Kalium wrote:madmag9999 wrote:yea they will work. but id suggest looking into getting an AMD cpu not a Intel. and i dont know if on board graphics are good enough for u but i wouldnt be to happy with them. unless u dont have the money for a graphics card that is
If you do that, be sure to add good cooling. Go for the water cooling, if you can. AMD's run hotter than Intels.
Uhm, this is downright wrong. Well...you are correct in the AMD
used to run hotter, but now Intel has the
crown. Their newest processor, Prescott runs at 100 - 120 W while an Athlon runs MAX 80 W.
Power ~ Heat
And even if an Athlon runs hotter, you don't need something as extreme as water cooling. I have a
dual Athlon system (i.e. twice the heat) and don't have anything other than 3 standard fans and two heatsinks.
Zarxrax wrote:AMDs suck compared to P4s. I dunno what benchmarks you are looking at, but on the one's I see all the time, the althlons loose bigtime, especially at video encoding and such.
You must be reading Tom's Hardware benchmarks. Everyone knows how "subjective" and "fair" they are

.
Regardless, I do agree in that the 32-bit athlons lose *slightly* to current P4's in video encoding, but it's hardly "sucks" or "lose bigtime."
More importantly, the Athlon 64's and Opterons "PWN" anything Intel has at the moment both in performance and price. Obviously Intel has the name and everyone recognizes that, but few seem to realize that AMD has retaken the performance crown and has had it for quite a few months.
Given the fact Intel has fumbled with the "Prescott ball" two or three times sure has helped

. I imagine once they tweak their process correctly, it'll be a little more competitive performance-wise. Everything I know of Prescott from an architectural standpoint tells me it *should* perform well...however, it's not.