Argh this is madness! It's so much more complicated to make a new PC compared with 2/3 years ago!
Here's where I am currently:
I think I'm going down the AMD route - after holding out hopes for the new Intel processors, I read this (http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/10/intel_moves_from_dual_core_to_double_core/page11.html) which said the following about the Intel 900 series:
What the new chip cannot do, however, is pose a real threat right now to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 family in the area of performance leadership. The Pentium D 900 certainly is the much better product when compared to the 800 series, but it mainly introduces a number of improvements that were overdue.
So sounds like the processor I hoped would be an AMD beater...isn't!
Now the only problem is - AMD are due to release new stuff in April 2006 (M2 stuff), which includes DDR2 and I think virtualisation (altho Intel have got that VIIV stuff as part of their new range and DDR2 already).
Do I wait or not??!
If it was just a speed increase I wouldn't bother waiting, but seeing as it'd be a new socket and DDR2...I'm quite tempted to wait.
Although I still haven't been able to play Half-Life 2 I got a YEAR ago, and want to play a few other new PC games which I won't be able to til I get a desktop.
Which leads me on to my following thoughts:
When the new AMD processors are released in April 06, it's likely they'll be their top of the range stuff - so £600-700? The processor I had my eye on before finding out about an April release was the Athlon 64 X2 4800 2.4Ghz, but that was a shocking £560!!
So decided the 4400 2.2GHz at £360 was more acceptable. But even then, I would only be able to justify spending anywhere near that amount if I knew it was not going to be replaced (in terms of technology, not speed) within the next 6 months.
Therefore, new processors being released = drop in price of the 4400 to something even better, or I could kind of justify spending a bit more on the newer tech.
This leads me on to my next problem (if you're still reading!
)...
As i'm fairly reluctant to spend close to £400 on something that I know will be outdated in April (I don't care after that as I know it won't be til end of 2006/start of 2007 before the next big changes), I was wondering whether to get a cheapish processor/mobo to last until around May/June, by which time the new AMD stuff should have been out, and the initial price hike should have dropped a tiny bit to something more affordable.
I've been doing some research and it seems that the best value for money at the moment, if I can get hold of one, is part of the Opteron range - for me, probably the 165 as it's a dual core and overclocks well, so i'd get up to about 2.6GHz overclocking it (from 1.8GHz) if I'm able to.
However, if I did that, I'd need DDR ram too, not DDR2, and still end up paying a fair bit, in which case I probably wouldn't end up changing to the new processor when it's released later as a new mobo, cpu and ram is basically a complete gutting!!!
Anyway, sorry it's a massive post, just trying to get my thoughts out!
I just need to decide whether to wait or try going cheaper and do my first ever overclocking to get a bargain now!
Edit: unless there's a cheapo Intel mobo/cpu combo with DDR2 support, in which case I won't need to pay for RAM twice, and could probably build a celeron desktop and mobo for just over £100...
