Cruis.In Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 AMD users speak up. Im thinking of going AMD/Nvidia, which is weird since AMD bought ATI, or maybe AMD/ATI and leaving out Intel technology this time around... I want 64 bit stuff, OS motherboard etc...so far most 64 bit is most widely available from AMD and not Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolferz Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Read my specs Cruis. They say it all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grayfox Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 amd is nice. ive been going amd for a few years. ive tried nvidia but for some reason its uncompatible with about half my stuff so im sticking with ati. im definitely not disappointed. an amd 64 is next on my upgrade list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weegee_101 Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 What's your budget? You really can't beat the price for performance with the Core 2 Duo E6300 or the E6400. All of the equally performing AMD processors just can't beat the C2D series when it comes to price. They're fast, dual core, and 64 bit. For $222.00 you can get a CPU that easily beats or matches the $579.00 FX-62. It easily blows the AMD 64 line away. Right now AMD isn't the way to go if you want performance. I went AMD last generation because they were actually better, but Intel knocked AMD off that stool when they released Core 2 last summer. I've got very good experiences with Nvidia. I'm curious as to what compatibility issues Greyfox is talking about? I've personally had no problems with any of my Nvidia cards, although I skipped the Geforce FX days because they were crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Schultz Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 I like AMD. I switched to them a long time ago. Back then, it seemed you got more bang for your buck. I've stuck with them ever since. Check my specs too. I'm running AMD 64, with 32-bit XP on it. The only 64-bit OS's I trust at the moment are Linux right now (I can dual-boot to SUSE). And Vista's scaring me about their "old games" support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grayfox Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...c;f=37;t=000567 thats the thread i started when i got my nvidia ti series, then i posted again when i got the big 512MB monster. for some reason even tho all my drivers were updated (mobo, video, sound, etc) it still wouldnt work with most games, and some apps... namely any video player unless it was embedded in a webpage. meh, im happy with my setup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted February 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 well i am one of those "brand name" people. dont hate me, it's just cheaper to order a computer from america than buy the parts here and assemble it and also there are many issues of parts which work best with certain parts... like a core 2 duo might be faster in a particular motherboard than another one, all these i trust to the people I buy it from. i haven't seen any dell 64 bit systems tho, if its vista does that automatically mean its a 64 bit mobo and processor, i cant remember if vista is 64 bit only...which i doubt as the 32 bit market aint out of phase or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Case Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Vista has both 32 and 64 bit versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weegee_101 Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Core 2 Duo is developed by Intel if you're worried about brand names. The Core and Core 2 lines are replacing the Netburst powered Pentium 4's very quickly, with amazing success. Vista is 32 bit or 64 bit. To be honest, going 64 bit isn't advisable. Even with Vista, 64 bit drivers are harder to find, and you don't actually get 64 bit performance unless the application you're running is compiled for 64 bit. Unless you're running servers, there's absolutely no reason you'll need 64 bit at this time or the near future (or, in Windows-land, the distant future either... MS isn't exactly grasping onto this 64 bit idea). You'll find Dell carrying computers with the Core 2 Duo these days. However, if you're going to buy a prebuilt, I'd recommend HP. Dell's support has gone down the shitter these past few years; it took us 3 months with an enterprise contract at work to convince them we had serious problems with motherboards dying at my workplace. Our contract is running out this year and we've already decided that if we go Windows again (although it looks like we might be going Apple) we're going with HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted February 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 thanks for the advice on 64 bit, after reading through multiple technical articles, you put it in perspective for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted February 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 whats the difference between this? 320GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x 160GB SATA 3Gb/s 7200 RPM HDDs) (320R0) 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache (320S) what is the difference between those two. the above one is $30.00 bucks more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weegee_101 Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 The Performance RAID 0 may give you slightly more performance, but it really won't be killer. If the single SATA 320GB is cheaper go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted February 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 gonna go with a 7900gs for now. nvidia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmett.hendrick Posted February 25, 2007 Report Share Posted February 25, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Cruis.In: whats the difference between this? 320GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x 160GB SATA 3Gb/s 7200 RPM HDDs) (320R0) 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache (320S) what is the difference between those two. the above one is $30.00 bucks more. Not to mention with the first option if you loose EITHER drive you loose all your data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now