CPU and Motherboard.

[Explosivo]

Hi all,

Ive decided that come the new year (after christmas and my birthday) I am going to invest some money into buying myself a new motherboard, CPU and Case for my PC.

The Case I have no problem with deciding, however I have been out of the "game" for a while so to speak and don't really get all the new jargon about the new processors. I've been told to go for an Intel duo core however they all seem to have stupidly low clock speeds. However I am a bit of an AMD fan boy, and would like to carry on using their products, but if intel are better for less or what not Im open to suggestion.

Now that leads me onto my other problem with a new processor I want to be getting a new motherboard, I know the make of processor determins the type of board but suggestions for both Intel and AMD chips would be muchly apprieated.

As my budget goes I reckon that around £250 is the sum to aim at, but I might be able to go over if I get more for my birthday or christmas.

[Tiggs]

The Intel clock speeds are no lower than the AMD ones, and clock for clock they are in fact more powerful.

That £250 could get you an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 and Gigabyte DS3 (or DS4) with a few pennies left over. If you get a good cooler you could overclock very far with that combo too.

One thing to be aware of is you'll need DDR2 memory and a PCI-E graphics card. If you don't have them the upgrade may end up a bit more expensive, or you might have to go for a less powerful option.

[Explosivo]

The Intel clock speeds are no lower than the AMD ones, and clock for clock they are in fact more powerful.

That £250 could get you an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 and Gigabyte DS3 (or DS4) with a few pennies left over. If you get a good cooler you could overclock very far with that combo too.

One thing to be aware of is you'll need DDR2 memory and a PCI-E graphics card. If you don't have them the upgrade may end up a bit more expensive, or you might have to go for a less powerful option.

I already have a Pci-e card, I'll have to check the ram... but that can always be added to the christmas list if its a technicality.

[Lagmeister]

Get a core duo 2, its going to last you longer and is the better option right now, it seems AMD dropped the ball this time and its all good for the customer right now.

[ted_trippin]

I've been told to go for an Intel duo core however they all seem to have stupidly low clock speeds.
You are aware that they have 2 cores, both running at the stated clock speed, so you could think of your over all clock speed as being double what it says?

[Explosivo]

You are aware that they have 2 cores, both running at the stated clock speed, so you could think of your over all clock speed as being double what it says?

Yes I am aware that they are dual core, however I have always worked from the logic (taught to me by timmeh) that a 3400+ AMD = 3.4ghz Intel


So to see Intel boasting a 2.4ghz clock speed called an E6600 didn't make too much sense to me. Are intel doing an AMD and saying that it is as fast as its name suggests? Like is an E6600 basically a 6.6ghz processor with a slower clock speed?

[Joe G]

Yes I am aware that they are dual core, however I have always worked from the logic (taught to me by timmeh) that a 3400+ AMD = 3.4ghz Intel


So to see Intel boasting a 2.4ghz clock speed called an E6600 didn't make too much sense to me. Are intel doing an AMD and saying that it is as fast as its name suggests? Like is an E6600 basically a 6.6ghz processor with a slower clock speed?
You must not just judge processors by their clock speeds:eng101: You must understand they all work in different ways but it's hard to explain. I don't know loads about this but I know enough, for example I've got a P4 3Ghz but when I get a 1.83Ghz Core Duo it will blow my PC apart! (not literally obviously):) And btw you really should get a core duo.

[Tiggs]

You are aware that they have 2 cores, both running at the stated clock speed, so you could think of your over all clock speed as being double what it says?
Thats not true. Most programs, especially computer games, can't use multiple cores effectively, so two cores gives you nowhere near the performance. The boot in speed will depend on how multi threaded the application is and how many applications you're running at the same time.

Yes I am aware that they are dual core, however I have always worked from the logic (taught to me by timmeh) that a 3400+ AMD = 3.4ghz Intel


So to see Intel boasting a 2.4ghz clock speed called an E6600 didn't make too much sense to me. Are intel doing an AMD and saying that it is as fast as its name suggests? Like is an E6600 basically a 6.6ghz processor with a slower clock speed?
Back in the day the AMD numbering system worked like that. When they made the switch from the K6-2 to K7 architecture (I think it was in that architecture switch, not 100% sure), they were faced with the problem of the new chips being more powerful than the old ones despite having lower clock speeds. Customers would but the old chips with the higher clock speeds thinking they were getting a more powerful chip when they weren't. To avoid that AMD invented their numbering system, which told you how fast a K6-2 chip would have to run (not how fast an Intel chip would have to run, unlike most people say) to equal the performance of a K7 chip.

This all got muddled up when AMD released the Athlon64 (K8) chips. The numbers on the XP and A64 ranges didn't match up (for example an XP 3200+ isn't faster than an A64 3000+) so from then on it just became a ranking system that told you where a chip would fit in the range, so a 3200+ is going to be faster than a 3000+ etc. etc. and is only very loosely connected to the clock speed, there are a lot of other things that can affect it.

This is how the Intel chips are now working, only with even less connection to clock speed. an E6600 will be faster than an E6400, but to find out just how much and how it compares to other chips you have to look through some benchmark comparisons. Oh, and just to complicate things, a T7300 isn't faster than an E6700, despite having a higher number. It can all be pretty hard to get your head round if you haven't been keeping track of it all, but thats why you have techy forums to ask questions on.

[strawberry jam]

grr.... first: it's called " Core 2 Duo" second: Core 2 Duo is not the same as Core Duo (notebook processor ONLY) third: the clock speed is incomparable, as the number of commands per clock cycle varies.

[Flipcaveman12]

Try looking at this for CPU comparison from a magazine. I'm not sure how good the benchmarks they used for comparison were, but its a start. THey recommend a Core 2 Duo over the x2s.

http://www.computershopper.co.uk/labs/226/processors/products.html

[Explosivo]

grr.... first: it's called " Core 2 Duo" second: Core 2 Duo is not the same as Core Duo (notebook processor ONLY) third: the clock speed is incomparable, as the number of commands per clock cycle varies.

Please don't just repost everything that everyone else has contributed to this thread in numbered bullet points.

Next question is that whats the recomended speed for RAM these days, I need to change from DDR to DDR2 and I can't remeber for the life of me what was top when I was last buying stuff, so any kind of idea would be great, as long as its not amazingly expensive.

[Wrekriem]

DDR2 works differently to DDR (in a way)
Basically if you get DDR2 at the same speed as DDR you will end up with slower RAM, so a 200MHz DDR chip will be faster than a 200MHz DDR2.

I recommend going for PC5300 DDR2 (667MHz) for a good speed that won't act as a bottleneck for the CPU. I've recently been building a system and want to go for PC6400 (800MHz) but this is simply because I want to overclock.

I recommend G.Skill or second to that OCZ memory but go for what looks good for you in terms of value for money if you are on a budget.

Remember DDR2 slots are not compatible with DDR memory.

Infact heres a wiki article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2_SDRAM