These two systems are the same price and I don't know enough to see which is better.

SYSTEM 1:
Processor: Dual-core Intel Pentium D 3.4GHz Processor (800MHz FSB)
Memory: 1GB (2x512MB) OCZ PC2-5300 667MHz DDR2 Memory
Hard Drive: 320GB Seagate SATA II Hard Drive (7200rpm 16MB Cache)
Optical Drive: BenQ 1650 DVD-RW 16X*/- Rewritable Drive
Motherboard: Intel D945GTPL LGA775 Motherboard
Video: Intel GMA 950 Onboard Graphics Subsystem
Sound: Intel High Definition Audio Subsystem (Integrated on Motherboard)
Expansion Slots: 2 PCI / 1 PCI-E x16 / 1 PCI-E x1
Ports: USB 2.0 / LAN / 1 Serial / 1 Parallel
Case: IN-WIN C603 ATX Black Case w/ 350W Power Supply


SYSTEM 2:
Processor: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4200+ AM2 Processor (Retail Box)
Memory: 1GB (2x512MB) OCZ PC2-5300 667MHz DDR2 Memory
Hard Drive: 320GB Seagate SATA II Hard Drive (7200rpm 16MB Cache)
Optical Drive: DVD-RW 16X+/- Rewritable Drive
Motherboard: ASUS M2NPV-VM nVIDIA GeForce 6150 + nForce 430
Video: nVIDIA GeForce 6 Graphics (Integrated on Motherboard)
Sound: ADI AD1986A Audio Codec (Integrated on Motherboard)
Expansion Slots: 2 PCI / 1 PCI-E x16 / 1 PCI-E x1
Ports: USB 2.0 / LAN / 1 Serial / 1 Parallel
Case: Cooler Master Centurion 5 CAC-TO5 Tower Case w/ 350W Power Supply



As far as I can tell it comes down an intel vs 64 AMD. Salesmen are trying to push the 64 bit but I'll probably buy a new computer by the time anything comes out that needs it. Its pretty much a coin toss right now

amd 64 i use to run intels but since i switched to amd its more stable then intels i'll never go back

The first rig is a stronger rig, but has lesser peripherals. The on-board video is not as good, but the processor is much greater for beating the hell out of it, and may be extremely overclockable depending on what model it is - the Pentium D 805-series processor in particular can easily be taken up to 4.0 GHz, which would blow both of those rigs out of the water if done well and properly with the right cooling.

Anyway...AMD is planning on abandoning the AM2 series already and it won't be around much longer - so from an internal upgrade perspective, the first rig is better for future upgradability also.

Both rigs are 64-bit, I want to make that very clear - and 32-bit systems are obsolete now anyway...so ... yeah. Go 64. You WILL see an increase in performance. Trust me - 3 computers - one is 64 bit, the other two are regular 32-bit CPUs that are actually faster in speed rating - and the 64 bit swamps them both.

Also, truckdude: the AMD vs. Intel thing is very played out. Stability changes from core to core and with cooling, user installation and so many other factors. I would never make such a blanket statement. Example: The Pentium4 Northwood core chips almost put off no heat at all. They seriously kicked the crap out of AMD Athlon XP models that were at par with them for heat and stability. So, for the brief few months Northwood core was being produced, they were great! Then Intel released the Prescott core and OMFG, talk about a damned nuclear reactor level of heat! You had to have a freaking refrigerator to keep them cool. Prior to either, AMD had their field day in the sun with the Barton core....point is: saying AMD vs Intel that AMD runs more stable is entirely opinion and totally misleading (even if I tend to agree sometimes :D) - it really is dependent on the core of the CPU as to whether or not it's great. Each core has its benefits and whatnot.

yea I got a prestcott in my dell xps 600 I put a thermometer to the back of the case and it was a whopping 110 degrees, brings the whole temp of the room up ten degrees in a couple hours...

Both rigs are 64-bit, I want to make that very clear - and 32-bit systems are obsolete now anyway...so ... yeah. Go 64. You WILL see an increase in performance. Trust me - 3 computers - one is 64 bit, the other two are regular 32-bit CPUs that are actually faster in speed rating - and the 64 bit swamps them both.

