How hard is it to build my own computer?

[bose301s 5,000+ posts]

Is that an incorrect assumption?

Yes, You can run an ATI card in both an AMD or an Intel system and run nVidia in either as well.

 

[bk12321 10+ year member]

Is AMD better than Intel?

They are like +/- 1% better than each other, 1 of them is better at multitasking and the other is better for gaming.

Either one isnt a bad choice and if you disagree, you're an idiot.

 

[bk12321 10+ year member]

And about the video card, you need NOTHING above Integrated Graphics if you don't plan on gaming at all.

Integrated will get you past solitaire and minesweeper and the cheapo free internet flash games which is all you will probably be gaming on anyways

I would recommend 1 gig of ram, MAYBE 2 if you wanna be future-ready, but 1 gig will be fine for you im sure. I have 1 gig in this laptop and I wont ever need to upgrade it (and im a gamer) at least not for a while

 

[OmegaBunny 10+ year member]

SLI FTW! j/k

Go with either one, AMD or Intel. For what you are wanting, it doesn't matter. Integrated graphics is fine for what you need, and in the future you can upgrade to a better card of you find yourself wanting to game. Make sure you pick up a decent MB, atleast 1 Gb of Ram, and a decent size hard drive. They are not that expensive and it is better to make sure you have enough space than find out you don't and have to pick up a second one. As far as the build itself, it is not that hard, just take your time and make sure you gound yourself or remove all the static. It would **** for you to buy all these parts just to zap them and void the warranty.

 

[hoxie08 5,000+ posts]

Have you seen how cheap RAM is these days ? It's like $20 - $25 per GB ... Why not get 2 GB ?

yep. I hated having to buy ddr400 for my parents computer for about 80 per gig, then next week spending 60 bucks on a 2gb ddr2 800 set....

just make sure its ddr2 and ur good to go //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Megalomaniac 5,000+ posts]

i read the amd barcelona did 30% slower than intels xenon quad... is this true? intel did the testing, but amd says the barcelona does 40% faster i their testing

 

[hoxie08 5,000+ posts]

all depends on what tests they used... like, what exactly it tested for... they have their strong and weak points against each other really.

and for the record... I use Intel at school (of course) and AMD at home... not because I prefer one over another...tbh I've never really noticed a difference between them, then again never played anything over cs:s or hl2 at school..

 

[staypuff 10+ year member]

They are like +/- 1% better than each other, 1 of them is better at multitasking and the other is better for gaming.
Either one isnt a bad choice and if you disagree, you're an idiot.

actually you are very wrong..... how can you make a statement like that????

i've said this before for someone to even remotely know a tiny bit about computers and say that amd is even remotely comparable to intel right now they have to be trolling in forums or absolutely brain dead.....

first..... the best cpu's that amd has right now CAN'T EVEN TOUCH THE MIDRANGE CPU'S OF INTEL.... got that Einstein????

second.... amd USED TO BE BETTER AT GAMING.... that was like 18 months ago.... where the **** have you been?????

third ...... amd parts are dropping in price right now because they CAN'T COMPETE WITH INTEL IN ANYTHING AT ALL...... the reason you see motherboards and cpu's for amd so cheap is most computer parts stores can't sell them to anyone...... i know of 3 stores in just my city that are losing at least 40% on every amd part they have in stock right now just to get it off their shelves.....

fourth.... amd just came out with their financial statements and they're losing BIG TIME..... they haven't even got a cpu coming out till 2009 that can even touch anything that intel has OUT RIGHT NOW..... so let's reiterate this..... amd will come out with a comparable cpu to intel's present cpu's in 18 MORE MONTHS.... by that time at the current rate amd may not even be a company anymore and if it is it'll be a budget part company making cheap components for your grandmother's computer......

do some reading next time you make a silly statement like that..... it costs nothing and saves you the embarassment of posting utter nonsense..... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

and i'm an actual amd fanboy...... go figure....

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

How come a Pentium 4 is 3.1 GZ and is cheaper than a Core 2 Duo that is 1.8 Gz. I thought more Gigahertz = faster???

 

[tRidiot 10+ year member]

Core 2 duo = 2 processors on one die.

So 2 optimized 1.8gHz processors is faster than a single 3.1gHz. And more expensive. That's the thinking, anyways.

 

[tRidiot 10+ year member]

And gHz isn't everything anymore... the speeds have become so ridiculous that many other factors are very important. Things like on-die memory cache (L1 and L2), an on-chip memory controller - ala A64, etc. It gets over my head pretty quick.

If you want multitasking, dual cores and lots of RAM are the ticket... I'd suggest 4 gigs of RAM, it's so **** cheap now. I wish I could toss another 2 gigs in my machine at the moment. It runs fine, but ****... 4 gigs would r0x0r.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

How come a Pentium 4 is 3.1 GZ and is cheaper than a Core 2 Duo that is 1.8 Gz. I thought more Gigahertz = faster???

You could't be more wrong. This is what old processor marketing has led the consumer to believe. there is soooooo much more to a processor than speed. There is bandwidth, Branch Prediction, cache, Pipeline length all adding to what is truely important, which is Instructions per Cycle. A more efficient processor does more work per Ghz.

P4 is like the Dyno queen of the automotive world. Puts out impressive numbers but in real world the numbers don't add up.

You want a Core 2 duo or quad. Simple as that. Consumes less power and does much more work per cycle. It also has substantially more Cache.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

Ahh someone beat me to my post. I had to get up in teh middle of typing.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Core 2 duo = 2 processors on one die.
So 2 optimized 1.8gHz processors is faster than a single 3.1gHz. And more expensive. That's the thinking, anyways.

So it's really 1.8 gHz x 2....?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Dell has a scratch and dent with core duo. I can't build a computer for $349.

Is the pentium dual core signifantly worse than the core 2 duo?

I understnad the c2d > pentium, but signifcantly?