quote:

Anyone recommend a board to run same chips (P4 Prescott 3ghz & 3.2's ) but have 6 or 8 SATA ports onboard and also able to run SATA 2? Or am I asking too much here, heh.

quote:

From what I understand/read recently, AMD are better for gaming where as Intel are better for multitasking, as I am a major multitasker and not a gamer Intel seem more the chips for me.

quote:

As for MOBO's and SATA technology, I gather the way things are it's just best to get the P4P800-E Deluxe one from ASUS till the market settles with the new technolgy and SATA/2 support becomes more popular.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BobbyDouglas

- In the US, the price difference makes AMD just about better for everything. Both make good processors, but AMD's are sold for a lot less than the equivalent Intel processor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BobbyDouglas

AMD x2 dual core

quote:

it's just best to get the P4P800-E Deluxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitka

Hmphh... Taz dismisses my recommendation (made over six months ago!) and an hour and half later decides it is the best after all, but gives no kudos or thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taz

Right, thanks Kitka, have looked at that board and it may be alright for current use but now my needs are a bit different. I can use ASUS P4P800-E DELUXE MOBO for my lesser machine but for Venger III I am looking for something more SATA orientated.

quote:

/nudges you so you read

quote:

/sends you some Minstrels Air express

quote:

Quick search on Ebuyer shows me they are double to triple the price of what I am currently running/will be running, so ummm the benefits are what for that extra cash? Do they make coffee in the morning for me or?

quote:

I'll have a read 2moz, M*A*S*H is about to start and me sleepy, so checkign stats and figures out now would be a bad idea.

quote:

/flounces off in a huff as everyone seems to be eating my Minstrels which I carelessly left lying around somewhere here on OF

quote:

ICC SYSMark 2004
"The user renders a 3D model to a bitmap using 3ds max 5.1, while preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. Then the user renders a 3D animation in a vector graphics format."
AMD: 247
Intel: 206

2D Content Creation
"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5."
AMD: 319
Intel: 252

Web Publishing
"The user extracts content from an archive using WinZip 8.1. Meanwhile, he uses Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics file. He modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final movie with the special effects is then compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 series in a format that can be broadcast over broadband Internet. The web site is given the final touches in Dreamweaver MX and the system is scanned by VirusScan 7.0."
AMD: 256
Intel: 182

Mozilla + Media Encoder
AMD: 445 (lower is better)
Intel: 666

DivX 6 with AutoGK
Armed with the DivX 6 and the AutoGK front end for Gordian Knot, we took all of the processors to task at encoding a chapter out of Pirates of the Caribbean. We set AutoGK to give us 75% quality of the original DVD rip and did not encode audio; all of the DivX 6 settings were left at default.
AMD: 44.5
Intel: 32.6

Windows Media Encoder 9
To finish up our look at Video Encoding performance, we have two tests both involving Windows Media Encoder 9. The first test is WorldBench 5's WMV9 encoding test.
AMD: 303 (lower is better)
Intel: 386

cont.
Once we crank up the requirements a bit and start doing some HD quality encoding under WMV9, the single core performance drops dramatically:
AMD: 3.54
Intel: 2.14

3dsmax 6
For the next 3dsmax test, we used version 6 of the program and ran the SPECapc rendering tests to truly stress these CPUs. Since there's not much new to report here, we're only going to report the Rendering Composite score.
AMD: 2.32
Intel: 1.44

quote:

There's not much to say here other than that the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is the clear choice for any user at this price point. What you give up in single threaded performance is more than made up for by the improvements in multitasking and multithreaded application performance.

Bit by bit, AMD is eating away at any possible recommendation that we'd have for the Pentium D. While the Pentium D 820 is still our recommendation at the sub-$300 mark, if your budget can handle it, we'd strongly recommend going for the Athlon 64 X2 3800+.

As for overclocking, we had no problems reaching 2.46GHz with our Athlon 64 3800+ sample using standard air cooling. The overclocking wasn't as impressive as what we saw with the Toledo based Athlon 64 4200+, but we will save a final conclusion on overclocking until we get more Manchester based processors in house.

We really didn't want to see AMD become a more expensive CPU manufacturer, and with the X2 3800+, we finally have a more sensibly priced dual core option. The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment.

quote:

/hates to think what you would have done if it had have been the vodka that Taz air expressed to AU

/quickly ducks, and runs away munching the minstrels

quote:

ORIGINAL: womble

quote:

I'll have a read 2moz, M*A*S*H is about to start and me sleepy, so checkign stats and figures out now would be a bad idea.

Right Taz! You have to get your priorities right!

quote:

Bobby, having mooched over all that info a discussion has taken place here and we may go that way next year or we may not, depending on prices and such and also what develops in the mean time with SATA/SATA 2 and MOBO's.