New build, similar prices, low budget: AMD or Intel?

leospagnol · Post by **leospagnol** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:37 pm

I need a computer for basic office/internet applications, running Vista. It has to be fast and cheap. Until now, I have come up with these two options:

AMD + onboard video:
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz 65W Black Edition...-> U$ 85.00
GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H 780G HDMI.............-> U$ 100.00
mushkin 4GB(2 x 2GB) DDR2 800.......................-> U$ 80.00
Western Digital SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB........-> U$ 75.00
TOTAL: U$ 340.00

Intel + dedicated graphics:
Intel Pentium E2200 2.2GHz............................-> U$ 85.00
GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L................................-> U$ 90.00
MSI NX8400GS-TD256E 256MB.......................-> U$ 36.00
mushkin 4GB(2 x 2GB) DDR2 800...................-> U$ 80.00
Western Digital SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB.....-> U$ 75.00
TOTAL: U$ 366.00

The 8400GS will not be used for games, only for Aero to run smooth. I have chosen 4GB of RAM because of Vista also.

So, what do you think, AMD or Intel?
By the way, how about the components choice, any suggestion?
Thanks for the help.

tehcrazybob · Post by **tehcrazybob** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:56 pm

It looks like you've picked very evenly matched components. On top of that, if you're interested in overclocking, both processors and at least the Intel motherboard (no idea about the AMD motherboard) will overclock like crazy.

However, there are a few places you can save yourself some money. If you're not running 64-bit Vista, you won't be able to use the full 4gb of RAM and probably won't get any performance benefit out of more than 2gb. Cut back on that and save yourself $40. Second, if you're not interested in overclocking, consider cutting the AMD option back to the normal 5000+ instead of the Black Edition. The Black Edition costs the same, but doesn't come with a reference cooler.

When it's all said and done, I doubt there'll be much performance difference between the two options. The AMD setup as a whole may draw less power, with onboard video, but I think the Intel CPU alone will draw less power than the AMD CPU alone - bear that in mind when you're planning cooling.

dangman4ever · Post by **dangman4ever** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:18 am

If overclocking is not an option, go for the AMD build. But you chose the Black Edition which does not come with a HSF. So you will have to buy a 3rd party HSF in order to use that Black Edition X2 5000+.

Also, any savings in energy usage from the C2D CPU will be negated by the video card. It may be a weak card but it still draws some power.

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:27 am

Of course AMD system, since an additional 8400GS won't do any good to you for office/Internet application like IE, Firefox. Plus, AMD 780G board enjoys good feedbacks across the Internet.

leospagnol · Post by **leospagnol** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:49 am

Thanks for the feedback. I did not realize the Black Edition does not come with a HSF. Adding a Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 (U$ 20.00) would be the option then.

The computer will have more than one session active at the same time, so it's going to need a lot of memory, 4GB now and maybe another 4GB in the future, runing Vista 64.

Overclocking is an option, if not right now, at least in the near future. That's why these two processors were chosen. But in a moderate way, with the stock cooler probably, or perhaps with a cheap HSF like Arctic Cooling ones.

I wonder if the 8400GS would affect the performance of Vista, especially Aero, and if it would perform better than the AMD 780G.

that Linux guy · Post by **that Linux guy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:06 am

leospagnol wrote:Thanks for the feedback. I did not realize the Black Edition does not come with a HSF. Adding a Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 (U$ 20.00) would be the option then.

The computer will have more than one session active at the same time, so it's going to need a lot of memory, 4GB now and maybe another 4GB in the future, runing Vista 64.

Overclocking is an option, if not right now, at least in the near future. That's why these two processors were chosen. But in a moderate way, with the stock cooler probably, or perhaps with a cheap HSF like Arctic Cooling ones.

I wonder if the 8400GS would affect the performance of Vista, especially Aero, and if it would perform better than the AMD 780G.

I'm not too knowledgeable of AMD's recent offerings, so I can't help you much there. I know C2D CPUs usually are the better options performance wise, but it's about preference and application. Last I looked at AMD, a Athlon 64X2 6000+ and a Foxconn mobo w/ 590 SLI chipset was the top of the AMD line. I'm sure that's changed

I'm not a windows guy either (hence my user name), but do know, 8Gb of RAM will make anything fly. (Vista will probably seem fast, but I've heard so much about it being a huge memory hog and very bloated, so, 8GB of RAM will do very well, as will 4Gb.

As for the video card situation, an onboard solution will generally draw less power, but PC hardware 101 tells us that a dedicated card will almost always perform better than an onboard solution.

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:21 am

Did 8400GS improve Aero? No. Vista Aero was running fine at least on Intel GMA950 at 1280x800 resolution. As for AMD & nVIDIA, anything beyond DX9 generation is too much for Aero at 1680x1050. Even the oldest nVIDIA 6200, ATi X300 is enough for Aero from my experience.

You take Aero too seriously, it's just a basic requirement for nowadays video cards. 8400GS is too much for Aero, and it only draws more power than integrated chipset for Aero usage. Certainly, 8400GS performs better than 780G in gaming world, but AMD's discrete 3450 beats 8400GS in gaming world, too. Plus, AMD's Vista display driver quality is better than nVIDIA's counterpart. If I were you, I would get a nVIDIA or AMD integrated chipset rather than discrete solution for less money and power draw. Even if you might need one discrete card, you could buy it at any time.