The intel stuff is ok, but the AMD dies cut nicer and overall you get a better quality processor (like comparing a skoda to a citroen IMHO), + the intel stuff is gradually getting hotter idle than AMD's now are thus lowering CPU life. If you are video editing or requiring office power, the AMD's do kick off the mark very well and cost substantially less than their intel counterparts - couple that with a circa 40 quid nforce motherboard and it will sit pretty for years to come, 754 pins are the AMD equivilent and you can get a SEMPERON which is a budget high end CPU and with the option of still upgrading in the future.

I am running a PC chips mobo at home and its simple, cheap and does the job, after all its only a gang socket with bridges (I know you're not interested but its also a 15 quid mobo with overclocking facility).

All depends really, if i build one for anyone i use AMD with DDR333/400 RAM, and an ATI graphics card because from past experiences you see what you get with all those.

However the choice is yours

Seem to have created another "camp" here

The intel stuff is ok, but the AMD dies cut nicer and overall you get a better quality processor

They may be improving but I'd beg to differ on the quality of the processor, especially if return rates are anything to go by!

Also, the heatsink fitting is a consideration if you're relatviely inexperienced at handling components, as dropping a heatsink into a bracket and folding a few clips is a whole lot easier than the alternative...

I am running a PC chips mobo at home and its simple, cheap and does the job,

Yes, but costs are cut somewhere...and it seems to be in QA from what I've seen!

Rob.

If doing any video work the hyper threading on the PIV's is nice. About the only application that makes any use of it to be honest.

RAM is king, 1024 is okay, for the price of it 2048 is superb, 4x512's good low latency and fast clock.

The newer AmD chips are very nice, which is perhaps why intel have stopped chasing 4Ghz and gone after other "features" which will improve everyday life for users.

Build your own/use one of the above as a consultant

If you have dabbled beofre then nowadays it's a doddle. Hs being the biggest fear I guess, but then only if your using stupidly big ones or are ham fisted. I never broke a corner etc but I know people did. Just lucky or used flat surface and took my time/no screwdriver. Zalaman flowers are nice coolers if it's going to be on the desk in front or next to you.

any 64/128 graphics would pretty much do, if video editing ironically a little more might help..but only marginally.

I've ran an AMD overclocked on a botched HS/fan cobo (3000+ certified HS and an uncertified fan) on the PCchips mobo and its been faultless along with an O/C'd radeon 9600 pro running doom 3. Admittedly there can be a problem with the quality of cheaper products, but you pay for what you get. Only at times do you get lucky, and from experience they have been brilliant - you all own skodas, you know value surely .

Depends if you can justify a price increase for ease of heatsink fitting, and as with most things its gotta be done some time or other - You could always duct vent and fan if needed (not as good but simple enough)

I am wondering if the AMD return rate is due to people pushing them TOO far because they're not immortal by any strech but are a lot more efficient than modern intels. Intels are very conservative CPU's and dont offer great potential, not only for Oc'ing but for every day use and general comparible speed.

Admittedly there can be a problem with the quality of cheaper products, but you pay for what you get.

Yeah, it's a gamble...sometimes pays off, sometimes doesn't.

Depends if you can justify a price increase for ease of heatsink fitting

...and not having to mess around with jumpers and the like getting the clock speed set right, etc.

I am wondering if the AMD return rate is due to people pushing them TOO far because they're not immortal by any strech

Sadly no, that's on non OC'd processors... :(

but are a lot more efficient than modern intels. Intels are very conservative CPU's and dont offer great potential, not only for Oc'ing but for every day use and general comparible speed.

But they don't break... And on a typical system the difference between P4/Athlon's of equivalent performance is about

I've built my own in the past, and I'd agree with everyone else - it's not too difficult. Having said that, though - I bought the current one pre-built (all except the operating system) from Digital Networks UK http://www.dnuk.com. It didn't cost much more than the individual bits, and I could be sure that there wasn't any proprietary (only works with Windows) hardware in it.

I'd buy one.

Add up the cost of all the bits and compare with a box only deal from someone like Mesh.

Then be honest. Add in the cost of the OS.

Microsoft sure does take a bite.

Unless of course you don't want WindowsXP.

Unless of course you don't want WindowsXP.

Or already have it

Christ this thread has altered! Started with a question on self-build or buy new and ended up with everyone going all techie and showing off! BHuilding yourself doesn't mean cheaper but gives freedom to choose spec, but buying new offers good value and warranties if all goes wrong.

hehe - Geforce or ATI ?

From experience and using intels in a work environment i did find the amd's were much better. Never had a problem with jumpers, only thing i noticed was on first boot you need to power off and back on for the bios to detect settings but asides that its a breeze.

