since all my stuff still work with
XP at this time).

I mostly use my Windows box as a custom built media/home theater/theatre
center (DVB Viewer Pro with two old HDTV tuner cards, play videos,
etc.), play a few computer games (mostly, betas, demonstrations/demos,
etc. and not so much these days due to busy life), etc. Mostly it is
just watching TV/videos (online and locally) and using the Internet (I
am an addict :P).

I am planning not to upgrade/replace my old Windows box parts like Antec
ATX case, SeaSonic PSU (maybe need to replace due to old age?), two SATA
HDDs, two DVD burner drives, SB Audigy 2 ZS (will keep using it until it
dies and then use onboard's; only have it for its hardware EAX for
games), PS2 mice and PC104 clicky keyboards, VGA+DVI (VGA for my old KVM
switches since I have two desktops), ATI Radeon 4870 HD (512 MB; PCIe)
video card (only play at 1280x1024 resolution due to my old 5:4 19" LCD
monitor (will get a new one when it does or something breaks)), etc. at
this time since they do fine. I will keep this upgrade for about five
years (a few years and then migrate the hardwares to my other
Linux/Debian box). See
http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt for my current setups.

I will probably get 3 GB of RAM. I can get more for 64-bit W7 later on
since 32-bit OS' can't use more than 3 GB of RAM all together. One thing
I hated about AMD and Intel were VIA, NForce, etc. that required drivers
and stuff. I don't remember having to do them in MSI P43 NEO3-F
(MSI-7514) motherboard (BIOS v2.3), but did have to do them with my and
others' motherboards. Pain in the butt!

I am also not going to spend a lot of money either due to tight budgets.
Hopefully, not more than 750 bucks. Any recommendations?

Thank you in advance.
--
"Hey dad, look. I put honey on my back, and now the ants are carrying me
home." --Chris from Family Guy
/\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

On 11/22/2010 6:52 PM, Ant wrote:
Hello.

I am planning to upgrade my computers again since I need to replace my
very old single core Athlon 64 3200 Debian/Linux system (too slow to do
much!) with my current Intel quad-core Q8200 system.

I am trying to figure out if I should get Intel or AMD for my next
upgrade for my old 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 (all updates; will go
64-bit W7 when XP becomes unsupported since all my stuff still work with
XP at this time).

I mostly use my Windows box as a custom built media/home theater/theatre
center (DVB Viewer Pro with two old HDTV tuner cards, play videos,
etc.), play a few computer games (mostly, betas, demonstrations/demos,
etc. and not so much these days due to busy life), etc. Mostly it is
just watching TV/videos (online and locally) and using the Internet (I
am an addict :P).

I am planning not to upgrade/replace my old Windows box parts like Antec
ATX case, SeaSonic PSU (maybe need to replace due to old age?), two SATA
HDDs, two DVD burner drives, SB Audigy 2 ZS (will keep using it until it
dies and then use onboard's; only have it for its hardware EAX for
games), PS2 mice and PC104 clicky keyboards, VGA+DVI (VGA for my old KVM
switches since I have two desktops), ATI Radeon 4870 HD (512 MB; PCIe)
video card (only play at 1280x1024 resolution due to my old 5:4 19" LCD
monitor (will get a new one when it does or something breaks)), etc. at
this time since they do fine. I will keep this upgrade for about five
years (a few years and then migrate the hardwares to my other
Linux/Debian box). See
http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt for my current setups.

I will probably get 3 GB of RAM. I can get more for 64-bit W7 later on
since 32-bit OS' can't use more than 3 GB of RAM all together. One thing
I hated about AMD and Intel were VIA, NForce, etc. that required drivers
and stuff. I don't remember having to do them in MSI P43 NEO3-F
(MSI-7514) motherboard (BIOS v2.3), but did have to do them with my and
others' motherboards. Pain in the butt!

I am also not going to spend a lot of money either due to tight budgets.
Hopefully, not more than 750 bucks. Any recommendations?

Thank you in advance.

"not going to spend a lot of money'
AMD processors are less expensive. Almost all new MB's will require
drivers to be optimized. Win XP will also need Processor and MB based
drivers. New MBs usually have a PATA interface for your older HD's. Win
XP may require a driver to install to a SATA HD.
AMD processors and MBs usually take 2 2G RAM sticks for win7 32, and 4
2G sticks for win 64. Intel processors generally work better when RAM
sticks are installed in groups of 3. (Dual vs triple channel)

(And the flames will likely start!)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:52:41 -0800, Ant
wrote:

Hello.

I am planning to upgrade my computers again since I need to replace my
very old single core Athlon 64 3200 Debian/Linux system (too slow to do
much!) with my current Intel quad-core Q8200 system.
.
.
.
.

I am also not going to spend a lot of money either due to tight budgets.
Hopefully, not more than 750 bucks. Any recommendations?

This is sale season--especially for computers.

