I'm putting together a new computer. My old one is getting a little long in the tooth:

2.4 GHz P4 - 2 x 512 Kingston PC2300 (or 2100, forget) - 9800 PRO

I want a computer that will run Studio 8/Maya/Adobe Suite (video editing and PShop mostly) great.

I've been considering an Athon X2 4400+ Toledo or an Opteron 170 because of the 2MB of L2 cache and whatnot. I'd pair this with 2 gigs of PC3200 DDR. And I'd stick all of this in an Antec Sonata II if that works out (because I'm storing my old compy in it now to test it out, gonna stick the old comp back in the Enlight case when I figure out the new one).

I've done some research and some people say that the 939 socket is on its way out, and that AMD will be supporting DDR2 next year. The only problem is is that I really need to get a new computer now, because I'm looking to use one for my studio schoolwork (the old one) and get a new one to use at home (and hopefully not be obsolete for 4-5 years). This is not going to be a PC primarily for gaming, but I'll game on it a bit (probably get another 9800 PRO or equivalent price card to stick in the new PC). I just want the best, solid PC foundation that I can get for around $700-800 (RAM + CPU + MoBo) with a dual core. Also, being dual core would be nice to agree with future applications.

Right now I'm looking at:

($466.00) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Dual Core Processor Model ADA4400CDBOX
($194.00) CORSAIR XMS 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200)
($89.99) ASUS A8N5X Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 ATX AMD Motherboard

What I really want to know is:

Does anyone know the real pros and cons of the X2 processors vs. the equivalent Opterons?
Am I going to be crippled by not supporting DDR2 RAM when all the new AMDs use it next year?
Is there a setup that is drastically better for this price range?
Is there a great (non-SLI, don't need it) motherboard for this kind of processor I'm not seeing?

Any advice would really be appreciated, this is only the 2nd computer I've picked out and put together.

1/28/2006 11:00:48 PM

Go with the Opteron 170. Double the cache, lot better overclocker. And it costs less.

In short, no you will not be crippled due to lack of DDR2 support. A dual core, dual channel ddr setup will last you at least a couple of generations.

No.

No, the nForce 4 is the way to go. Asus makes a good board.

Don't waste your money on XMS memory, unless you REALLY want to overclock the bejesus out of it. You'll be better off with 4gb of value ram, especially Abode Suite and Maya.

Get a raid setup. Especially if you are doing heavy rendering/video editing.

1/29/2006 1:06:47 AM

Opterons and X2s are both great processors. Your question really depends on whether you a hardcore OCer and how much you can spend.

If you don't hardcore OC either processor will work for you, if you do OC a lot than you will want the Opteron due to the better quality silica and therefore better OCing.

Prices can vary, but you can get an X2 4400(2.2GHz) for around $400 while the Opteron 175(2.2GHz) will be much more expensive, the Opteron 170(2.0GHz) is about $400.

If you don't OC alot and pricing is an issue go with the X2 4400 for the extra .2GHz, if you plan on OCing alot or you just have cash to blow then go with the Opterons.


[Edited on January 29, 2006 at 2:45 AM. Reason : .]

1/29/2006 2:42:31 AM

double the cache.

200mhz less is worth double the cache. Especially in his usage. Go with the Opteron 170, and clock it up to 2.2 or 2.4ghz.

1/29/2006 6:17:53 AM

I don't plan on OCing at all, I just want a good computer that's nice and solidly fast stock. So I guess the 4400 X2 is the best proc for that, huh? And XMS memory is geared towards OCers, so I should look up Kingston stuff for just plain vanilla memory that isn't a waste of money.

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I was worried that I hadn't done enough research.

[edit] Oh yeah, I'm looking at the 4400 over the 3800 because it has 2MB of cache, just like the opterons.

[Edited on January 29, 2006 at 8:46 AM. Reason : buh derp]

1/29/2006 8:37:52 AM

hmm, well if they both ahve 2 mb of cache.... then it really doesn't matter which ones you pick. I like the benchmarks for high end content creation that I see from both lines, so whichever is good.

memory doesn't mattar TOO much if you're not overclocking it, although low latency stuff will give you slightly better performance and really shitty ram will make your system unstable. but if you don't go with the shitty stuff then you should be fine, and for your useage more is better than lower latency.

1/29/2006 12:19:27 PM

NO the processors are identical, same amount of cache.

He wants the 4400 not the 4200.

[Edited on January 29, 2006 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2006 6:06:24 PM

huh, who said he wanted the 4200? who are you responding to?

