Buying/building a new PC using AMD processor

[Simon]

On the RAM side I'd want 1.6 GHz bus capability.

I dont care about ram speed > all new PC are fast enough. But if you are using a 64bit windows 8GB are a must !

Then a "boot" SSD are a MUST

No crap software running in background thene a 2 dual core ok for none game pc

RAM speed is always more of a bottleneck than processor speed, if you can't feed the processor enough data it's speed is pointless, the first computers has ram access speeds equal to the processor speed, it was only when processors started to go beyond 100 MHz they figured that they could not take the ram with it, the faster the CPU the faster the RAM needs to be, no point in starving your juicy processor, same goes for FSB (or whatever we call it now), you know most "processor usage" stats are actually the FSB stats ?

[Phaedrus]

RAM is not a bottleneck. If you have DDR3 1600MHz+ then you're fine. Above that you see at most marginal improvements, especially for Intel systems. Going from 1866MHz to 2400MHz is like a 1-1.5% gain at best in most applications.




Exceptions: Memory intensive tasks can improve from higher RAM speed, but you need to evaluate your requirements to determine whether you need more bandwidth (+MHz) or lower latency.

Also, AMD APUs, with an integrated graphics chip, need the fastest memory they can get, minimum 1866MHz.

[Monkeh]

no but I'll take a lower core count and faster core any day, sure more cores increases heat that is why the speed is lower, that will be why the more cores a processor has the slower it runs, no I have 4 cores at 2.4 GHz and only ever use one so why bother having 8 when I can have a faster processor with 4 cores so use 25% of my processor instead of 12.5%, fact most software simply does not multithread, even the CAD software i used for work that costs thousands of pounds is incapable of using more than 1 core which is pathetic, it's not even written to use the graphics cards very well, people run around buying multi core processors assuming that their software will simply use them all and they don't unless they are specifically written too but as most users are ignorant and don't know the difference no software developer bothers. I'd be happy with a dual core processor that runs as fast as possible, I'd get more meaningful performance increase.

As I just told you, your 'faster core' is actually slower than an i7.. Higher clocks do not equate to faster processors unless you're comparing the same core.

[mariush]

AMD processors can use ddr3 memory up to 2133 Mhz or around that value in frequency.  But the sweetspot is 1866 Mhz and officially that's the maximum supported by the integrated controller.
Above this frequency the performance increase is very small. Even going up from 1600 Mhz to 1866 Mhz will bring you below 5% performance increase with ram operations in most applications.
Also, on some motherboards you can't use 1866 Mhz with four memory modules due to limitations so pretty much everyone sticks to 1600 Mhz.

Intel processors gain very little from going over 1600 Mhz, much smaller performance increase compared to AMD processors. 

System I'm writing on is a FX-8320 based pc with 2x8 GB DDR3 1600 Mhz. Bought 1600 Mhz versions because they were the only low profile 8GB modules on the market, there's basically a couple of mm between the modules and the current cpu fan I have installed.

[Fsck]

On the RAM side I'd want 1.6 GHz bus capability.

I dont care about ram speed > all new PC are fast enough. But if you are using a 64bit windows 8GB are a must !

Then a "boot" SSD are a MUST

No crap software running in background thene a 2 dual core ok for none game pc

RAM speed is always more of a bottleneck than processor speed, if you can't feed the processor enough data it's speed is pointless, the first computers has ram access speeds equal to the processor speed, it was only when processors started to go beyond 100 MHz they figured that they could not take the ram with it, the faster the CPU the faster the RAM needs to be, no point in starving your juicy processor, same goes for FSB (or whatever we call it now), you know most "processor usage" stats are actually the FSB stats ?

there's a reason why we have gigantic L3 caches now, but coincidentally, Intel's prefetchers have immensely improved so you don't see the IBM PPC cache/#cores ratios.
for most consumers, memory throughput is basically irrelevant. if you really need large amounts of memory transfer and/or quantity, you're going to be using processors with a quad channel controller (this generation).

[Simon]

RAM is not a bottleneck. If you have DDR3 1600MHz+ then you're fine. Above that you see at most marginal improvements, especially for Intel systems. Going from 1866MHz to 2400MHz is like a 1-1.5% gain at best in most applications.




