AMD - any good or a dud?

banarcus · 22-04-2005, 07:05 PM

I'm weighing up my options as far as a new PC is concerned. I currently have an 2001 vintage Celeron 1.3 with 256Mb ram. This is has served us well and only now that I play Battlefield Vietnam, am I finding that its now time to upgrade. I mainly use this PC for surfing, my photo collection, burn the odd disc, and of course, BFV.
I was looking around at the computer markets and I thought about going down the AMD route. The particular cpu would be a Athlon 64 (939) with a Gigabyte GA-K8NS-939 (nFORCE3, 8CH, 2SATA, 8USB, G LAN) Motherboard, 1 gig of ram and a DVD burner, SATA HD.
Anyone know if this has any known pittfalls. I have thought about the P4 route, but I want to weigh up my options.

XplosiveR6 · 22-04-2005, 07:10 PM

there is nothing wrong with a AMD, especially a 939 Athlon 64, they are nice cpus and are can actually be faster in games then the rival P4

MrSparkle · 22-04-2005, 07:11 PM

VERY happy with my recent rig upgrade. Athlon 939 3500+ on a Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI board, with an XFX 6800GT PCIe card (thanks Russ!). Runs rock solid, runs nice and cool (the 939 pin is much improved in its thermal properties than the older), and is a stormer for games. Highly recommend an NForce4 motherboard to go with your 939 pin, and if you get decent DDR2 ram, you'll have an overclockable and reliable weapon.

LuvinmyEB · 22-04-2005, 07:17 PM

If it's not known by now I'm an AMD all the way person.

We run nothing but AMD's and don't have any problems with them. P4's however I've seen people having trouble with, especially when it comes to heat which AMD have now fixed.

It sounds like what you have picked for your new setup is something I'd look at.

Good luck with it!

Casper · 22-04-2005, 07:13 PM

I've built PC's with AMD's for years, never had a single problem. I wouldnt use anything else now.

banarcus · 22-04-2005, 07:54 PM

Would 400W be an overkill to run this system?
Thanks for the replies people, muich appreciated.

Casper · 22-04-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banarcus

Would 400W be an overkill to run this system?
Thanks for the replies people, muich appreciated.

Nope, 400w would be a minimum.

Racecraft · 22-04-2005, 08:08 PM

I have one AMD and one Intel set-up, I find each has there own strengths. The Intel one is a 3 gig and the AMD is an Athlon 3200+ as they were the same price at the time but I threw alittle more money at the board for the AMD setup yet I find video editing/photochoppin' seems to work faster on the Intel machine.
Same ram, both have 128Mb Vid cards that are outdated now.

But before I buy I reccommend a post on www.overclockers.com.au as those dudes really know the positives and negatives on just about anything.

XR6HP · 23-04-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racecraft

I have one AMD and one Intel set-up, I find each has there own strengths. The Intel one is a 3 gig and the AMD is an Athlon 3200+ as they were the same price at the time but I threw alittle more money at the board for the AMD setup yet I find video editing/photochoppin' seems to work faster on the Intel machine.
Same ram, both have 128Mb Vid cards that are outdated now.

Thats because the '3200+' is a clever marketing technique by AMD to sell supposedly faster chips. The 3200 has nothing to do with actual processor speed at all. Its more like a 3.0Ghz as opposed to Intels 3.2 being a proper 3.2 Gig machine....

Steffo · 23-04-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6HP

Thats because the '3200+' is a clever marketing technique by AMD to sell supposedly faster chips. The 3200 has nothing to do with actual processor speed at all. Its more like a 3.0Ghz as opposed to Intels 3.2 being a proper 3.2 Gig machine....

Actually, the PR rating on the Athlon XPs has meaning. It is a referance to how this processor performs compared to an Athlon Thunderbird C at that same speed. So, with the Athlon XP3200+, it is saying.. "This processor, at 2200MHz, performs equal to a Thunderbird C Athlon, if the Thunderbird C Athlon were running at 3200MHz." Lot's of people often confuse this with P4 clockspeeds, and AMD bashers tend to discount the PR rating as meaningless.