Look at buying a ready-built system from Best Buy,
etc--because a lower-end system (which is apparently what
will meet your needs) will be well under your target price.
And it could have Win7 already installed, which gives you a
legal copy at no additional cost. If you get lucky, you
MIGHT find XP installed (or they can do it for you).
Extended warranty also may be optional--and may be a good
idea if they install XP (for the legacy stuff). That way,
THEY have to keep it running for the warranty period (not
you).

On 11/23/2010 9:29 AM PT, Gerald Abrahamson typed:

This is sale season--especially for computers.

Look at buying a ready-built system from Best Buy,
etc--because a lower-end system (which is apparently what
will meet your needs) will be well under your target price.
And it could have Win7 already installed, which gives you a
legal copy at no additional cost. If you get lucky, you
MIGHT find XP installed (or they can do it for you).
Extended warranty also may be optional--and may be a good
idea if they install XP (for the legacy stuff). That way,
THEY have to keep it running for the warranty period (not
you).

I do NOT want to buy brand names PCs. I want to buy and build my own
parts. I haven't bought a brand name desktop PCs since my IBM PS/2 Model
30 Model 286 10 Mhz PC.
--
"PLEASE tell your aardvark that I'm NOT an anthill!" --unknown
/\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

Ant writes:
I do NOT want to buy brand names PCs. I want to buy and build my own
parts. I haven't bought a brand name desktop PCs since my IBM PS/2 Model
30 Model 286 10 Mhz PC.

AMD seems to have a reputation for better value at low-mid price, but
Intel owns the top end.

Since you really only seem to want a CPU / MB / RAM / PS, it sounds
like your $750 budget should be pretty easy...

Say, AMD 1090T Phenom II x6 ($300) + appropriate Gigabyte/ASUS MB
($100-150) + 4GB RAM ($100-150) + whatever PS ($60?)

.... leaving a bit of money for miscellaneous stuff (aftermarket cooler?)

-Miles

--
Conservative, n. A statesman enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a
Liberal, who wants to replace them with new ones.

On 11/24/2010 12:57 AM PT, Miles Bader typed:

writes:
I do NOT want to buy brand names PCs. I want to buy and build my own
parts. I haven't bought a brand name desktop PCs since my IBM PS/2 Model
30 Model 286 10 Mhz PC.

AMD seems to have a reputation for better value at low-mid price, but
Intel owns the top end.

Hmmm, is what I want considered high end or low-mid end? I see Q8200
is still expensive like couple years ago! :/


Since you really only seem to want a CPU / MB / RAM / PS, it sounds
like your $750 budget should be pretty easy...

Say, AMD 1090T Phenom II x6 ($300) + appropriate Gigabyte/ASUS MB
($100-150) + 4GB RAM ($100-150) + whatever PS ($60?)

... leaving a bit of money for miscellaneous stuff (aftermarket cooler?)

Wow, CPU is expensive. I usually only spend $200 for that. How fast is
that AMD 1090T Phentom II x6 compared to my current Intel Q8200 CPU? I
assume it will handle the latest computer games well if I were to play
them (rarely).
--
"Cheerios: Hula-hoops for ants." --unknown
/\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

Also, which one uses less power and make less heat? I hate it when the
weather is very hot and my tiny upstair room is almost 90F degrees.
Computers (and other electronics) don't help with their heat and powers
even if I use their cooling features! Electricity isn't cheap in
Southern CA, USA (can be up to $200-300 per month and air condition
doesn't help much up here during those times).


On 11/22/2010 3:52 PM PT, Ant typed:

Hello.

I am planning to upgrade my computers again since I need to replace my
very old single core Athlon 64 3200 Debian/Linux system (too slow to do
much!) with my current Intel quad-core Q8200 system.

I am trying to figure out if I should get Intel or AMD for my next
upgrade for my old 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 (all updates; will go
64-bit W7 when XP becomes unsupported since all my stuff still work with
XP at this time).

I mostly use my Windows box as a custom built media/home theater/theatre
center (DVB Viewer Pro with two old HDTV tuner cards, play videos,
etc.), play a few computer games (mostly, betas, demonstrations/demos,
etc. and not so much these days due to busy life), etc. Mostly it is
just watching TV/videos (online and locally) and using the Internet (I
am an addict :P).

I am planning not to upgrade/replace my old Windows box parts like Antec
ATX case, SeaSonic PSU (maybe need to replace due to old age?), two SATA
HDDs, two DVD burner drives, SB Audigy 2 ZS (will keep using it until it
dies and then use onboard's; only have it for its hardware EAX for
games), PS2 mice and PC104 clicky keyboards, VGA+DVI (VGA for my old KVM
switches since I have two desktops), ATI Radeon 4870 HD (512 MB; PCIe)
video card (only play at 1280x1024 resolution due to my old 5:4 19" LCD
monitor (will get a new one when it does or something breaks)), etc. at
this time since they do fine. I will keep this upgrade for about five
years (a few years and then migrate the hardwares to my other
Linux/Debian box). See
http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt for my current setups.

