Xerox, You're one lazy individual. Cyberlantz gave you a web page to look at and you still ask which is better, AMD or Pentium. Have you ever heard of Google? There are many articles about this long debated subject but AMD wins most everytime when it comes to gaming. Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 Corsair 512X4 2048mb 2X WD Raptor 74gb 10K 2X 256 6800 GT Raid-0 WinXP Pro X64

0

"all i wanted was link to sites where you can configure your own pc" That's what you were given...every PC at CyberPowerPC & custom configureable. "Also I heard from a few people that there are some heat issues with amd." 100% untrue. Intel is currently the one with the heat issues...the P4 Prescott is known as the "hot potato" If you want a gaming system, go with AMD. Getting a dual core CPU isn't really necessary at this time, but a lot of people are jumping on the bandwagon now so they'll be prepared for when they are needed.

0

"I dont know much about amd processors so thats why i tend to shy away from them..." "I also thought that higer clock speeds = better preformace?" You obviously don't know much about Intel processors either. "And please explain to me how amd beats intel" Uh, no problem. Look at this benchmark. See al those GREEN bars at the top? Those are all AMD processors. I count 21 AMD processors at the top bewfore the first Intel shows up. And if you were to compare two processors that have roughly the same performance the AMD will almost always be cheaper. "...like AMD Athalon +3800 X2 or whatever. What the hell is that suppose to mean anyway? (The +3800 part that is.) " Officially AMD says it is just a model number. However, many people take it to as a number to compare the chip's performance with a P4 of that clock speed. So, a 3800 would be roughly compared to a 3.8GHz P4. That is less true today, IMHO, than it used to be. If you are looking for a budget gaming system, then you definitely do not want dual core. They cost a lot more for similar performance (because there really aren't any games that take advantage of dual-core chips). And, even if you did go dual core, AMD is still the best choice. Actually I don't know why you are even posting. You already have some preconcieved idea about what is best and you are apparently just looking for someone to qualify that notion. Michael J

0

Here's one that works for your present budget and needs, you can upgrade the CPU later for added punch, overall it's $810.00 total and you've got free "Ground Shipping" till 3/10/2006 (Midnight PST). - CASE: HOT NEW! Xplorer Mid-Tower Case 420W W/ WINDOW & LCD Temperature Display (Black Case w/Black Face)......even though this shows 420W, what should come with it by selection is the **Cyberpower Recommended** NZXT PF-500 500Watt Power Supply so note that. - CPU: (939-pin) AMD Athlon™64 3200+ CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology - MOTHERBOARD: (Sckt939)EVGA nForce4 SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCI-E Mainboard w/GbLAN, USB2.0, &7.1Audio - MEMORY: 1024 MB (512MBx2) PC3200 400MHz Dual Channel DDR MEMORY (Corsair Value Select) - VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA Geforce 6800 GS 256MB 16X PCI EXPRESS VIDEO CARD - VIDEO CARD 2: NONE - MONITOR & LCD: NONE - HARD DRIVE: 160GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 8M Cache 7200RPM Hard Drive - Hard Drive 2: NONE - Optical Drive: (Special Price) LG GWA-4161 16X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (BLACK COLOR) - Optical Drive 2: NONE - SOUND: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO There is no Operating System pre-loaded or packaged with the above configuration, so make sure you've made arrangements to accomodate that. When Google isn't your best pal

0

Michael J:- I know, I'm just being annoying heheh. ^_^;; Its just hard when deciding what kind of computer you want, theres so many choices. Thanks saber, yeah i know how to load os's any newbie can do that! including myself! :D And that setup looks great. Saber i'd have to order that comp by today or tomorrow O_o;; if i wanted the free ground shipping. I am going to go to best buy and circut city today and look around for amd comps because i dont want to wait too long for the comp to be shipped. (That dosent mean I wont buy that great setup you gave me!) I will simply compare prices on AMD Athlon™64 3200+ CPU comps. I wish you guys could stickey this topic. So when the next guy that asks for a amd vs intel comp they'll know what to expect. I really appreciate you guys helping me alot on deciding which kind of comp to go with. I know i'm ignorant when it comes to intel n amd. maybe if i read more instead of being so lazy i would have a better understanding of amd and intel heh heh heh. To my understanding the 3 most important parts on a comp for gaming is processor, RAM , and a video card. i know this isnt entirely true but whatever. :D