With Athlon64's, it is representative of the Athlon XP "Palomino" core. Hence why an Athlon64 3000+ @ 1.8GHz performs better then an Athlon XP3200+ @ 2.2GHz, the Athlon64's rating is saying that it's as good as a 3.0GHz Athlon XP "Palomino" would have been... and a 3.0GHz Pally would beat a 3.2GHz Tbird. Oh, and obviously the A64 is technologically superior to the Athy XP and such, but yeah, that's how the PR rating's work.

EFFalcon · 22-04-2005, 08:10 PM

my overclocked 1ghz AMD Athlon is still going strong, trusty CPU it is!

blue sleeper · 22-04-2005, 08:24 PM

From my experience AMD offers the best value for money and has so for many years with very good reliability. I think 400w is definitely a minimum I would go for 450. But the important factor for performance is your video card so that is where you need to work out how much you want to spend the rest is pretty straight forward.

**Falcon Coupe** · 22-04-2005, 08:20 PM

Go the AMD no prob's here.

paul7v7 · 22-04-2005, 08:56 PM

Have 2 athlon thunderbirds and they run ok...not good but ok...very hot too.
I have an Athlon 64 3500+ on an Asus A8N SLi deluxe board (Nforce4) with 2 6600GT Sli cards and it runs yeah ok. The processor is much better than previous AMD's. Although my system is 8 seconds slower rendering a 3d studio max movie than a friends P4 3.4 with HT. Although my one kicks his one in games. So far I would say that I am happy with the 64 bit

mine ie below...forgive the crap image...and yes i am not good with cable management hehe.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/photos/...cat=500&page=1

chippa6 · 23-04-2005, 12:12 AM

The AMD is definately the way to go - especially with 64 bit OS available and many programs and games being developed to take advantage of the 64 bit power - go for it. Also make sure your motherboard has PCI express - twice as fast as the highest AGP video.

The most important thing with computers is that it is only as good as its weakest link. Don't spend up big on CPU and M/B and then scrimp on RAM and HDD.

I have seen people build up a $3000 computer from parts and then throw in an IDE cable thats 5 years old

:

Chippa

pauljh74 · 23-04-2005, 01:12 AM

The premium Intels run DDR2 now don't they? AMD with the Hyper Transport memory controller have boosted performance and they are still only using DDR400 - seems they see no need to up the memory speed yet. This saves you money as you need less expensive RAM. But AMD are better bang for your buck. Just compare the similar AMD and Intel CPUs on price - the comparable Intel is almost always more expensive. Most people don't buy the fastest CPUs either as they know in 6 months the fastest CPU will be half the price.

Get an NForce 4 motherboard for the socket 939. The last time I got a motherboard, $200 got you a basic brand name model. Now you can get a quality feature packed board for $200.

I'm still going on my Athlon 1.33GHz I've had since 2001. With games like Doom 3 out now - it's really starting to struggle.

MrQuan · 23-04-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauljh74

Get an NForce 4 motherboard for the socket 939.

Yup, go for the NForce4, it has all the bells and whistles and is geared towards gaming.

Oh, and the 939 AMD boots. My mate has one and I've never seem a PC as fast as his.

:

23-04-2005, 12:42 PM

I just built this. Im still setting it up a bit but it seems pretty good so far.

XRated · 23-04-2005, 01:33 AM

My AMD has been stable for a couple of years now. As long as you set it up with decent components you should have many years of pleasure!

danege · 23-04-2005, 05:04 AM

Only piece of advice ill give is if you buy an AMD chip make sure you keep the bloody thing cool.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 23-04-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

VERY happy with my recent rig upgrade. Athlon 939 3500+ on a Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI board, with an XFX 6800GT PCIe card (thanks Russ!). Runs rock solid, runs nice and cool (the 939 pin is much improved in its thermal properties than the older), and is a stormer for games. Highly recommend an NForce4 motherboard to go with your 939 pin

Sounds very much like what I would recommend, and yes, if I was you I'd be looking at getting an NForce4 mobo, Athlon64 939 CPU (I'd be going for a 3500+) and at least an Nvidia 6600 PCIe card.