Exceptions: Memory intensive tasks can improve from higher RAM speed, but you need to evaluate your requirements to determine whether you need more bandwidth (+MHz) or lower latency.

Also, AMD APUs, with an integrated graphics chip, need the fastest memory they can get, minimum 1866MHz.

The last RAM efficiency check I did put the bandwidth at a mere 60% of the theoretical one DDR technologies are not a golden bullet.

no but I'll take a lower core count and faster core any day, sure more cores increases heat that is why the speed is lower, that will be why the more cores a processor has the slower it runs, no I have 4 cores at 2.4 GHz and only ever use one so why bother having 8 when I can have a faster processor with 4 cores so use 25% of my processor instead of 12.5%, fact most software simply does not multithread, even the CAD software i used for work that costs thousands of pounds is incapable of using more than 1 core which is pathetic, it's not even written to use the graphics cards very well, people run around buying multi core processors assuming that their software will simply use them all and they don't unless they are specifically written too but as most users are ignorant and don't know the difference no software developer bothers. I'd be happy with a dual core processor that runs as fast as possible, I'd get more meaningful performance increase.

As I just told you, your 'faster core' is actually slower than an i7.. Higher clocks do not equate to faster processors unless you're comparing the same core.

Yes you right looking at: http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350.html however check for that favourite word: multithreaded test, sure many processors can out match it and the i5 is 15% faster for the tests performed but I'd really like to see a side by side comparison with single threaded software like most software is. At the end of the day I've got around the same performance, I'm not going to fuss over a few percent and wanted to see how AMD match up this time as I've got an intel now, of course my core also includes graphics capabilities and control the RAM directly so I'll probably get better RAM speeds (real data rates not theoretical).

[Simon]

On the RAM side I'd want 1.6 GHz bus capability.

I dont care about ram speed > all new PC are fast enough. But if you are using a 64bit windows 8GB are a must !

Then a "boot" SSD are a MUST

No crap software running in background thene a 2 dual core ok for none game pc

RAM speed is always more of a bottleneck than processor speed, if you can't feed the processor enough data it's speed is pointless, the first computers has ram access speeds equal to the processor speed, it was only when processors started to go beyond 100 MHz they figured that they could not take the ram with it, the faster the CPU the faster the RAM needs to be, no point in starving your juicy processor, same goes for FSB (or whatever we call it now), you know most "processor usage" stats are actually the FSB stats ?

there's a reason why we have gigantic L3 caches now, but coincidentally, Intel's prefetchers have immensely improved so you don't see the IBM PPC cache/#cores ratios.
for most consumers, memory throughput is basically irrelevant. if you really need large amounts of memory transfer and/or quantity, you're going to be using processors with a quad channel controller (this generation).

so what about things like say encoding a video, you can only preload so much, cache was a compromise when processor speeds started to exceed FSB and RAM speeds, but it's not the all round solution which would be RAM that is so fast the price would be prohibitive

[Monkeh]

Yes you right looking at: http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350.html however check for that favourite word: multithreaded test, sure many processors can out match it and the i5 is 15% faster for the tests performed but I'd really like to see a side by side comparison with single threaded software like most software is.

These are single thread calculations, notice how the 2.4GHz mobile i7 is significantly quicker than the 4.7GHz AMD:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4374506
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4373897

of course my core also includes graphics capabilities

So do i7s.

and control the RAM directly

So do i7s.

Please do research, or just buy whatever PC World are selling..

Now please note I'm not attacking the AMD APU. I think they offer great performance for the money, and you can't really do any better for what you spent. But as soon as you step past their mid-range CPUs, Intel offer significantly improved single- and multi-thread performance for the same money, and that's mid-range Intel parts against top of the line AMD spaceheaters. The Core i7s you say you have at work are at the very least the equivalent of what you've just built, but they'll last longer, scale better, and, if they're modern parts like the 3770T, use less power.

[rollatorwieltje]

Yes you right looking at: http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350.html however check for that favourite word: multithreaded test, sure many processors can out match it and the i5 is 15% faster for the tests performed but I'd really like to see a side by side comparison with single threaded software like most software is. At the end of the day I've got around the same performance, I'm not going to fuss over a few percent and wanted to see how AMD match up this time as I've got an intel now, of course my core also includes graphics capabilities and control the RAM directly so I'll probably get better RAM speeds (real data rates not theoretical).

from the same website: http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350_single.html

It's barely faster than old Core 2 processors according to that website.

