[alex]

Originally Posted by skinnyman9000 lol. I'd just like the say thanks in advance, you have been a great help so far. Although i've posted the same spec list on another computer forum and the general concensus on there is that i should be running an Intel system as opposed to an AMD one, namely running the E6750, this will obviously require a different Motherboard. A user posted up a comparison chart showing the Intel vs the 6000+ in a variety of different tasks, and to be honest the intel was 10-30% faster on average, which kinda throws everything back into question again, oops. I've also been advised to use a 400GB western digital drive as opposed to the Samsung. Any thoughts on the above comments?

The E6750 is also around 15% more expensive than the AMD chip (using the site prices that you're using). And you'll need a 1333mhz fsb capable motherboard, which at the moment are slightly more expensive than the 1066mhz variety, on a like for like basis.

The core2 scores higher generally because of the 4mb cache. A larger cache makes no noticeable difference when gaming. As you quoted this as your main usage I didn't see the point in quoting a core 2 cpu.

But personally I am a fan of the core2 architecture and prefer them over the AMD cpu's.

One good thing in getting the E6750 though (and associated motherboard) if you'll more than likely gain support for 1066mhz ram, giving you that choice. Automatic recognition of such ram is of course motherboard dependent.

Regarding the hdd, no. Samsung is faster, quieter and runs cooler. What reason did the person give regarding the WD?

[skinnyman9000]

Originally Posted by alex The E6750 is also around 15% more expensive than the AMD chip (using the site prices that you're using). And you'll need a 1333mhz fsb capable motherboard, which at the moment are slightly more expensive than the 1066mhz variety, on a like for like basis. The core2 scores higher generally because of the 4mb cache. A larger cache makes no noticeable difference when gaming. As you quoted this as your main usage I didn't see the point in quoting a core 2 cpu. But personally I am a fan of the core2 architecture and prefer them over the AMD cpu's. One good thing in getting the E6750 though (and associated motherboard) if you'll more than likely gain support for 1066mhz ram, giving you that choice. Automatic recognition of such ram is of course motherboard dependent. Regarding the hdd, no. Samsung is faster, quieter and runs cooler. What reason did the person give regarding the WD?

They stated that the Western digital was faster, and so was closer to the original raptor drive that i quoted.

If i go for the Intel system i can get the processor for £116 from Dabs, just £7 more than the AMD. I can find a similar Motherboard to run the system, and i can then upgrade from the Corsair 800Mhz ram to the OCZ 1066Mhz memory.

Question is, which would be better, the 6000+, motherboard and 800Mhz corsair memory

OR

The E6750, with motherboard, and the 1066Mhz OCZ memory.

Oh god, so many choices! Im guessing once i get playing i will see no difference anyway, lol.

My brother is also under the impression that an ATI 512MB graphics card will perform better than the 640MB GeForce one.

[alex]

Out of the two you've quoted, the Core2 setup should be the better one. But please ensure you get a decent mobo.

Don't want to cause a family dispute here but the 640mb GTS trounces the 2900XT in frame rates, and (importantly) the ability to game at high AA settings.

They're pretty much on par at a resolution of 1280x1024 at this resolution they aren't really tested.

But getting upto 1680x1050 (where they're meant to be used) is where the GTS comes into it's own.

You'll be compromising with the ATI going forward (DX10 gaming) but, and considering the games you quoted you play now, either card will do. For future proofing though, and to give yourself a wider choice of games/detail settings, I'd advise the GTS.

The 2900 also requires around 30w more from your psu, and runs hotter and louder.

I have a 640mb GTS that I've oc'd slightly and it's happy gaming at the 1920x1200 resolution of my monitor on the games I play (Empire at war, C&C 3/zero hour).

[skinnyman9000]

Such as this one:
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=27303

S its 6000+, ASUS motherboard, and corsair 800Mhz memory
Or for about £30 i can get the Intel, the above motherboard, and the 1066Mhz OCZ memory.

Hmm, i think that is the final choice, im happier with the rest of the system.

[alex]

[quote=skinnyman9000;24481]They stated that the Western digital was faster, and so was closer to the original raptor drive that i quoted.

quote]

Thats all well and good but the Samsung is proven to be faster than the raptor 150gb, which is faster itself than the 36gb raptor you quoted.

[skinnyman9000]

Well ive priced them up and i can build the AMD system for £1050 or the Intel system for £1100. I suppose for the extra £50 i'd may aswell build the Intel system.

I'll post up the system tomorrow and im off down the pub now.

Cheers for all the input so far guys