define pricey... currently the most expensive boards out there right now have intel chipsets... and they lack SLi and Xfire... (and I mean desktop boards not server boards, though inte's serverboards are also overly pricey, why use 1 600$ intel board when you can have 2 blades on an AMD setup...) http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....0000&Submit=ENE then look at the cheapest boards... http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....0000&Submit=ENE they might be crap but... still proves the point
If you wait for your processor, you could get the new Intel thats comming out. Ahh, i ment the AMD mobos are cheaper, but the processors are kinda pricey.
Both have cheap motherboards. Example: PC Chips P21G... Socket 775 LGA. $40ish. Merged Post: By the way, essence, there really isnt a point in looking for too much right now. All the prices are going to drop this summer (or at least most), new motherboards will be coming, etc. I'd just wait til after the Core 2 Duo release to see what happens to prices. Merged Post: By the way, essence, there really isnt a point in looking for too much right now. All the prices are going to drop this summer (or at least most), new motherboards will be coming, etc. I'd just wait til after the Core 2 Duo release to see what happens to prices.
I disagree.. atm AMD for either to me..dont like Intel really but soon Intel will take the lead..then we'll see with the other new amd cpu'..
I use an intel, never had an problems with it, works great. AMD's I've used however are also nice though. It all comes down to this. I have stock in Intel. :lol:
ass backwords... office productivity goes to AMD at this time and for server use the integration of the memor controller onto the CPU and the use of HTT make the opteron a superior CPU, more super computers use opteron blade arrays than Xeon arrays for a reason. As it is right now with Intel's conroe set to utterly dominate on the desktop and woodcrest for the server market, AMD will only be competative on the large array server market(again see integrated memory controller, when you have 8-64+ CPUs sharing 2-4 memory controllers you'll have latency issues and the bandwidth of the traditional FSB will be a limit too) and for the record, intel is a far better financial investement, they have sheer market share, which always wins when profits are involved the statement you made was more relevant 3 years ago when Intel had out a 3GHz xeon as top CPU and AMD had only a 1.8GHz opteron(the opteron only performed comparatively well in database type work)... now it's a 3.0GHz opteron(or 2.6GHz with a 2.8GHz model coming soon in a dual core comparison) vs. a 3.8GHz Xeon(3.73GHz dual core)... the Xeon is at a complete disadvantage only capable of competing in niche markets
actually, now that I think about it, the person who said intel for business/server was technically correct, Intel's Itaniums are very useful for large corperate databases(and more or less only such databases)... sure they might cost 10 times as much per unit of performance and require proprietory non-x86 software(though it is generally available with several linux and windows distributions having ports), but performancewise they are king... I hereby retract my bull----ty statement, I shouoldn't have even considered the thought that someone would be stupid enough to compare last gen p4s to current gen k8s when intel has two superior architectures in the works that are allready being produced(the pseudo-RISC based Itanium2 akaIA-64)
LOL. Wow sineplex, please stop spamming and talking about stuff that you have no clue about. Intel's are the hott ones, AMD's are known for less power useage, therefor less heat. That had to be the most... wrong statement i have ever heard.