[Fsck]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/3

if you scroll down to the x264 benchmark, it should show you very little improvement. as you increase memory speed and lower latency.

[Simon]

Benchmarks on RAM speed influence I have read show faster RAM has the least improvement to performance of just about anything you could do. Usually just a few percent. As long as the CPU is accessing data from the cache then faster ram can only improve performance on the initial load. The higher your cache hit rate the less improvement in overall throughput will be delivered by faster RAM.

If you are as constrained by CPU performance as your earlier posts suggest then it follows from you assertion about memory speed that you do not have a need of faster memory. Not the least reason for saying this is because if your performance sensitive work is a CAD package that can only use a single CPU then that suggests that thread will enjoy the lions share of the processor cache.

Well I don't know if the same would hold today but my first PC with a 900 MHz Duron with a 200 MHz fsb was a little starved by the ram being at 100MHz which the idiot that put it together left it at when it was 133MHz ram anyway, changing it made a real difference, including to CPU benchmarks. Obviously technology has moved on so it may not be quite the same now, in my experience each new level of DDR technology means a less efficient real data rate compared to the theoretical one.

i wanted 17" monitors because i sit so close to them, I was hoping for 2 HD ones but it seems that HD is only on 20"+ monitors, I was after resolution for clarity rather that size, no need to keep twisting my neck to see all of the screen real estate i have and having to lean over to each side to read them. I'll be keeping my 19 and 17 inch monitors on VGA outputs

[mariush]

so what about things like say encoding a video, you can only preload so much, cache was a compromise when processor speeds started to exceed FSB and RAM speeds, but it's not the all round solution which would be RAM that is so fast the price would be prohibitive

It depends on the encoder and the video resolution and quality settings.

With an eight core processor, x264 uses up to 12-14 threads to encode, so an image is split into small slices that are then spread on each core. The bandwidth doesn't matter that much because you have relatively small transfers. Latency matters a bit more than frequency with x264.

x264 is very optimized, you can see for example here in this sandy bridge review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3/7

First pass is a very light pass, using cpu little so actual memory bandwidth matters more (moving lots of data from disk through memory to the cpu) :



but when you actually start to analyze the frames in detail and use cpu a lot, the memory bandwidth doesn't matter that much



You can see here more info about memory scaling on AMD systems : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-scaling-trinity,3419-7.html

[Simon]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/3

if you scroll down to the x264 benchmark, it should show you very little improvement. as you increase memory speed and lower latency.

Indeed, most of those tests involve talking to hard disks, of course a drastic improvement of an already superior memory technology will do very little. and faster ram merely has more latency cycles so it ends up taking so long to access the data that the speed of transfers becomes secondary. I simply wanted the best speed for money.

[M. András]

I do not favour AMD at the moment because they use more power than intel for similar workload. I don't recall seeing even a single thread benchmark that compares an AMD core very favourably with an Intel CPU of similar clock rate. Not that clock speed alone is a reliable indicator of performance.

All contemporary processors use instruction pipelining to increase performance and the creation of Hyperthreading to increase pipeline depth even more through the logical CPU core is a very clever idea. It increases the use of already existing silicon to productive effect. Making 4 cores look like 8 has been shown to improve throughput. I can't help but think changing to a CAD program that has been designed to exploit the strengths of multi core processors would be worth considering.

this is the reason i never looked at nvidia cards. in the days ati published computing power in Terraflops but i didnt find any number on their newsest generation now, nvidia cards never had a published computing power always clockrates and buswidth. when they are gonna aggree on something that can simply measure what can the hardware really do? for gods sake is that really that hard to give comparable specs to a processor, a graphics card etc. they can do that for server systems why cant they do that for mainstream and desktop systems? no more optimised software for brand x products that shows how good is it and on the other hand its a buggy sluggish code on the other hardware deliberately? just like games i dont recall the name of the game it was few years ago the game run 3 times faster on a 2 year older nvida  card to the game then a just relased ati card just simply nonsense and driver updates didnt solve it later on bright green logo on the loading screen meant to be played by nvidia or whatever they logo is, btw for memory bandwith the newest fx series amd processor have started to reach the memory bandwith of the first "I" platform intel processors. a joke its just for 1 bottleneck between the too. the internal l1/l2/l3 cache bandwiths vary significantly too

[Simon]

Yes you right looking at: http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350.html however check for that favourite word: multithreaded test, sure many processors can out match it and the i5 is 15% faster for the tests performed but I'd really like to see a side by side comparison with single threaded software like most software is.