I will probably get 3 GB of RAM. I can get more for 64-bit W7 later on
since 32-bit OS' can't use more than 3 GB of RAM all together. One thing
I hated about AMD and Intel were VIA, NForce, etc. that required drivers
and stuff. I don't remember having to do them in MSI P43 NEO3-F
(MSI-7514) motherboard (BIOS v2.3), but did have to do them with my and
others' motherboards. Pain in the butt!

I am also not going to spend a lot of money either due to tight budgets.
Hopefully, not more than 750 bucks. Any recommendations?

Thank you in advance.


--
"You feel the faint grit of ants beneath your shoes, but keep on walking
because in this world you have to decide what you're willing to kill."
--Tony Hoagland from "Candlelight"
/\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

Ant writes:
Say, AMD 1090T Phenom II x6 ($300) + appropriate Gigabyte/ASUS MB
($100-150) + 4GB RAM ($100-150) + whatever PS ($60?)

... leaving a bit of money for miscellaneous stuff (aftermarket cooler?)

Wow, CPU is expensive. I usually only spend $200 for that. How fast is
that AMD 1090T Phentom II x6 compared to my current Intel Q8200 CPU? I
assume it will handle the latest computer games well if I were to play
them (rarely).

I seem to have over-estimated the price -- I think $300 is maybe the
(original?) list price, but I see Newegg has it for $229:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103849

I don't know how to compare it with your Q8200, but it's probably a fair
bit faster -- it has a higher clock speed (3.2MHz vs 2.33MHz), more
cores (x6 vs x4), more cache (6MB vs 4MB). [The 1090T also has a good
reputation for overclocking if you like that kind of thing.]

[If I buy a new CPU in the near future, I'd probably buy the 1055T,
which is slower (2.8MHz) than the 1090T, but is available in a 95W part
(so cooler), which I like, and is a bit cheaper ($179?)...]

I guess whether you like the "lots o' cores" CPUs depends on what you do
with your computer -- I love them, because I do lots of stuff that
parallelizes well -- but since you've already got a 4-core system, I
guess you're OK with that direction.

-miles

--
Accord, n. Harmony.

On 11/24/2010 12:36 PM PT, Miles Bader typed:

writes:
Say, AMD 1090T Phenom II x6 ($300) + appropriate Gigabyte/ASUS MB
($100-150) + 4GB RAM ($100-150) + whatever PS ($60?)

... leaving a bit of money for miscellaneous stuff (aftermarket cooler?)

Wow, CPU is expensive. I usually only spend $200 for that. How fast is
that AMD 1090T Phentom II x6 compared to my current Intel Q8200 CPU? I
assume it will handle the latest computer games well if I were to play
them (rarely).

I seem to have over-estimated the price -- I think $300 is maybe the
(original?) list price, but I see Newegg has it for $229:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103849

I don't know how to compare it with your Q8200, but it's probably a fair
bit faster -- it has a higher clock speed (3.2MHz vs 2.33MHz), more
cores (x6 vs x4), more cache (6MB vs 4MB). [The 1090T also has a good
reputation for overclocking if you like that kind of thing.]

[If I buy a new CPU in the near future, I'd probably buy the 1055T,
which is slower (2.8MHz) than the 1090T, but is available in a 95W part
(so cooler), which I like, and is a bit cheaper ($179?)...]

I guess whether you like the "lots o' cores" CPUs depends on what you do
with your computer -- I love them, because I do lots of stuff that
parallelizes well -- but since you've already got a 4-core system, I
guess you're OK with that direction.

Yes, I love multi-cores. Single core sucks. Dual is better, but still
iffy sometimes. Quad is awesome. I do want to get another one or even
more even though I might not use all because I am a heavy multitasker
especially if I am compiling, recording two TV shows with my DVB Viewer
Pro (they hog CPUs), virtual machines (VMware Workstation v4.5.3
(currently) and VirtualBox [might switch to this later on] separately),
gaming, etc.
--
"An ant hole may collapse an embankment." --Japanese
/\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

On Nov 24, 4:22*pm, Ant wrote:

Yes, I love multi-cores. Single core sucks. Dual is better, but still
iffy sometimes. Quad is awesome.

Some perspective for this pro-AMD audience. Two threads out of a
possible eight assigned to virtualized Fedora box does just fine
running on a core i7-920 running the much-maligned Windows Vista as a
host.

If counting cores and nickels is your game, go AMD. If you want
performance, start thinking outside your current box.

In all fairness, your proposed budget is gigantic compared to your
stated needs. If you want to go virtual, don't be cheap. Every post
I have read from an AMD'er about virtualizing boils down to: "If only
I had more cores..." Baloney.

Robert.