The Dell's board could potentially accept a Core 2 Duo, which would perform a lot faster obviously.

However, if you can only accept between these two and are unable to upgrade for quite a while (as in, foreseeably at least another year), then I would go with the AMD because it'd be much faster htan that Pentium D, and you're more likely to be able to get one of the AM2-based Phenom processors to work on the system; by comparison, you'd already have to throw away and start new on the intel side, as they're making it so that the Penryn core chips they're coming out with will only work on that new P35 chipset with DDR3 RAM.

Also, what are the video choices with each of these systems? The intel one could very well be stuck with some intel GMA stuff, which would effectively kill any performance it might have had. Even a Core 2 QX6800 looks positively worthless when it's paired up with some intel GMA 950 video.

codezer0

Codezer0 makes some good points for a system builder, but tubbyc sounds more like an end-user to me. While many people build their own PC, it can become time-intensive and frustrating when you put in all the research and potential troubleshooting involved. Plus, you have no support if you can't figure out how to get it to work outside online forums (the manufacturers like to blame other components, like calling the MoBo manufacturer to be told its the graphics card, the Graphics card manufacturer to be told its the memory, etc.).

tubbyc, based on what you have said so far, I would consider a specialist, unless budget is a major factor. Alienware or IBuyPower are going to have higher quality internal components that you can build off of if you decide to do some tinkering yourself later on. Dell and Compaq have custom motherboards and it can be difficult to find specification on them if you want to make any modifications inside, such as using the unlabeled USB headers (argh!). Make sure they have strong customer support and the specs you want.

Best of luck.

Why do many people flush the urinal as soon as they walk up to it? Shouldn't they flush after they take care of business?

I know it's a weird question and may get modded, but I've never figured this one out and I'm not going to just ask some guy standing at the urinal. That'd be even weirder.

Thanks, all. 

Woot!! Australia gets it first 8)

All I care about is that they included the original transforming sound and the original voice actors. It doesn't bother me if the movie flops.

selbie

They're retaining Optimus Prime's original voice and the transforming sound, but Megatron will be getting a new voice, sadly.

After my wife - not a fan - saw the full theater trailer she leaned over to me and quietly whispered in awe: "That looks awesome."

1. Perfect Blue (awesome plot, great animation)
2. Akira (revolutionary animation, great story)
3. Ninja Scroll (just plain fun)
4. Evangelion (awesome awesomeness)
5. Escaflowne (fun)

ive never seen any of them

icstars2

Go rent Transformers: The Movie (the original), a masterpiece of animation. Then, check out Galactus, who is apparantly unmarried.

You'll be glad you did. 

I'm feeling inspired by the Transformers and Fantastic Four trailers I saw prior to Spider-Man 3 this past weekend. Ripping off my previous irrelevant poll (Death Star vs. Unicron), who would win in a face-off:

Galactus the Devourer of Worlds or Unicron the, uh, Devourer of Worlds?

Galactus is the purple guy behind the silver surfer on the left, galactus is the giant transforming planet on the right.

They're not, that is why nobody could give you a good reason. You use the same software on a PC as you would for a Mac for such things. duxup

Back when Windows 3.1 was out Macs had a more user-friendly interface than PCs, quickly becoming popular with artists that wanted the tools but not the crappy interface of older versions of the Windows OS. Today there is no discernable difference. Duxup knows his stuff. 

[QUOTE="mdcw9"]

well i can tell you that an am2 board will last you a while due to the compatibility of quad cores, as quad core should last about 1-2 years for you extreme gamers XD... but quite a bit longer for those not too bothered. Im not sure on the intel side... i havnt heard any news on their new quad core, released early 2008.

 

jfelisario

just some info for ya with intel's apparent "late" roadmap,,,

Intel Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) CPU is expected to be released in Q3 and is expected to be based on a 45nm process. Yorkfield will be the successor to Kentsfield and feature two 6MB L2 caches (one cache for two cores), making a total of 12MB L2 (2x6MB). Yorkfield is also expected to feature the 50 additional Penryn New Instructions (SSE4) and feature a clock speed of 3.46 to 3.73Ghz. Yorkfield will be paired with the Bearlake chipset family and will feature a 1333Mhz or 1066Mhz FSB speed.

Intel Core 2 Duo (Wolfdale) desktop CPU is expected to be released in Q3. Wolfdale is the Dual Core version of Yorkfield based on the Penryn core and featuring 6MB of shared L2 cache running on a 45nm process. Wolfdale is expected to feature clock speeds of up to 4Ghz and can run on a 1333Mhz or 1066Mhz FSB speed. The TDP of Wolfdale is expected to be 57W.

Also, initial samples are coming to the press late June, and NDA will be lifted July 15th, so we can see some benchies by then. Yep, 45nm, SSE4, yummy clocks and 1333 MHz FSB and low TDP, seemingly ahead of the curve Intel is.

Courtesy of Mike's Hardware and corroborated through other sources.

But what motherboard will they run on? Will they be compatible with the current generation of motherboards? If not, I might as well go AMD because of the AM2 and its (potentially) longer life span that the socket 775.

[QUOTE="mdcw9"]

lol intel fan-boys... stupid people thinking intel are still superior.

Listen up people and listen good. Until intel price cut their items... amd is beating intel in the performance per doller/pound. The fx-60 can be bought for the same price as the e6400 at this time, giving you double the performance. The e6400 is on par with the amd 4600, and the e6600 is on par with the fx 62... however the e6600 is that little bit better.

But... even though intel are good for performance... they are deffinatly not better on bugdet, also, you are NOT considering future technology. Soon, very soon, amd will be releasing their new range of CPU's, all with l3 cache. This will also include dual cores, and they will wipe C2D off the performance meter. There will be quad cores and octo cores and better still... these new processors will be compatible with the am2 board. Intels stratagy of sticking two dual cores together will never compete, and so intel users will have to wait until 2008-2009 in order to see some kind of decent quad core. The best part is, is that all vista programs will use all the 4-8 cores and new games which use multi-tasking will use the 4 cores too. (people get confused when people say "multi-tasking". I have seen many say: "But games can only just use 2 cores" WRONG! if they can use 2 cores, they can use 4 or 8. Its just sharing data out and sperating them equally between cores, and it doesnt matter how many cores there are (to an extent)

sSubZerOo

WTH are you talking about, why don't you actually look up reviews? the e4300 THE LOWEST intel dual core processor out does the 4600 in multiple tests...

ATM like I said earlier the intel systems are the biggest bang for the buck. With the e4300 alone you can easilly overclock it to levels that out due top AMD picks.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e6400_review/ and here is proof of your bs your spewing.. the e6400 easilly matchs and some time over powers the FX 62 a chip far more expensive then the 6400.. Not to mention the chip can overclock to insane rates..

Now not sure for future tech we will have to wait till it comes out. But as of right now the Intel duo chips have the biggest bang for the bucks..

Woah, sSubZerOo, you generally make a good point, but you could be nicer about it to mdcw9. I agree that the Intel chips outperform today, but my current PC has lasted eight years because I've been able to upgrade the processor, RAM, hard drive, etc. I'd like my next PC to be as upgradable, and that means a solid motherboard. Unfortunately, it means I have to pick between AMD and Intel, the crux of the issue!

Keep in mind, my wife and I have a house and (hopefully) a child on the way in the next year or so. :oops: This is a budget system that needs to be budget upgradable.

Does any of this even matter? Is the CPU even a bottleneck versus the graphics card? If so, I'll just go AMD for purposes of budget. 

Thanks everyone!