I'm building a new computer and am starting out with trying to choose a processor. I do ALOT of design work, coding, CAD related, etc. I'll often have alot of windows open to get stuff done.

Basically I'm looking for recomendations for what I should go with either AMD or Intel. What would I benefit the most from so as I can be listening to music while at the same time have something like Dreamweaver, Fireworks, etc open and not notice any hitches.

My target is around 3-3.2 GHz but I can flex depending on what'd work best in terms of saving me $.

2/24/2006 6:16:20 AM

AMD 939 - then pick your price range

2/24/2006 6:59:19 AM

As far as your 3-3.2 GHz statement goes, realize that the 64 bit AMD processors get the same performance at lower GHz ratings than the 32 bit intels. So, what you'd be looking for is like an AMD 3200+ (approx the equivalent of a 3.2 ghz Intel in terms of performance), but if you want my full opinion, go with

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103588or whatever you can afford in the Opteron line. This one is dual core and is rated at 1.8 GHz, but these Opterons are EXTREMELY overclockable and highly stable at rediculous overclocks provided you have a decent heatsink (which you can get for $35ish dollars....try the Thermaltake Venus 12 heatsink).

As far as bang for the buck goes, I don't think you can beat an AMD Opteron, period.

[Edited on February 24, 2006 at 2:29 PM. Reason : Quote/=link]

2/24/2006 2:28:13 PM

im building a comp too. how does that cpu compare to this one?

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16819103539

i do a lot of coding and some gaming

2/24/2006 2:32:46 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?N=50001028+1050706979&Submit=ENE&Order=price

Just for reference, this is NE's list of Opterons sorted from low to high price.

^I would have to say that the one you posted is not as good as the opteron, primarily because the Opteron I posted is a dual-core (two processors), and the Athlon XP you posted is a single core.

But, again, even a $220 Opteron can be overclocked to 2.6 GHz pretty easily from what I've heard. My old suitemate has a processor close to the one I posted previously....and he's running at about 3.1 ghz for each core. Water cooling, of course.

2/24/2006 2:38:11 PM

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/opteron-165-180/index.x?pg=16

From the review of the opteron 165 and 180:

Quote :

"Of course, another way of stepping up the frequency is to overclock the stuffing out of your CPU, and for that wonderfully questionable pursuit, the Opteron 165 is about as good as it gets. [Insert old-timer reference to Celeron 300A here.] There's no guarantee that the one you buy will reach 2.65GHz and run stable like ours did, but you can probably bet that it will reach well beyond its stock 1.8GHz and that its performance at that higher clock speed will be very nice indeed. For a relatively affordable dual-core PC enthusiast's processor, the Opteron 165 looks very attractive. The only thing is, you will need a heavily overclockable motherboard in order to reach the near-300MHz HyperTransport speeds we used to realize this chip's full potential. Some folks may wish to investigate the Opteron 170 as a possible alternative, especially given AMD's apparent efforts to slow supply of the 165. The 170's 10X multiplier will be easier on mediocre mobos, and may be worth the extra cash."

If you're not into overclocking, you may just want to stick to the athlon x2's at slightly higher clock speed. If you feel comfortable overclocking, the 165 is the best buy out there, period.

You can look through that review, the benchmarks back that assertion up for non-overclocked processors at least.

2/24/2006 2:54:28 PM

i've never overclocked, but i definitely wouldn't mind a faster cpu

$339 is just a little pricy. i'm tryin to build my comp for like $1200-$1300 max w/dual lcd monitors:
http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=390194

The 165 is $126 more than the $213 i linked above, plus i'd probably have to upgrade the mobo if i wanted to OC (the point of getting the 165).

plus i'm also considering jumping to the 7800 graphics card instead of the 6800, which is like a $140 price jump.

[Edited on February 24, 2006 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2006 3:09:05 PM

performance jump in games is MUCH greater from going with the 7800 than with a somewhat faster processor.

If you don't want to mess with getting the right mobo to overclock and you're going to play some games on the thing, you definately want an AMD chip still though, even if you don't get an opteron. If you look at price/performance sweet spots, they're pretty much all occupied by AMD chips of one sort or another (until we start talking mobile systems of course.)

not sure about autocad performance and stuff like that. I know CAD is pretty video card intensive, but it's also very very processor intensive. You may just want to stick with the 6800 and go for the opteron and better motherboard. You can always upgrade the video card later if you want too.



[Edited on February 24, 2006 at 3:15 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2006 3:12:08 PM

haha sorry for hijackin your thread DPK

[Edited on February 24, 2006 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2006 3:23:58 PM

ah oops, forgot you weren't the OP

2/24/2006 3:25:04 PM

^^ lol, np

working on reading through everything now, thanks guys!

[Edited on February 25, 2006 at 4:38 AM. Reason : -]

2/25/2006 4:35:39 AM

Quote :

"I do ALOT of design work, coding, CAD"

are these programs typically dual proc capable?

2/25/2006 11:16:11 AM

I think AutoCAD 2006 is.

2/25/2006 12:49:13 PM

Quote :

"Insert old-timer reference to Celeron 300A here"

haha, gg

2/25/2006 4:44:42 PM

when i was in 9th grade around september or so, the fastest processor they had out was like a 650mhz

[Edited on February 25, 2006 at 4:56 PM. Reason : time period of 9th grade]

2/25/2006 4:56:10 PM