Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by ZeroSkillet, Dec 7, 2005.
Hey guys I want to build an upgrade machine.
What CPU should I base it off a Sempron or a Celeron D?
AMD 64 (Sempron, I guess). It's a much better CPU than the Celeron is. A full Athlon 64 would be even better, but money is always a problem.
To give you an idea of a professional opinion: Sun Microsystems, creator of Java and purveyor of badass custom-built computers running their own operating system on their own hardware, are now selling servers using AMD 64 processors. They also say that they won't sell computers using Intel processors until Intel starts making processors with many of the same features that AMD 64s already have.
Personally, I think the only reason Intel still lets AMD make Intel-compatible processors is because if they revoked AMD's license, the government would beat them into the ground for being a monopoly.
upgrading for the purpose of...?
what's your budget...?
Doesn't matter. AMD is still better than Intel right now. The only catch is that you have to buy Windows XP 64-bit edition to use the CPU properly, but that's always something you can do later on. The normal Windows XP will work fine too.
Upgrading from a Celeron 433MHz overclocked for around 4-5 years strong at 500MHz,lol.
Upgrading for a daily use machine. Nothing in specific. Gaming, light photoshop use, and crap.
Budget is as low as it can get....
Under $200 for CPU/Motherboard.
yeah, I know that. I was mainly wondering if he planned to play games or anything that would need more than a Sempron
So what Im picking up from you guys and some stuff Ive read online today is that a Sempron 3100+ 1.8Ghz will outperform a Celeron D at 2.8 or whatever....right?
play around with this
it'll give you an idea which CPU excels it which function(s)
If you run a performance test, the Intel might edge out the AMD on some abilities, such as raw clock speed, but as Intel has been forced to admit lately, raw speed doesn't do much good. If the CPU can only do one thing at a time, it ends up sitting idle for just as long while it waits for delivery of data from the hard drive or from the RAM, no matter how fast it can tick its little clock. A CPU with a more diverse range of abilites will run a better computer, because it can take care of housekeeping tasks while it's waiting for its main programs to get ready to continue running.
but the problem is that alot of stuff doesn't work well with 64 bit edition, and it can difficult to find some drivers. i remember reading and seeing a 3dmark comparison between xp pro and xp 64, the 64 bit was a joke....
yea not all drivers for all hardware is easily available I heard.
I think Im gonna build and AMD machine......
Well, like I said, that can happen later. I don't know if the 64-bit CPU will do you much good without a 64-bit operating system, but I do know that the AMD chip will improve your performance nonetheless.
Don't buy a cheap heatsink. AMD 64's are cooler than Athlon XP's, but they are by no means low-power.
I am very happy with my Sempron 3100+ E core (venice) and my EPoX 8kda3+pro motherboard
currently have it running at 2.65ghz and it is happy, also this is within your $200 price range...
Cool thanks yoz...what fan/heatsink you killers recommend?
just build a dual boot....XP Pro and XP 64. that's what I did. So far all my drivers are available in 64 bit, but none of the apps I use are
You're 64bit life is miserable.
I wanted to be able to play w/ x64 w/out being commited to it. this was my best option.
stock heatsync and fan was fine for me up to 2.25, you could probably even go to about 2.4 and it would be fine.
I'm watercooling now...
Zalman CNPS 7000B-Cu
2 modes; quiet and silent
I'm using these right now. It's not the chilliest setup around, but it's very stable and your computer will probably never be quieter.