Quote:

Originally Posted by banarcus

Would 400W be an overkill to run this system?
Thanks for the replies people, muich appreciated.

As has already been said, 400W should be considered a minimum, 450W would be a better option. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to spend a bit more on a quality PSU, rather then skimping on the PSU and case and getting a generic cheap case with a generic cheap "500W" PSU that will probably never get anywhere near 500W output before it stops working. I'd be considering a Thermaltake VB1400 Soprano case and PSU personally, but you may not like the look of it, I would consider it a much better option then a cheap $50 case that comes with a PSU...

Quote:

Originally Posted by danege

Only piece of advice ill give is if you buy an AMD chip make sure you keep the bloody thing cool.

I think you may be confusing AMD with Intel here. We are talking about Socket 939 Athlon64 CPUs, which run a lot cooler then the more recent Intel P4s. At the moment, it is the recent Intel CPUs that have thermal issues, not like a few years ago when the Intels ran cool and the AMDs had thermal problems. Sadly, it seems that there is still plenty of FUD being spread about the AMD options...

Yaw · 23-04-2005, 04:41 PM

Never heard a bad thing about them. Last pc upgrade I did I built myself a P3 1GHZ. I believe though that graphics cards are the real big thing. I mean I have a matrox dual head with 32 mb memory and it runs anything I want. But my nephew was telling me most of the latest graphical games need a minimum od 128 mb ram on the video card......man Doom 2 is pretty damed good as is quake, I could play both of those on my old pentium 120 with an S3 trio card.
*shrugs*

niko · 23-04-2005, 10:53 AM

i have a POS 2000xp comfortably running at a 2600xp without any issues for the last few months

FordACE · 23-04-2005, 11:40 AM

Does AMD have thermal protection on them yet? I know intel have had it for ages. ie, if you accidently don't seat the heatsink properly it has a protection device. does AMD have this?

niko · 23-04-2005, 12:56 PM

amds dont have thermalprotection themselves. your motherbaord does

niko · 23-04-2005, 03:35 PM

big *** fans have no cables neer them? wats the worry

**Uncle_Ken** · 23-04-2005, 04:54 PM

I can't add anything more to what has been said.
AMD has stood the test of time and has kept Intel honest for years.
$$$ per meg they have always been better value.
I aggree with Casper 400w would be a minimum.
if you are playing games have a good look at the video cards around now, bigger the better as always, on a 64 bit board it should fly.
Uncle_Ken

Steffo · 23-04-2005, 05:19 PM

Ever since I started to take an interest and build my own computers, and for friends/family, I've been building and recommending AMD systems, only ONCE have I ever built a Pentium 4, and it was for a friend who'd already bought the parts (and just so you know, he's now got an Athlon XP3200).

The Athlon64 you're considering will expose your old Celeron for the slug that it was, and you'll be very happy with the upgrade, I gurantee it.

That being said, when the new nForce 4 SLI chipset for Intel CPUs comes to Australia, AMD Athlon64 and Intel Pentium 4 will have equal performance (surprising how much difference the chipset can make to CPU performance). Even then, AMD would be the wiser decision based on the price difference.

23-04-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Ever since I started to take an interest and build my own computers, and for friends/family, I've been building and recommending AMD systems, only ONCE have I ever built a Pentium 4, and it was for a friend who'd already bought the parts (and just so you know, he's now got an Athlon XP3200).

The Athlon64 you're considering will expose your old Celeron for the slug that it was, and you'll be very happy with the upgrade, I gurantee it.

That being said, when the new nForce 4 SLI chipset for Intel CPUs comes to Australia, AMD Athlon64 and Intel Pentium 4 will have equal performance (surprising how much difference the chipset can make to CPU performance). Even then, AMD would be the wiser decision based on the price difference.

A chipset isn't going to change the P4s poor efficiency per clock or the latency advantage the A64 has because of its on chip memory controller.

banarcus · 23-04-2005, 06:19 PM

So an nforce 4 chipset be better than say, a VIA K8T800 chipset? Also, with a PCI E connection, does this mean that I cant use an older style AGP card? Forgive my ignorance, believe me this is a very steep learning curve.