These are single thread calculations, notice how the 2.4GHz mobile i7 is significantly quicker than the 4.7GHz AMD:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4374506
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4373897

of course my core also includes graphics capabilities

So do i7s.

and control the RAM directly

So do i7s.

Please do research, or just buy whatever PC World are selling..

Now please note I'm not attacking the AMD APU. I think they offer great performance for the money, and you can't really do any better for what you spent. But as soon as you step past their mid-range CPUs, Intel offer significantly improved single- and multi-thread performance for the same money, and that's mid-range Intel parts against top of the line AMD spaceheaters. The Core i7s you say you have at work are at the very least the equivalent of what you've just built, but they'll last longer, scale better, and, if they're modern parts like the 3770T, use less power.

Well basically I seem to be at about the speed of an i5 which is what I'd have got anyway if I'd gone intel. I looked at many prebuilt systems and it was obvious that I was being passed off slightly older technology with a windows installation. Any decent PCs seem to come with windows 8 - yuk so it has been either way better value for money to buy the parts, even preassembled PCs with no operating system were poorly priced compared to just buying the parts, no I've probably not got a super gaming rig but I don't want one just a decent PC with some years of life in it. My current Pc started out with a Core 2 Duo and now has a Core 2 Quad (no real difference) and lasted for 6 years and still performs well but i wanted to see if i could future proof myself for a few more years, I'm on PCIe 1.0 so 2.0 is a welcome upgrade as it was becoming pointless getting faster video cards.

Well off to bed now.

[Monkeh]

Well basically I seem to be at about the speed of an i5 which is what I'd have got anyway if I'd gone intel. I looked at many prebuilt systems and it was obvious that I was being passed off slightly older technology with a windows installation. Any decent PCs seem to come with windows 8 - yuk so it has been either way better value for money to buy the parts, even preassembled PCs with no operating system were poorly priced compared to just buying the parts, no I've probably not got a super gaming rig but I don't want one just a decent PC with some years of life in it. My current Pc started out with a Core 2 Duo and now has a Core 2 Quad (no real difference) and lasted for 6 years and still performs well but i wanted to see if i could future proof myself for a few more years, I'm on PCIe 1.0 so 2.0 is a welcome upgrade as it was becoming pointless getting faster video cards.

Well off to bed now.

And I don't disagree that you've built yourself a nice little system. Just don't even consider comparing it to any i7 with a clock above 2GHz, because it will lose.

[Simon]

Yes you right looking at: http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350.html however check for that favourite word: multithreaded test, sure many processors can out match it and the i5 is 15% faster for the tests performed but I'd really like to see a side by side comparison with single threaded software like most software is.

These are single thread calculations, notice how the 2.4GHz mobile i7 is significantly quicker than the 4.7GHz AMD:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4374506
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4373897

of course my core also includes graphics capabilities

So do i7s.

and control the RAM directly

So do i7s.

Please do research, or just buy whatever PC World are selling..

Now please note I'm not attacking the AMD APU. I think they offer great performance for the money, and you can't really do any better for what you spent. But as soon as you step past their mid-range CPUs, Intel offer significantly improved single- and multi-thread performance for the same money, and that's mid-range Intel parts against top of the line AMD spaceheaters. The Core i7s you say you have at work are at the very least the equivalent of what you've just built, but they'll last longer, scale better, and, if they're modern parts like the 3770T, use less power.

Well like i said i just want a decent machine, I can't afford the very latest, I didn't know that the i7's had any graphics capability, could have fooled the CAD software i used.

