I'm not saying that Intels are hopeless, I do think that the top-end Pentium 4's are very good for what they are performance-wise, but at the same time I don't think they're worth paying an extra £200-£300 for either.Reeves wrote:Thanks for all the clear details, Neil. I understand that you are saying Intel processors are hopeless, but alot of people are talking like I am buying just a processor. I am simply choosing options from a website so the shop build it and deliver it (a bit like Dell but not Dell).
If you're on a budget, the Sempron 64-bits are actually very good value for money, but of course they're on Socket 754, which had only been out for about six months before Socket 939 came along. You can quite easily build one of these for less than £100 reusing some of your current hardware and it'll easily outperform what you have now.Anyway, as alot of you are recommending AMD processors, take what I have said in the first post, and replace Celeron and Pentium 4 with AMD Sempron and Athlom 64. Which is best for me?
The full-blown Athlon 64-bits on 939 boards are the AMD equivalent of Pentium 4's and also cheaper to boot. The top end AMD processors (including the FX series) easily outperform the P4 in most areas, but the only thing is, the processor on its own cost c.£600.