1/29/2006 6:26:37 PM

either way it may benefit you to wait, when the am2 drops 939 stuff should drop alot in price but then again it looks like money is no object for you.

yea those are both awesome cpus , benchmarks are salmost identical. i would go with whichever u can get chaeper


even though u don't need sli y not get it for a lil more since u may want to upgrade in teh future... i'm selling a brand new in the box asus a8n-sli for $110. pm me if u're interested.

1/29/2006 7:33:33 PM

I need this comp ASAP is the point. Need 2 computers so I can stick one at studio (old one). My priority is getting a computer that is as fast as possible right now without breaking the bank completely. I'm now leaning towards the Opteron 170 because it has the same amount of cache as the 4400, and 200 MHz really doesn't mean a lot to me. But I heard on some other boards that it needs ECC RAM or something?

1/29/2006 8:04:09 PM

^The socket 940 Opeterons need ECC registered RAM, the socket 939 Opterons don't.

1/29/2006 8:20:15 PM

I was responding to Noen and his reference to the 170 having double the cache.

1/29/2006 8:23:53 PM

^^ Does that mean I can use plain old PC3200 RAM?

1/29/2006 8:32:36 PM

Yes you can just use PC3200....but I would go with the 4400 for the extra speed since you don't OC any. Getting the Opteron would not make sense especially since the 175 is much much more expensive.

1/29/2006 9:08:29 PM

Ah, I see. Yeah, I was thinking about getting the Opteron 170 ($400) over the 4400 ($460). Less speed, but I wonder if there's a real advantage to getting an Opteron over a X2. I guess there really isn't if I don't plan to OC?

1/29/2006 9:16:13 PM

^^you are correct, oversight on my part. Sorry about that statepkt

^yes, you should really get the 170 and just clock it up though. Save 60 bucks, have the 4400 equivalent. It's trivial to do.

[Edited on January 29, 2006 at 9:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2006 9:18:09 PM

Update:

($110) A8N-SLI from that guy in the thread
($129) Leadtek PX6600GT TDH Geforce 6600GT 128MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail
($168) Kingston ValueRAM 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered System Memory Model KVR400X64C3AK2/2G - Retail

($466) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Dual Core Processor Model ADA4400CDBOX - Retail

or

($415) AMD Opteron 170 Denmark 1GHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Dual Core Processor - Retail

and I'm thinking a Zalman Flower on top of the CPU. I'm thinking this looks pretty good so far. Thanks for all your help. Now I'm just debating the Opteron or the 4400. I try to stay as far from OCing as possible, so I'm leaning towards the 4400. I know it may be trivial, but like I said, I try to stay out of that stuff. If there are other advantages to the Opteron though, I'd be more game. My mind isn't quite made up though, so who knows.

[Edit:] Okay, I'm retarded. Opteron is the way to go. It has the capability of the 4400, if I want it to. If not, I'm still richer $50. :p

[Edited on January 29, 2006 at 10:42 PM. Reason : I'm retarded]

1/29/2006 10:29:26 PM

I was actually debating the same issue....

I however managed to get the 4400 for 400 and the cheapest I can get the 170 is about 405, so for my case I leaned towards the 4400 as I don't plan on OCing to much and it was cheaper.

1/29/2006 11:07:56 PM

But what's the raw advantage of the Opteron if it's a so called workstation CPU, I mean, is there something else to it? More stable chip? What suits it to "professional applications" like AMD is hyping?

BTW, I'm ordering through Newegg and getting the rest of the crap at Intrex to save money, shipping tends to stack up when I order from like 4 vendors.

1/29/2006 11:59:27 PM

pay $30 more for XMS memory

1/30/2006 12:21:08 AM

Keep your existing system, its fine.

1/30/2006 12:42:43 AM

^ Yeah, it runs those things great, but I need to get another comp so I can move the old one into studio. So I'm getting one that will last me a while. And, while I'm at it, get something I can live with comfortably.

1/30/2006 12:51:04 AM

Opteron's are more stable for OCing because they are tested more thoroughly by AMD b/c they are meant to be on servers and workstations that are on 24/7 with no chance of failure. But if you don't OC than Opteron's won't do anything for you, for you the X2 4400 and 170 are the same except the X2 is a bit faster.

Check your PM


[Edited on January 30, 2006 at 1:51 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2006 1:47:13 AM

I wouldn't hold back the processor with a 6600gt. I would go with a 7800gt for ~$279, since you aren't skimping on anything else and that'd be one less thing to upgrade in a year

1/30/2006 5:36:47 AM

^why. He is using it for content creation, and games on the side.

1/30/2006 3:42:22 PM