[Phaedrus]

Benchmarks on RAM speed influence I have read show faster RAM has the least improvement to performance of just about anything you could do. Usually just a few percent. As long as the CPU is accessing data from the cache then faster ram can only improve performance on the initial load. The higher your cache hit rate the less improvement in overall throughput will be delivered by faster RAM.

If you are as constrained by CPU performance as your earlier posts suggest then it follows from you assertion about memory speed that you do not have a need of faster memory. Not the least reason for saying this is because if your performance sensitive work is a CAD package that can only use a single CPU then that suggests that thread will enjoy the lions share of the processor cache.

Well I don't know if the same would hold today but my first PC with a 900 MHz Duron with a 200 MHz fsb was a little starved by the ram being at 100MHz which the idiot that put it together left it at when it was 133MHz ram anyway, changing it made a real difference, including to CPU benchmarks. Obviously technology has moved on so it may not be quite the same now, in my experience each new level of DDR technology means a less efficient real data rate compared to the theoretical one.

i wanted 17" monitors because i sit so close to them, I was hoping for 2 HD ones but it seems that HD is only on 20"+ monitors, I was after resolution for clarity rather that size, no need to keep twisting my neck to see all of the screen real estate i have and having to lean over to each side to read them. I'll be keeping my 19 and 17 inch monitors on VGA outputs

The problem is, your experience is over a decade out of date.

Even in video encoding, RAM speed makes very little difference above a certain point. The processor itself is still the bottleneck in that scenario, unless you're doing a large video from a spinning disk, in which case HDD to RAM is the bottleneck.


DDR3, assuming CAS 11:

1066MHz = Bottleneck for many tasks
1333MHz = Slight bottleneck for memory intensive tasks
1600MHz = Good for most users, slight bottleneck for APUs
1866MHz = Good for just about everyone, including APUs
2133MHz = Overkill for most
2400MHz = Bragging rights

Decreasing CAS by one, and other timings a comparable amount, should drop you about half a tier in that listing. Depends on your CPU and application though; Intel platforms don't seem to care about latency, AMD benefits a lot from lower latency.

[lemmegraphdat]

I built my first computer, the first one I ever owned, because it just felt kind of lame to go out and get one already assembled. AMD K62 400 processor with 3D NOW. Still got most of it around here somewhere.

[Fsck]

Yes you right looking at: http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350.html however check for that favourite word: multithreaded test, sure many processors can out match it and the i5 is 15% faster for the tests performed but I'd really like to see a side by side comparison with single threaded software like most software is.

These are single thread calculations, notice how the 2.4GHz mobile i7 is significantly quicker than the 4.7GHz AMD:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4374506
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4373897

of course my core also includes graphics capabilities

So do i7s.

and control the RAM directly

So do i7s.

Please do research, or just buy whatever PC World are selling..

Now please note I'm not attacking the AMD APU. I think they offer great performance for the money, and you can't really do any better for what you spent. But as soon as you step past their mid-range CPUs, Intel offer significantly improved single- and multi-thread performance for the same money, and that's mid-range Intel parts against top of the line AMD spaceheaters. The Core i7s you say you have at work are at the very least the equivalent of what you've just built, but they'll last longer, scale better, and, if they're modern parts like the 3770T, use less power.

Well like i said i just want a decent machine, I can't afford the very latest, I didn't know that the i7's had any graphics capability, could have fooled the CAD software i used.

actually, that's a driver issue last time I checked, at least with the intel 4xxx and 5xxx graphics cores. which is why I was originally thinking older (older AND secondhand, to minimize price) quadro/firepro paired to intel.

[SgtRock]

Dear Simon:

--I see you have already made your choices, but I include the below which was written earlier, for everyone's perusal. I never know just what I am going to get into so I like to make my builds as adaptable as possible.

--I am currently also building a new computer. I have been doing research for a month or so. I do not play games, but I do run a lot of video programs simultaneously, so I have need of bandwidth, speed, reliability and redundancy. To keep the cost down I recommend an AMD CPU and Motherboard. The motherboard should be a full size ATX with 2 PCIE 2.0 Slots (so you can use 2 video cards if need be) and as many PCI slots as possible.

