InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Help on new system? |
|
Answer» I'm working on finding PARTS for a new system I want to build (first time building a system), and I've come across a delihma. While searching for a motherboard I came across the ECS nFORCE 570 SLI Tech Intel motherboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813135026) and the Asus A8N-SLI Premium AMD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131540). I know overall that Asus is a more Revered company than ECS is, but the thing is one of them is a Nice Cheap SLI INTEL and the other is a nice cheap SLI AMD board. I would feel more comfortable going after the ECS nFORCE 570 simply because it is Intel, and the Asus is AMD. Though ECS is known as a cheap brand but I really dont understand AMD processors compared to Intel... Intel is all I've known and I dont know whats another thing to be looking at besides GHZ when buying a processor :-?, because AMDs GHzs are usually lower. Also the AMD board is a 939 Socket type and I've heard the 939 PSUs are gonna "dissapear" or something in the FUTURE. Today however, Intel dominates the market with their new Core 2 Duo CPUs wich are a lot better than even AMD best CPUs - the FX series. They offer much better performance at a much lower price. For instence the lowest end Core 2 Duo, named E6300, clocked at 1.86Ghz is abt as powerfull as AMD's flagship FX-60. The E6300 costs 175$ and the FX-60 costs 800$. Is there any chance you can provide a link to where ever you found that information?It does seem a bit of a fantastic claim to make. There must be some catch or problem somewhere.Track has a lot of OPINIONS, not all based on fact. He's almost correct this time. See here. There isn't a catch, Core 2 is much better than anything on the market. However, they can be a bit more expensive, so if you want a budget PC it's not the best choice. So there is a small catch.From the review listed above: So, to give you an idea of how much faster the Core 2 Duo architecture is, we've compared our benchmarks from the Core 2 review with those we recorded for our FX-62 review. [highlight]The numbers aren't directly comparable because we used slightly different system configurations. And there's the matter of platform differences. However, the FX-62 system only used 1GB of memory, compared to 2GB for the Core 2 Duo. This is likely to have the biggest impact on the overall performance scores presented here[/highlight], and judging from past experience this would have an positive impact on the Intel chip's SYSMark 2004SE in the region of around five points. The [highlight]hard drive would have an impact on the scores as well, as the Core 2 Duo setup used a Western Digital Raptor X rather than a Caviar SE16, and the extra speed is likely to add a couple of points too. [/highlight]The remaining differences, such as graphics card - an ATI Radeon X1800 XT vs the X1900 XT used in the Intel test – won't have such a big impact on the more general-purpose application benchmarks we've compared. Which does not really support the Trackster's claim that: Quote Today however, Intel dominates the market with their new Core 2 Duo CPUs wich are[highlight] a lot better [/highlight]than even AMD best CPUs - the FX series. They offer much better performance at a much lower price. For instence the lowest end Core 2 Duo, named E6300, clocked at 1.86Ghz is abt as powerfull as AMD's flagship FX-60. As usual there is some substance and a lot of "editorial license". (I just love that quote that the graphics card is the only thing that matters, by the way.) |
|