New motherboard, CPU and GPU combination - advice needed!!!

**tux** · 13-01-2006, 11:34 PM

yes, HT hates servers. had to turn it off to help the domain controller at work be more stable.

it also causes problems in one of the games i play

LP · 14-01-2006, 12:35 AM

If I would upgrade right now, I'd go for Intel motherboard and Intel CPU. My experience with AMD was crappy: back in K6 days, their CPUs were getting messed up really quick (two of my CPUs died).

I've got my first Athlon and it got burned out even before I took the PC out of the store. They replaced it 5 times (including the fans - the last one looked like an air conditioner!), all 5 CPUs got burned out and they even got angry at me, just because I wanted them to show me that PC was working properly. Then I went to Intel line. Never had troubles with it.

After recent lightning strike, my motherboard (along with my flat screen and DSL modem) was burned out, I bought another Intel board and it works like charm. Guess what? When I was buying motherboard, I guy came in with his latest AMD 64-bit CPU being burned out.

From all this, all I can say is that AMD makes low quality processors. Seriously, no matter if they go to 128-bit arquitecture now or super-bandwidth-transfer-feature, but what would you prefer, a 32-bit CPU that will work for many years or state-of-the-art MEGA-bit CPU "from the future" which gets burned out in seconds? I prefer the first.

Just my few cents...

**K4Z** · 14-01-2006, 12:51 AM

I'd defiantly recommend AMD, faster performance and much cheaper than Intel CPUs. My god, just the word 'Pentium' adds an extra 100 bucks or 2 :eh:. But do stay away from the really cheap AMD CPU's.

Nvidia video would be the way to go, once again, usually cheaper and (in most cases) better performance than ATI. You really do get what you pay for, so stay in the higher end region, and just ignore all the bells and whistles they try and force onto the card :mrgreen:.
AGP vs PCI doesn't really matter, though most appear to be heading the way of PCI.

Most motherboards are pretty much the same, just get one that matches the CPU, and will support the video.

You really don't have to spend an enormous amount on a PC these days, and cheaper brands can easily match the performance of leading names.

but that's just my 200ths of a dollar :mrgreen:.

**technomage** · 14-01-2006, 09:02 AM

I would go with a Nvidia graphics card Dom , I've found that Nvidia support for linux drivers better than ATI, they are more uptodate and work out of the box on most systems.

As an example I have an old GeForce 4, I upgraded to the latest Drivers and I now have a machine that supports opengl 2.0 api, even though some of the api is not supported in hardware by the graphics card the driver can still emulate it. I very much doubt you'd get that kind of service from ATI..but I could be wrong.

As for CPU's / Boards, not sure, my kit is quite old so I'm way out of date on that stuff.

**WILL** · 14-01-2006, 09:33 AM

Hmm.. well true my intel(the noun not the company, no pun intended) my be old, but my standards don't change. As far as I've seen Intel has primarily always been more stable with AMD failing poorly of struggling to catch up. But that may have been past. Consider this half oppinion of history half question about current standards.

BTW, Intel hasn't stopped developing so much. It just has stopped pushing the GHz ranges and started trying to go low power. Notice all the Centrino ads everywhere?

Pentium M is what their new thing is. Come to think of it, Intel never was powerhouse. IT was the DEC Alpha. Intel was the one waving the RISC architecture. And then AMD came in later with their 'discount' versions.

Hey, anybody remember Cyrux? Or was it Cyrix? They died out faster than Paul Marten's election campaign. :lol:

Linux support is a good issue to bring up too since Mr. Louis does indeed run it. I agree with nVidia as a good Linux GPU chipset. ATI is more closed about it's hardware and doesn't really play nice with the Linux world.

**czar** · 14-01-2006, 09:44 AM

AMD vs Intel and Nvidia vs ATI.

It is all 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

You get what you pay for. Although they say no one ever got fired for ordering Intel

Generally you get more bang for you buck with AMD (talking about their proper CPUs not the celeron equivalents). And it is a toss up between ATI and Nvidia I have had very good experience with both manufacturers.

In the past I tried to "future proof" our purchases but found through experience that by the time you wish to upgrade so much had changed that it was better to start a fresh.

Also from experience if you buy the best and most expensive then expect problems. If you buy hardware that has been out for a wee while you tend to get stable equipment.

At the moment my choice would be a 64 bit AMD with decent mobo. And as for a video card either one of the newer ATI cards (x1800

or a nvidia 7800). 1 gig ram minimum.

**K4Z** · 14-01-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by WILL

Hey, anybody remember Cyrux? Or was it Cyrix? They died out faster than Paul Marten's election campaign. :lol:

LMAO, My o'l Cyrix is still chugging on, even after about 10 or so years :mrgreen:.

I guess if you want some serious power go AMD, though if you want complete stability and something that'll last for ever, go P4.

Nvidia's support for Linux is another good point.

**Clootie** · 14-01-2006, 11:05 AM

wow! HOLY WAR in PGD forums !!!
Dom, you are the man!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

**Robert Kosek** · 14-01-2006, 03:45 PM

I fried my ATI 9800xt with too high heat, didn't realize it until the card was damaged. But my CPU is untouched. The card damage is ATI's fault, I followed their instructions from tech support, but the warranty stinks. That's why I'm switching to nVidia, since they're now using Lifetime and DOUBLE lifetime warranties.

Games/Heavy Number Crunching = AMD
Workhorse/Utilities = P4

'Nuff said.

And it's not that I don't like Pentiums, I just like AMD more.

LP · 14-01-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by WILL

BTW, Intel hasn't stopped developing so much. It just has stopped pushing the GHz ranges and started trying to go low power.

AFAIK, highest Intel frequency is like 3.46 Ghz, while highest AMD frequency is 2.8 Ghz.

By the way, as an interesting experience: I've made a small 3D software engine (for TMDC compo) and apparently, two-year old P4 2.4 Ghz seemed to work faster (mostly SSE/SSE2 instructions) than AMD Athlon 64 3000+.