--The MB should have HDMI, AM3 Socket, at least 6 SATA 6GB/s jacks, at least a couple of USB 3.0 jacks, and be able to accept a max of at least 32 GB DDR3. You should buy 2 8GB 1600 MHz sticks to start with and more if needed. The Asus board below is a good example.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-M4A88TD-V-EVO-USB3-AM3-AMD-880G-HDMI-ESATA-6Gb-s-DDR3-ATX-MOTHERBOARD-/251251746186?pt=Motherboards&hash=item3a7fc5658a

--For mid level quality power supplies you cannot beat the OCZ 500 and 700 with the plug in wires for a clean, no hassle install. The CPU can be selected according to preference. The case should be a full tower with at least 5 external 5.25 bays. The case should have a flat top which you can stack things like the UPS and other things on. The extra bays in a full tower will allow you to install Addonics Hot Swap Racks for HD and SSD drives. I use the 2 bay Addonics Snap-In for SSDs, thereby allowing quick clone and switch. Once you use an SSD for boot up you will never go back.

--The rack setup allows you to clone exact copies of your important information frequently. After you clone the drive, you turn off the target drive, until it is needed again. This method unlike raid allows average drive usage to be reduced by half over RAID, which after a couple of years makes a real difference in cost. --I have had all kinds of problems with consumer level RAID and backup software and hardware. Many is the time I have been unable to restore a friend's computer that  had regular backups made. Using the disk clone system with hot swap racks allows you to instantly check your backup, and provides certainty. You can even rotate cloned drives to a second location, or a fire & water proofed file cabinet or safe, to provide protection for all but the worst disasters.

--The above design can be used or reconfigured to do almost anything. With the disk clone and rack system, a home user can take the risk of used motherboard, memory, and case to save a lot of dough.

--Final note; I always keep at least two complete systems up and running at all times, because I cannot afford to be shut down for days. I also keep a couple of cheap Acer laptops in ready to roll condition at all times. Cops feel uncomfortable carrying less than 3 guns, and I am the same way with computers.

“If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.”
John von Neumann 1903 -1957

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[vk6zgo]

I'm not a computer guru like you folks,just an everyday user.

Our last HP Desktop had an AMD processor,which worked well,until Microsoft started to hit it with their so-called updates,one of which assumed you had an Intel processor,& looked for a function which AMDs didn't use
.
It couldn't find it,so it "spat the dummy",with the result that the Computer crashed & could only be brought back to life by going back to the "as bought" condition,losing everything on it.

There were several "workarounds" on the 'Net,but they didn't work due to HP's dumbed down version of Windows.
Eventually,I had to set it to reject updates.

I now only buy Computers with  Intel processors,which is hardly fair to AMD,as it was a Microsoft & HP stuffup.but I haven't got the time to go through this nonsense again.

[Phaedrus]

Avoid the Asus M4. As I mentioned before, they have serious reliability issues.


I wouldn't buy an OCZ PSU, as they are bankrupt and the PSU division will most likely be killed. They're owned by Toshiba now. The status of OCZ warranties is still in question; they might not be honored.

As for PSUs, I do work for CoolerMaster so I'm a bit biased. But if you want one cheap I'd get the CoolerMaster i500, which is $34.99 on Newegg, or the i700 for $49.99

If you want something higher end, we have our V700 on sale now for $89.99 on Newegg. That's built by SeaSonic (highly respected OEM) using an LLC resonant full bridge design with pulse skipping and a DC-DC secondary topology. Voltage regulation inside 1%, and ripple under 30mVpk-pk on all rails. Fully modular as well, which makes installation and cable management very easy. Uses an FDB fan which is both quieter and longer lasting than traditional sleeve or ball bearing fans. And it has a 5 year warranty.

Let me know if I'm coming on too strong.

[vk6zgo]

No,this was XP,it was a while back!

[Phaedrus]

It was probably an issue with the AMD Athlon64 chips then. Athlon64, and especially Athlon64x2, had some issues. The chips were actually fantastic, they beat out the competing Intel Pentium 4s by quite a large margin. But AMD's 64-bit architecture was not fully compatible with Intel's x86-64 architecture, so when Windows got updates to support x86-64, it broke a lot of AMD x64 systems. This was resolved, and is no longer an issue as both are standardized on x86-64.