Viewing Thread:
"Upgrading/future proofing (for a while)"

I want to build a new computer. Or rather, I need to keep up with current technology in my computer, as well as wanting to play a few newer games. But the problem is that my motherboard doesn't really support many new technologies. It has no PCI-E slots, only two SATA ports and not enough USB ports for my needs even though I already have a 7-port USB hub.

So I want to upgrade my motherboard. Upgrading the motherboard isn't like upgrading other parts where you just remove the part in question and replace it with a newer one. The motherboard governs everything connected to it, especially in my case where new mobos support completely different connectors which aren't supported by pretty much all of my current hardware. I also need a firewire port, seeing as I'm studying Interactive Media.

So, really, multiple graphics cards is just an extra thing which is currently interesting me for the gaming (and perhaps production) side of things. Is it really worth it? How exactly does SLI or CrossFire work? If I set up two cards with, say, 512MB of onboard RAM together, is that like having a 1GB card? What things od I have to consider and how much of a benefit will it be?

I'm currently looking at two motherboards: the GA-MA770-S3 and the GA-MA790FX-DS5.

Also, whilst I'm at it, is AM2+ a better choice than LGA775? I want my computer to be relatively future proof, seeing as the current one only lasted about 3 years before needing this upgrade due to lack of hardware support. I intend to install a quad core processor, but I may not do that straight away. I think, instead of jumping in straight to quad core, I might settle for a dual-core processor and then upgrade when quads become a bit cheaper and more abundant.

Many thanks for any input. :)

Well £200 easily buys you a quad core with some left over. If you have the money I cant think of any real reason not to buy one. And that leaves you with Intel, as the AMD Quads arent very good at all for the money.
Or does the £200 include motherboard and memory too?

And I think the ATI are better graphics cards at around the £100 mark. However when faced with a similar choice recently, I still bought an Nvidia instead because the power consumption on the ATI cards is awful. Thats a matter of personal preference though.
From that point on though as you spend more, the Nvidia are better because nothing competes with the 512MB 8800GT on price vs performance when its possible to buy a stock version for <£150.

Well I'm hoping to spend about £100-120 on a graphics card, and perhaps £150-190 on a CPU. In fact, I may as well just stretch to the £200 mark for a CPU.

Obviously if I can get two very similar cards for similar prices from two brands, then I'll go for the nVidia one, because I do agree that nVidia are better. I just don'tthink they're that much better for the amount extra that you would normally find their equivalent cards costing.

Ultimately its a pointless discussion without some sort of guide of what you want to spend. Some ATI cards are worthwhile at certain price points but others are a waste of money if theres an Nvidia card for the same price that performs better.

Well okay then. I must admit that I did prefer the motherboards centred around Intel technologies. It's just the cost ofthe processor for what you get.

So, what differences am I likely to notice between similar CPUs and graphics cards of different brands? With the graphics card side of the argument, as long as it plays new games smoothly I don't really mind. Equivalent nVidia graphics cards cost more than their ATI counterparts, sometimes up to double the price. Yet unless you're one of those people who like to look at charts of how each one is performing, a difference is barely noticeable, if at all.

The same appears to be true of CPUs from what I see. So what noticeable improvements are there that are great enough to warrant spending so much extra?

Twain you need to be comparing items in the same price bracket, comparisons of clock speeds arent helpful at all as Eccles already said. In the same price bracket as the AMD you mentioned is the E6750. I doubt you'll find many benchmarks suggesting the AMD is a better purchase. Also Intel have a new range just out (E8xxx) which are similarly priced, I've no doubt the performance is improved further.

And as ncrs has added, dont forget power usage and temperatures. Saving 20 pounds on CPU price doesnt count for much if you have to spend that money on better cooling & larger power supplies.

I'll second Eccles, I will only buy a Core Duo at the moment they run nice and cool and nice and fast.

It not all about clock speed any more though. There's a lot more in it with cache size, instruction sets, thermal efficiency etc, and Intel seem to be winning at the moment.

I guess AMDs are the same then?

At Overclockers there's an Intel Core 2 Duo 3GHz for £176, or an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3.2GHz for £111.

With core duos and quads the clock speed is per core.

I'm still favouring AMD. I will not be overclocking, and have been shopping around and probably won't be using multiple graphics cards now either. I had a thought which changed my mind: most good-spec graphics cards will play the best games currently out at the moment, and any newer games will still be playable even if not at top quality. By the time I want a new graphics card, I'll just replace the one I have, rather than adding to an aging one,

Intel are just too expensive. Or am I misunderstanding the product listings? When a CPU clock speed is quoted (3GHz for example), does that refer to the combined frequency or does it mean "per core"?