0

"And please explain to me how amd beats intel" Games love usually two things: fast math coprocessor performance, and high memory I/O. AMD currently has the far superior math coprocessor. Also, AMD has revolutionized the entire bus architectural design by embedding the memory controller into the CPU instead of it being on the "northbridge" chipset like Intels have. Consequently, memory performance on AMD is far superior than Intel, even though Intel is using next gen DDR2 while AMD uses DDR. AMD therefore is more efficient per clock cycle. "Officially AMD says it is just a model number." Incorrect. AMD intentionally names their CPU's these numbers to show what Intel CPU the particular processor meets or exceeds. It's not just a model number. AMD knew that consumers would assume Intel CPU's are superior to AMD because they are clocked higher, so to help alleviate confusion, AMD went back to the Pentium Rated naming system. In the past, AMD's PR claims were often inaccurate, but not with the Athlon 64's. "I count 21 AMD processors at the top bewfore the first Intel shows up." Not to dispute these benchmarks, but remember that the PR naming system is to give an apporoximate avg over many different apps. In gaming, AMD in particular beats the ever loving snot out of Intel, but other applications they're more evenly matched, while some Intel wins. Intels for example tend to have an advantage in media encoding tasks, and advanced graphics apps that are optimized for hyperthreading, such as Photoshop. However, overall, AMD's tend to win in a majority of applications, and really shine in gaming. Therefore, if you're most concerned about game performance, there's no debate - AMD all the way! "100% untrue. Intel is currently the one with the heat issues...the P4 Prescott is known as the "hot potato" And this will continue to be true for the foreseeable future. Intel in order to get their heat down have had to shrink their die size down yet again, which means that AMD will continue to cost less to produce, and when they do shrink their dies, will be even more heat efficient. Lastly, don't get too caught up in CPU's. In most cases, a better video card will make much more of a difference than a better CPU. "It happens."

0

I would have to partly disagree on the latest post. A quality CPU will make a difference for almost anything. Even with the beefiest graphics card, a computer that has a slow processor will not suffice, and will cause bottlenecking to the graphics card, unallowing it to utilize its full features. My total recommendation is to buy a computer using the Athlon 64 processor. Running in 32-bit, while keeping in mind of the 64-bit future, the athlon 64 is price-hot, newegg.com featuring these babies for CHEAP. Intel is under the bust right now, not abling to keep up with performance crowns, etc. Im not saying Intel's processors are bad, they just don't seem logical to buy right now, when you can get the better performance deal, especially at a time like this. Also, dual core processing is excellent when using programs that have instruction sets that take advantage of the Dual Cores. If not, the processor will just act like a regular single core processor. Since most games haven't utilized the dual cores, I suggest buying a single core processor, unless your big into designing, architecture, intensive video editing, graphics design with adobe applications, or just like the fact that you have a dual core processor, and will be ready when the time comes for one. Intel's processors currently can be confusing, because they've gotten frequencies out the equation, now naming things like Intel Pentium D 240, etc., which was NOT a good strategy in my opinion. AMD is good in sticking with its 3500+, etc. model numbers, helps others understand, and its easy to explain to others. Athlon64 3500+ Venice Core 1GHz FSB, 1GB DDR SDRAM PC3200, OCed Sapphire Radeon X700XT 256MB GDDR3 PCI-E 16x, Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS PCI 5.1Channel soundcard, ECS RS480-M RadeonXPRESS200 motherboard,

0

"A quality CPU will make a difference for almost anything. Even with the beefiest graphics card, a computer that has a slow processor will not suffice, and will cause bottlenecking to the graphics card, unallowing it to utilize its full features." No disputing that, but if the question is between comparable Intel or AMD, I see people spending large amounts of time figuring that out, and relatively little time figuring out the best graphics card for the money/system. AMD holds a clear advantage in games, but even with that clear advantage, choosing the wrong graphics card will more than negate that selection. I used to work for a company that custom built computers, and it was quite funny seeing people coming in demanding top of the line CPU's, and didn't care a bit about the other components. They would often get beligerent when they'd see pre-spec'ed machines more expensive than Dell's or whatever Best Buy was carrying with a lesser CPU. They didn't seem to understand that it's not All About the Pentiums, Baby! We actually spec'ed them right, and put in better graphics cards, faster hard drives, more RAM, etc. Today, Dell is still around. That shop I used to work at isn't. Go check out dell, and you'll see they STILL jack the CPU up, and don't put in enough power on the graphics card. It's not that Dell is dumb; they're catering to the demands of ignorant consumers. The reality is I'd take an Athlon 64 3000 based computer with a 7800GT on performance alone in games over an FX-60 with a 6600GT. Obviously, it would be best to match their performance levels more, but the point here is I see numerous posts agonizing on which CPU to get, and fewer agonizing on the graphics card. Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina. www.redcross.org

0

Yes, you are correct, but I am just saying, dont go out there and buy a Radeon X1900XT or Nvidia 7900GTX, while equipped with like a Sempron 2600+ CPU and expect huge performance increases. I've seen numerous tests with beefed up graphics card paired up to a simple processor, and sometimes the increases are not worth the extra $$$ unless a CPU upgrade is executed. Athlon64 3500+ Venice Core 1GHz FSB, 1GB DDR SDRAM PC3200, OCed Sapphire Radeon X700XT 256MB GDDR3 PCI-E 16x, Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS PCI 5.1Channel soundcard, ECS RS480-M RadeonXPRESS200 motherboard,

0