Warrantys come with the individual parts, however they are all different hehe

My main pc is a homebuilt one running an athlon xp 2700, the fastest this mobo can take due to its 333 fsb limitation. Has been running now since just after that cpu came out, and I paid a fortune for it. At work I use a P4 3.06GHZ hyperthreading jobbie and I think its slower than the athlon, I do video and graphics, web, mp3 and all sorts of stuff.

Have just built a system based on the sempron 2800 which is in use as a pvr system, thats all it does so that processor is ideal.

My next system will be based on the athlon 64 processor, for me its amd all the way.

hehe - Geforce or ATI ?

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot between them for the most part...so whichever is available and is competitively priced...

Generally customers seem happy with onboard graphics, if they know about enough to ask about the graphics adapter they usually have their own preference!

Never had a problem with jumpers,

I wouldn't expect you to! However, if you'd never built a computer before, would you think a self-setting slot-in chip would be better than a processor which requires jumpers to be set to be made to make it run at the correct speed (and where the wrong setting can knacker components)?

Especially if you make the assumption a lot of people do that the numbers refer to the clock speed - people are quite disappointed to find their Athlon 3200 only runs at 2.2GHz! And when you start explaining about the three-pipeline FPU, branch prediction, etc. they *then* decide they won't to get technical...

Don't get me wrong, I do think the Athlon is a very good processor, has great potential and performance at a great price, and is a great "hobby" processor for playing with - however, reliability is a big factor, and AMD don't seem to have that cracked yet... :(

Rob.

My main pc is a homebuilt one running an athlon xp 2700' date=' the fastest this mobo can take due to its 333 fsb limitation. Has been running now since just after that cpu came out, and I paid a fortune for it. At work I use a P4 3.06GHZ hyperthreading jobbie and I think its slower than the athlon, I do video and graphics, web, mp3 and all sorts of stuff.

Have just built a system based on the sempron 2800 which is in use as a pvr system, thats all it does so that processor is ideal.

My next system will be based on the athlon 64 processor, for me its amd all the way.[/quote']

Don't really think that this is my sort of thread ... .............Manny , I'm sure you are right , bit I ain't got a clue what the hell you are talking about .... .......and what on earth is a mobo ...?

Me to Pete, you funny bugger...haven't even bothered to read any of it ..apart from your post...yer like a bloody magnet

No disrespect to those who are interested but.....what's wrong with paper, quill and abacus!

Bloody electric sheds!!

No disrespect to those who are interested but.....what's wrong with paper' date=' quill and abacus!

[/quote']

The margins (profit, not blue lines) on them are pretty poor...

Rob.

I haven't made any profit on this heap of electric junk!

Oh, apart from joining BRISKODA and meeting some hilarious characters whom I'm going to meet 3 weeks tomorrow!!!

I would recommend building one, i got my tft 17 monitor from amazon for 209 quid and it has a refresh rate of 14m/s which is good for playing games, also a good website for components is

www.computerorbit.co.uk

very good prices

Get a Shuttle XPC (SN41G2 v2, for example). You get a VERY smart looking case (smaller than a shoebox) finished in lovely brushed aluminium, silent PSU, M/B (bespoke) with onboard audio and dualhead video (Geforce 4MX) output with an nForce2 chipset onboard. You also get Shuttle's patented ICE cooling technology for the CPU. Add an AMD Athlon XP (3GHz in my case), 512MB DDR, a 160GB 8MB cache HDD, Sony DVD-RW dual layered, all for about

AMD 64 all the way.

I've never heard about them not being as well built as the P4s.

Ive had 5 AMD chips so far, and theyve all been brilliant. Especially the ones that clocked from 1833mhz (PR 2500) to 2450mhz (PR ????)!.

Personally, I would only buy AMD for at least the foreseeable future.

Have a look on here: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk and you will see how much support AMD has amongst enthusiasts who like to build (and play with) pcs.

Hope this helps

Have a look on here: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk and you will see how much support AMD has amongst enthusiasts who like to build (and play with) pcs.

Yes, if you are an enthusiast who wants to play with a PC, the Athlon is a good choice. However, if you just want to build a reliable PC that works and you don't have to mess around with, the P4 is better - with all due respect, 5 CPUs isn't an especially large number to extrapolate from...

Rob.

There is very little difference in the cost of building your own PC compared to buying one. However, if you build a PC you will know how it works and gradually when things go wrong you begin to know where to look rather than taking it down to PC World and getting ripped off with their usually wrong information. Be aware that when buying a mobo, buy a good one and match the ram to the board, i.e. look on the mobo website and see the ram that has been tested with the board. Todays mobo's are engineered quite tightly and non tested ram can cause you problems. Also, be careful of the size of the hard drive as some bios's do not like HD's over about 160gig.

And one last thing

READ THE MOBO INSTRUCTIONS!

regards

WOL