Eleo attempts to build a computer

Originally Posted by Dayvon

Unless you have DDR2, no you probably can bastardize RAM.

Eleo, that's a good system build. Again, like Free said, the mobo's you are choosing are top dollar, and there are other options out there. Here's an ASUS board I've been hearing pretty good things about...
-> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131030 <-
It's a bit cheaper but still high quality. The 975 chipset you have on your wishlist is actually quite a bit older than the the one I linked, even though the 975 is "superior", the 965 uses newer tech. Might be something to consider.

As to your grphx card choice, its not too bad. If you wanted to, getting that ASUS board would save you a bit, and I'd look into a 7600GT (unless you are partial to ATI). It is a bit better of a performer than the X1600XT.

The only other thing to make sure is that you will be happy with a monitor that has a max resolution of 1280x1024. To me, that is barely enough especially without widescreen (which is an option you might consider especially when doing video encoding). So, I'd think on this choice a bit more to make sure you are happy with it.

I would have Eleo stay with the MSI board. It's a stable board, and supports Kentsfield (quad-core Conroe) in the future (he's more into video than games, remember.) And from what I'm hearing, the P965 chipset isn't that great at all compared with the 975X. Not to mention, as of late, ASUS' reputation has been shat on with recent buggy boards (AMD & intel), and Antec power supply incompatibilites. Also, proper RAID support may be a big issue to him with his video stuff. (This board was my second choice, with the Badaxe being my first.)

I've always thought that G.Skill memory was no-name, but there are some people who swear it's high-end stuff. I dont' know anything about them at all. Seems like reliable stuff.

Not sure about the X1600 vs. the 7600GT, but I've heard for a long time that ATI gives a better image quality. Around Canada, the X1600 has a better price.

And GO WIDESCREEN! It is so pleasing to use a WS monitor. Dell, Samsung, or uber-expensive Apple are best. A 19" WS monitor probably won't cost you hardly more than a regular 19".

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Hotobu

I think you misunderstand. There's a difference between waiting for technology and futureproofing.

You see AMD has had 64-bit processors out for quite a while now. I'm saying it may be worth it to just go that route and then upgrade to a 64-bit OS.

Quite honestly I haven't kept up with the latest Vista news so I can't tell you if it'd be worth upgrading to. Hopefully someone will come along and be able to fill you in.

You have to weigh your options. By getting a Core Duo you're capping yourself. Sure it's the best 32-bit processor out now, but should you ever chose to upgrade your OS you may regret going that route. On the other hand the Athlon 64 will still serve you very well now, and when and if you decide to go with a 64 bit platform it would out-perform an equivalent system powered by a Core Duo.

If it were me I'd chose the AMD because if for any reason I did decide to go with a 64 bit OS I've got the 64 bit processor and I don't have to worry about any missed decisions.

You could go with AMD, you'd hit an even worse cap. All of AMDs current sockets are already dead. S754 was a quick death, S939 was a kick in the face, and AM2's successor has been announced for Spring 07. Meanwhile, Intel has their full lineup of processors for LGA775 with new stuff on the way. Not to mention, that there are no AMDs currently capable of touching the wimpiest Core 2 Duo.

And really, who even cares about 64-bit right now. Unless you have 4GB + of RAM, there's no point. Later, maybe, but by then, a new processor will be ot to outshine it. I would seriously doubt that the Core 2 would perform worse than anything other than the FX-62, anyways. I've heard of a marginal 5% difference in 64-bit processing when compared to AMDs Opterons. High-end, expensive server products.

You can choose AMD, but it's cheap price is all it has going for it right now.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Hotobu

Well the sockets may be dead, is that really going to matter if you don't plan on upgrading the processor? And generally when people do upgrade their processors they wait for a period of time such that they'd be getting a new board anyway.

Which Eleo (remember the guy we're giving advice to?) is doing. He's changing everything. Why would he choose a platform that is dead, much slower, not as cost-effective and has no future? Future compatibility is one thing, and raw processing speed is another. Intel has both at a decent price. Nuff said.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.