If you click on the “computer hardware” link, you get to the components catalog, and you can choose whatever you wish. If you wanted the company to assemble it for you before shipping, I don’t know if newegg does that. That wasn’t in your requirements, so my answer does not reflect it. I do want to point out I was able to order a screaming machine from Newegg in pieces for about $2300 ( no monitor ), so it’s something to consider.
Ah, thanks for the clarification (and sorry for not being more clear). I’ve put together enough systems that it’s nothing but a tedious chore these days (not to mention a waste of my time). However, I’ll still look at a comparable system; no reason to dismiss it out of hand, for it may very well be worth my time and effort.
Thanks again!
Monarch Computer is a good place to look for a build to order PC - their prices seem pretty good, and they built a couple machines for relatives, and the build quality was top-notch.
As for the OP, I highly reccomend AMD processor right now, for a desktop computer. At most price points they offer similar or better performance than Intel’s competing Pentium 4/D chips, and run much cooler and use less electricity. Intels mobile offerings, the Pentium M and Core Duo, OTOH, are much more attrative. Power usuage/peformance wise, Pentium M and Turion chips are pretty much neck in neck, and the Core Duo chips are the fastest available in a laptop (well, some “laptops” have high end desktop chips shoved in them, but the heat/power usuage makes them rather impracticle, unless you are a heavy LAN partier who wants a easily portable machine.)
I can’t possibly put a number on what your time is worth, but to get exactly the high-end parts you want, you’ll still come out better assembling your own. Usually when you go high-end, the assembler will always max out things that don’t need it, tacking on extra cost. So do try to look into it.
However, many mid and low-end machines are just fine and certainly of better performance than the same class of yesteryear. For these machines, it really is a waste to build your own.
Just some more antectotal evidence in case anyone is still interested,
Back in the old days when I was looking into my first Windows computer, (mid nineties) AMD was known to run hot, unstable, but fast. Intel was cool, stable but slower. It was a toss up but Intel was recommended for casual users and AMD for gamers and the like.
Now firsthand experience, the AMD heat problem was not exagerated. My second computer had a 2GHz AMD chip and the guy who put it together for us had put an underpowered fan in. The fan broke from a combination of mechanical strain and faulty set up to the power source. The excess heat made the video card fan brittle, leading it to break as well. With no cooling happening at all the processor burnt out, litterally blackening.
I now run an Intel for a main computer and an AMD for personal use. The Intel has two fans with great flow, there is barely any ambiant heat when you open the case. My AMD, which mind you is in a smaller case and has more powerful components, has 4 fans and the exhaust air is warm to the touch.
Personally I’d still recommend the AMD. They’re cheaper, perform better and my computer now acts as a secondary heater for my room 
. Besides the chips are getting more and more similar as the technology evolves, so it makes sense to just go with the less expensive one.
You do realize that’s going on a DECADE ago?
Trust me, Ghz no longer means anything, brand no longer means anything. CPU’s are a commodity. ‘relative clock speed’ doesn’t mean anything (Intel doesn’t sell processors that way anymore, they use model numbers like 630, 830 and 939), There’s NO comparison between a 3Ghx P4 architecture and a Pentium M process that clocks slower, uses less power, but is faster overall.
I say this using a 1 Ghz fruit computer as my primary system. (awaiting a 2 Ghz fruit system that’s four times faster, not the twice you’d think…based on clock speed alone)
Well, here we go again. An admittedly substandard cooling solution is installed, and the predictable outcome is an “AMD heat problem.” If you installed a half-ass CPU fan on a Pentium and it ceased operating after losing all its magic smoke, would you be talking about “The Pentium Heat Problem?” Probably not. Again, bias leads the conclusion.
Um yes. The mid ninties were a decade ago. I did call them the old days for a reason. And a decade ago AMDs were known for running hotter than Intels at similar clock speeds. What’s the problem?
You said “brand no longer means anything” I said:
I don’t think we disagree, I was just talking about older systems where the Intel/AMD stereotypes originated, not modern ones.
No actually, I’d probably be talking about how to spite the lower heat stereotype I had a Intel chip burn out and kill a computer. Biased? Sure why not, opinions usually are, and IMHO is the place for them.
The problem is that it’s simply irrelevant to discuss processor brands of a decade ago, because they have zero relation to the current issues. Ten years is a very, very long time in computer hardware. That would be like me voting for president and deciding I liked the Republicans because of their anti-slavery platform. Just as the politics of a century ago are not relevant in voting today, the computer hardware of a decade ago is not relevant today.
