So, Papa Cuc is going to upgrade the old rig.

[DiebytheSword]

Whell maybe back when AMD started, it was bad compared to P4. But AMD came back with a FALCON PUNCH! j/k XD

Depending on the money AMD has best budget type processor wich offer more at budget prices than Intel.

Check this Reviews:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking-processor-recommendation,2866-2.html

and im no AMD fan boy since i got intel my self :/

AMD was around a long time before the P4.

 

[Slofreak]

I meant AMD was bad compared with P4 at that time, also i rember everyone saying stay away from AMD back in 2000 when i first build my own P4 1.7ghz based PC xD.

[video=youtube;NxNUK3U73SI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxNUK3U73SI[/video]

But that was back than. Now AMD really improved, if i went with AMD based budget-gaming CPU now i whould saved much more and get better PC, especially those "hidden core cpu's" from AMD they cost almost the same as dual core or core 2 duo but you get more cores and more Cache.

 

[Pemalite]

Good choice on the motherboard, even supports Socket AM3+ CPU's (Aka. Bulldozer.)
So you should be able to run the next gen CPU's with no problems.

I would have stuck with the 1090T though to save a bit of cash however.
It's only 100mhz slower than the 1100T and it's still completely unlocked, just push up the multiplier and you're done.

What I love about the Thubans though is... Whenever you have something that takes advantage of all 6 cores, it screams, even more so clocked to 4ghz.
Decoding/Transcoding is like a knife through butter.

I hope you also have an aftermarket cooler? The stock cooler is bloody loud. - Also, if you're anything like me and enjoy monitoring temps in Windows... Make sure to add 13'C on top due to a temperature reading bug. (Maximum temp these chips can handle is 61'C by the way.)

 

[Almighty_Gir]

i realise i'm using Intel rather than AMD. but i would highly, HIGHLY reccomend a corsair H50 or H70 all in one watercooler for the CPU. it's stupidly quiet compared to a regular cooler, and my cpu temp never goes over 31c at full load, usually idling at around 25c.

and they're cheaper than a lot of fan/heatsink combo's.

 

[DiebytheSword]

i realise i'm using Intel rather than AMD. but i would highly, HIGHLY reccomend a corsair H50 or H70 all in one watercooler for the CPU. it's stupidly quiet compared to a regular cooler, and my cpu temp never goes over 31c at full load, usually idling at around 25c.

and they're cheaper than a lot of fan/heatsink combo's.

I've never been one for caring about noise. So I went with the stock cooler, which was surprisingly quiet anyway. Still, the upgrade went like a mess, needs more work over the weekend to get OS going. My 5870 didn't really fit in my case either, which caused me to . . . remodel a bit. Still the new parts all post just fine and run like a champ.

 

[Slofreak]

here are some chart if you ever plan to get a cpu cooler:

Temp at full load:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/cpu-cooler-charts-2010/CPU-Temperature,2146.html

Sound at full load:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/cpu-cooler-charts-2010/Sound-Level-Measurement,2151.html

 

[Quagmire]

My Intel argument goes thusly. For many, many years, Intel has been the leader not in innovation, but manufacturing process. They have always led in fabrication ability, but they were never producing the best ideas. This came to a head many times. Against AMD in the early days, Motorola, MIPS, DEC, it was always the same story. If any of Intels competitors (if you could even call them that) ever matched Intel in the fabrication game, Intel would not be able to sit on their laurels. AMD had a much faster 486 and math coprocessor, Cyrix had floating point x486 chips that could run quake, Intel did not. MIPS and DEC didn't need to worry about CISC overhead. AMD again came from behind with superior design engineering during the Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4. During these moments when Intel was actually losing because their design was inferior and only saved by their fab process, Intel would opt for strong arming competition out of business, which has caused them to be sued many times in many nations. Intel would then opt for copying the technology philosophy of the chips that beat them. This moment, where they reach out and do something different, drives the whole market to new things. They countered AMD and Cyrix by including a robust math co-processor on the Pentium 1, they countered MIPS, Motorola and DEC by shoehorning RISC philosophy into their increasingly CISC architecture. Against the Athlon 64, they chose to counter the then most powerful math coprocessor on the planet by adding four ****ty ones to the P4. When that didn't work they went to redisigning the P4, bringing us the wonderful Core chip, which had managed to rip off every AMD advancement to that point, understandably so. Again, with their fab process always being a step ahead of AMD, they were able to beat AMD with their process and AMD's design paradigm..

This argument is not entirely true.

Core architecture itself is not based off Netburst at all (P4 architecture), it is in fact based off an enhanced P6 Architecture (P6 itself was used for the Pentium 3 line).

The P4 has a much larger Pipeline (31-stage) compared to the core architecture's pipeline (14-stage). The Core 2 architecture can also assign L2 cache to a single core if another core is seeing very little use or none at all, something AMD's architecture didn't have at the time.

Anything based off Core/Core2 architecture doesn't draw as much power as any P4 does and has a significantly lower TDP (155W for 3.4-3.8GHz Presscott 2M compared to 65W for Core 2 E6XXX). Even Core 2 Quad Q6XXX cpus have a 105w TDP, 32%~ less than Presscott 2M.

Intel didn't use anything with an IMC until 2008 with nehalem (along with reviving HT), but still managed to beat AMD whilst relying on Intel's FSB, with hypertransport on AMD being the main reason for a performance lead over intel during the A64 era. Intel did however have some experimental/research IMC designs that they demoed on more than one occasion.

i realise i'm using Intel rather than AMD. but i would highly, HIGHLY reccomend a corsair H50 or H70 all in one watercooler for the CPU. it's stupidly quiet compared to a regular cooler, and my cpu temp never goes over 31c at full load, usually idling at around 25c.

and they're cheaper than a lot of fan/heatsink combo's.

Not the smartest idea IMO - if they leaks you're screwed. Besides, a Noctua NH-D14 is an air cooler and soundly gets better thermals than either the AIO H50/H70 or anything similar enough to them from CoolIT.

They claim that since its a closed loop its leak proof, but this isn't the case at all. They can and eventually will at some point fail, if not from a leak then from the pump failing (and the pump is above the cpu block too, so the copper itself with no active cooling of HSF fins is a scary thought).

 

[DiebytheSword]

This argument is not entirely true.

Core architecture itself is not based off Netburst at all (P4 architecture), it is in fact based off an enhanced P6 Architecture (P6 itself was used for the Pentium 3 line).

I'm not sure I said that at all. Core architecture is based on AMD's design philosophy, not AMD's design period, there is a big difference. Less pipelines and stages means slower clocks but vastly improved branch prediction. Whereas many clock cycles in Netburst proccessors were dedicated to fixing bad branch prediciton, most of AMD's branch predictions rang true without a steep penalty in performance. They needed to head back to less pipes and less stages to compete with AMD, less pipes meant less bad guesses, less stages in those pipes meant less penalty to fix it when you are wrong. Regardless of this was achieved on the engineering end, it was still following the route AMD had made. An enhanced P6 was essentially old stuff, following new philosophy, and it was all prettied up on a new fabrication process with smaller traces. Do you see my position now?

 

[Almighty_Gir]

lol dude... my 6950 graphics card was so long, i had to do some interior decoration of my case too

 

[DiebytheSword]

I seriously debated cutting off parts of the side of the drive cage. Bending the middle of the cage turned out to do just enough and allow me to use the top and bottom of the cage.