My brother is looking at the same systems and he found an article that said the pentium was 2 32 bit processors, while the AMD was a 'true' 64 bit. Any truth to this or whats the deal? BTW, I'm not looking at overclocking, what I get is what I get

Neither AMD64 or EM64T chips are "true" 64-bit processors, and both architectures are almost exactly the same. they are essentially 32-bit processors which provide 64-bit support. IA64 is the only true 64-bit architecture, which, to my knowledge, is only found in some Itanium and Opteron processors - so that's a 64-bit processor offering 32-bit support. AMD64 and EM64T both support "64-bit extensions" which allows them to run similar to a 64-bit CPU.

Essentially, they're virtually the same technology - In some situations there is a performance boost when running in 64-bit because of the AMD64 memory extensions. Most of any problems you've heard about regarding some 32-bit applications actually running slower with the EM64T line have, to my knowledge, been ironed out.

I found this great article on the web which is in laymans terms (enough so that most people can understand):

AMD winning the 64-bit marketing race - Posted by George Ou @ 3:15 am (December 27, 2005)

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=141

Recently, the subject of AMD 64-bit extensions came up among some colleagues and we debated the merits of 64-bit computing. But over the Christmas weekend, Valve software unveiled a 64-bit version of their flagship game Half-life 2. What was interesting was that no where in the announcement did the word Intel come up even though all of the current model Server and Desktop Intel CPUs (not mobile) support AMD's 64-bit extensions.

64-bit extensions was invented by AMD a few years ago as an add-on to their existing 32-bit CPUs to ease the transition from 32 to 64 bit computing while Intel refused to enter the 32/64 bit market and focused on their pure 64-bit Itanium CPUs. Since the Itanium had no legacy circuitry and relied on software emulation for 32-bit compatibility, its 32-bit performance was lackluster while true 64-bit software was at best rare and at worst nonexistent. The success of AMD64 and the weak sales of Itanium forced Intel to abandon their pure 64-bit strategy for their Itanium chip and adopt AMD's 64-bit extensions for their own Pentium 4 and XEON line of processors. Since Cross licensing arrangements between AMD and Intel allow AMD to use Intel technology and vice versa, Intel simply added AMD64 instruction capability to their CPUs which they refer to as EM64T. The same arrangement allowed AMD to implement Intel's MMX and SSE/SSE2 instruction in their CPUs which is commonly used in today's software while 64-bit extensions are not. Microsoft simply refers to Intel's EM64T and AMD's AMD64 technology as x64 for their desktop/server operating systems.

Most technically savvy people I know have the perception that only AMD produced these hybrid 32/64 bit CPUs, but I have to wonder why Intel is failing to market their own 64-bit capabilities and allowing AMD to gain so much market share. Intel losing the prestigious benchmark wars in both single-core and dual-core competition certainly has something to do with Intel's slide in market share, but the 64-bit factor played a very large role in public perception even though it has no current practical significance for the vast majority of the computing population. The truth of the matter is, almost no one uses 64-bit extensions today. Even if you manage to install the x64 version of Windows XP and all 64 bit drivers, you're limited to two 64-bit games like Farcry and Half-life 2 along with a handful of x64 applications. On the performance front, there is no real difference in speed between most 32 and 64 bit software. 64-bit computing begins to makes sense when more than 4 GBs of RAM is needed but the reality is that most people today don't need more than 4 GBs of RAM. This means 64-bit is only significant from a marketing perspective and Intel has practically handed the 64-bit marketing advantage to AMD.

Another fun article to read:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit.html

If you get a password prompt, just hit escape or cancel rather than type something in.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Would you still go with the first rig assuming no mods?

Actually, no.

After looking at the chipsets above for each mobo and checking out the cases and considering the given peripherals (and still not knowing what Pentium-D chip it is), I would still pick the AMD64 rig. I definitely like the Coolermaster case better (I've owned a couple - very nice), I definitely think AMD's memory extension support is superior to the P-D chips...

So, yeah. Both support DDR2 and same throughput ... I'd pick #2.