hi people,

I bought a HP Pavilion a744x Desktop PC from a garage sale for $50.
problem is, it freezes every 30 minutes or so.
I have tried to fix the problem reinstalling the system but no success, and the local computer technician was not able to fix the problem, so now now i want to buy a new Desktop PC, so here is my question.

If you were to buy a PC what would you buy?
I have seen new computers offer Pentium D and AMD 64 X2
Posted on 2006-05-13 00:26:36 by Insano
Intel vs AMD is like "Coke vs Pepsi" or "nVidia vs ATI". At times, one seems better than the other. In reality, they are usually within performance of each other. Personally, I used to be a strict Intel person, but then the AMD64 came out and it was clean and ran much cooler than the Pentium 4. Now Intel has their EMT64 (Intel's answer to AMD's 64-bit extension of the x86 architecture), although I don't know how it performs.

I would recommend an AMD Athlon 64, cheap and powerful :)

As for the GHz wars, don't feed too much into it as you can't really compare CPUs entirely by clockspeed alone (i.e. rise over run).
Posted on 2006-05-13 00:51:16 by SpooK
I would recommend waiting a bit. Currently, amd64 (especially the dualcore models) are in the lead - however, many of the CPUs have problems when you load all four memory slots (suddenly want to run at DDR333 speeds instead of DDR400, and might become unstable).

Also, intel has a new chip on it's way that'll fix the Pentium4 problems - it'll be faster and run less hot, and rumors has it that it will even be priced VERY agressively. Add to this that Intel chipsets have generally been better than what has been available for the AMD platform.

I'm currently running and AMD64x2 on nForce4 myself, with 4x512meg modules (thankfully, my system seems stable even though I forced the BIOS to *not* downgrade memory speed), but if I was to buy a new system today, I'd definitely wait for the new intel platform.
Posted on 2006-05-13 05:24:00 by f0dder
Add to this that Intel chipsets have generally been better than what has been available for the AMD platform.

Yeah - While the CPUs themselves are practically equalled, the chipsets for Intel CPUs are almost always better. At least I've never seen a chipset for AMD which would run faster than adequate chipset for Intel (while the opposite was true quite often).

I don't know how it is with these Multi-core CPUs, though.
Posted on 2006-05-13 10:24:23 by ti_mo_n
when is this new Intel platform coming out?
Posted on 2006-05-13 11:25:20 by Insano
Some info about the new architecture and comparison against Athlon64: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2748

I'm not sure WHEN the processors hits us, but it should be soon enough that it's wise postponing hardware shopping a bit. Also, I believe that "core solo" and "core duo" (available now) is *not* the new Core design - plenty of confusion!
Posted on 2006-05-14 03:05:42 by f0dder
I have read that it will be released in July and the Xtreme Editions in the fourth quater (1333 Mhz FSB)

Intel Conroe desktop CPU is expected to be released in July (poss. Late May) on a 65nm process. Conroe is a dual core CPU based around the Merom architecture but optimised for the desktop market by removing some of the power constraints from Merom in order to increase performance. Like Merom, Conroe will feature a 14-stage pipeline and will be a 4-issue core. Conroe will additionally feature SSE4 support, virtualization capabilities, LaGrande technology and 64-bit capability in addition to EDB, EIST and iAMT2. The standard edition CPUs will feature a 1066Mhz FSB speed, with the initial members of family being as follows:

E6300 (1.86GHz), $210
E6400 (2.13GHz), $240
E6600 (2.4GHz), $315
E6700 (2.67GHz), $529
E6800 (2.93GHz), $? (Q4)
E4200 (2.66GHz, 800Mhz FSB), $?

Preliminary benchmarks show that a 2.66Ghz Conroe outperforms a 2.8Ghz FX-60 (Dual Core) by 15% to 40% in gaming benchmarks and 10% to 30% in Media Encoding tests.

Posted on 2006-05-14 18:31:17 by Insano
some conroe benchmarks available at http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95021

No direct comparison to AMD64 chips though  ;)
Posted on 2006-05-15 02:42:04 by Pinczakko
Personally I'm most interested in low(er) power usage and heat generation, partly because of electricity bills, partly because lower heat means less cooling requirements and thus less noise.

Of course stability is also an issue... I'm a bit disheartened at the issues AMD64 CPUs have when loading all memory banks, because of the on-board memory controller - not good. Also, my experiences with Intel chipsets have been better than various AMD chipsets (although I *am* satisfied with my nForce4 SLI).

And last, performance. My A64x2 4400+ is fast enough, but more is always welcome. But I'd be really interested in something just as fast that uses less power :)

Unfortunately the xtremesystems link doesn't load here :(
Posted on 2006-05-15 05:43:45 by f0dder
Also do remember that the top-notch hardware nowadays exceeds the needs of an average user by quiet a lot.
Unless you are not going to do some kind of heavy processing (3d modeling, compiling huge sources, etc.) it would be pointless to spend 200 buck just to gain additional gigahertz for the cpu. Even if you are heavy gamer you probably wont see any performance difference between two adjacent models of an cpu, while in price you will.
What I am trying to say is - carefully consider the processing power of a cpu and you real needs.

I personally pretty happy with my _ancient_ PIII. Yes, it takes a couple minutes more to compile something than on 2ghz cpu, but even despite of this little issue it suits my needs perfectly and I know I am using every clock cycle I paid for  :)
I intend to upgrade to E6600 next year though.

Some Conroe/Merom info and benchmarks can be found here.

'Core 2 Duo' mwahhaha. It sound like "core to do" when pronouncing.
The new Intel's naming scheme is awful. What will be the next series called Core 3 Trio ?  :lol: They had better stick with Px or codenames scheme.
Posted on 2006-05-15 07:22:23 by arafel