Nor were AMD’s processors a decade ago faster by any stretch. Weren’t they selling the K6 or K6-2 back then? Those definitely did not perform equivalently to Intel processors of the same clock speed, but they still were better in price/performance terms. The point, though, is that in discussing computer hardware of a decade ago, you got your facts wrong. This is not a useful way to give advice.
Just curious, how recent are the CPU’s in those machines? Pretty much all the Athlon 64 processors run cooler than comparable Pentium 4’s - especially the Prescott core P4s. The average idle temp for a Prescott with stock cooling is 50º C or so at idle, 70º C while under load. Meanwhile, even the older 130nm Athlon 64s won’t go more than 50º under load, while the newer ones built with a 90nm process run even cooler than that - one of my friends has a dual core Opteron 165 overclocked from 1.8ghz to 2.65ghz, and even with both cores fully loaded the temp won’t break 37ºC. And this is on stock cooling.
I believe this is before AMD incorporated speed throttling technology into their chips, which Intel had at the time. This throttle slows down the chip to a very low clock when it senses drastic overheating.
If you remove the heatsink/fan from either chip now, you risk frying it. I don’t believe the fire/smoke issue still exists due to the throttle.
For what its worth, the current gen AMD processors use much less power and generate much less heat than the Intel. Intel just abandoned the “net burst” architecture which scaled well with higher clock speeds (problem is, they can’t run em any faster. AMD chips are typically running several gigahertz slower than the comparable P4s, yet produce comparable performance. This is due to an architectual design decision. Because they run slower clock-wise, they produce less heat and consume lass power.
You should base your decision on several factors, mainly on what you will use the machine for. For all out power, the newer Athlon 64s spank the Intel offerings (see this months Computer Shopper). For a living room HTPC, consider the Pentium M, which runs on very little juice and requires little in terms of cooling apparatus (making for a quieter PC). The Athlons with the Venice core might be a good choice, too.
You should have 0 compatibility issues from either chip.
I had to do an internal presentation last May that was mostly about AMD vs Intel dual core and associated ramifications (overheating, etc.), and at the time it seemed AMD was well ahead of Intel in terms of developing what could truly be considered to be “dual core,” and well as having better benchmarks, etc. (I haven’t kept up on it but that was re: their development at the time.)
When you talk about a substandard cooling component that would have fried a similar CPU of either brand, and you call it an “AMD heat problem” instead of an “inadequate installer problem”, that’s not bias. It’s deceit. (There, I said it). Don’t offer advice to people unless you can do it honestly.
Given this, I will have to go against another poster’s suggestion and say that you should get a dual core option, regardless of brand. DVD burning and photoshop both are processor hogs. You’ll be able to actually do something while burning with a dual core. I recently upgraded to dual core, and now I don’t mind burning DVDs; before, I’d set it then go to sleep.
Is this because you can do other things while burning? Most cpu intensive applications aren’t going to run faster on dual core machines unless they are multithreaded. However, you don’t get slowed down by a process hogging one cpu.
At one company I worked for, I had an HP workstation with dual cpus (on the board, not in the chip.) A big, distributed simulation job would run on one, and I could do stuff on the other without noticing. That is a benefit.
Exactly. Even surfing the web was compromised on a single core option while burning a DVD. My CPU usage would go up to 97%+, and if I did anything else I was likely to end up with another coaster. That’s why I would “Set it and Forget it” (with apologies to Ron Popeil). With dual core, my CPU usage while burning a DVD is pegged at ~50%, allowing me to do other things. I tend to avoid playing games, but have no problem working with Money, Power Point, Excel, etc.
Certain Photoshop programs are coded for multithreaded operation, but I can’t speak to the one mentioned earlier.
I wonder though, is this an inherent advantage of multi-processor systems, or just a result of poor resource management by the OS? And will this advantage disappear when (if) newer multi-threaded versions of these software come out, able to hog both processor cores?
Also, if you were to only look at dual-core versions of AMD and Intel processors, how do they compare? It looks like Intel dual-core processors start out at much lower prices, I’m still not sure if that’s an advantage. (Looking at Newegg.com, the cheapest Intel dual-core processor is 2.66 GHz for $153, and chapest AMD is 2GHz “3800+” at $297.)
AMD has separate L2 cache for each core, Intel did not. Intel dual core required a new motherboard and AMD did not. Also, when you’re comparing chipsets, make sure the Intel chip is truly “dual core” and not just using hyperthreading alone. To efficiently make use of hyperthreading, you need software that’s optimized for hyperthreading. Also, AMD ran cooler than Intel. (All the info is of last May.)