@deiz92, my brother has an Acer Aspire 5050 with an X2(mobile) in it. Also has a ATI GPU in it. less than a thousand dollars(anybody seen a conroe laptop under $1000?) and it gets about 3 1/2 hours. It is really fast too.

Actually I would definitely recommend it for visualization workstations for and PCs used for controlling medical equipment. Servers are NOT the only practical application for ECC.

Yes I understand that, I am pretty much making the point that unless it is for commercial or industrial use such as server or medical or similiar type usage then it is definitely not needed(for example a regular person using the PC as a regular desktop PC or small office PC).

One person saying Ford trucks are the best because his has been reliable to 150,000 miles does not mean everyone has to go out and buy a Ford truck when they may have no use for one.

Ford hates you now. Thats the last employee discount you'll ever get.

Seriously though, I agree. ECC memory is not needed in home use PCs.

sorry, the last Ford I owned, I had it for 5 days....
this is the result of it: http://tinyurl.com/ydbwvo

ahem... Ford sucks.

Case in point, I was an engineer at one of their plants.

Never stopped driving the Dodge.

ECC memory adds insurance. If the present insurance package is ok, but the better insurance package cost little extra (lets say $7). Do you upgrade to the best package or do you stay with the present package even though the best package could save you a lot of money in future bills.

ECC memory is not the same as car brands.

hmmmm tough decision, waste $7-40 more and get a performance hit using ECC or have a perfectly stable system without ECC.... yup tough decision

Incorrect. Use non-ECC memory and occasionally get a stable system. Use ECC memory and get a stable system.

There is no such thing as a perfect computer. Perfection is only 99%. By using ECC memory, you can get spot on this number.

Depending on the motherboard brand, ECC memory can have the same performance as non-ECC memory. What a read Tyan proviides a selection of ECC algorithms.

I repeat This theard is not for the discussion about ECC memory... It has absolutly nothingf to do with the thread topic which is about Processors.
all this about memory is rapidly degenerating into a flame war!
Please remain on topic.
If you wish to discuss Ecc memory please start your own thread about it.

Dasy2k1, Thread starter.

I agree... play nice or get a room.

Back to processors: when you start to consider Mobile processors, you're opening up a whole different ball of wax.

Mobile processors won't normally work on boards designed for their "non-mobile" clones. So you may end up forking out big bucks on a board for a not-so-big-deal gain. Also - the reason mobile processors (usually) get high praise in desktop applications is because their are made to operate at lower core voltages. Thus allowing anyone with a halfway decent power supply to overclock the heck out of them.

My mother's computer has an AMD Duron 800 Mhz Morgan Mobile Core ... I built it for her about 6 months ago, and I bought the chip new, not a leftover. It was dirt cheap, and with a 10 dollar copper heatsink, I've cranked it up to a 333 MHz FSB --- yielding around 1.3 GHz performance out of the thing. It nearly doubled its speed for god sake! Doesn't break 45 degrees C either.

That being said, I feel that adding Mobile's too this comparison is very much "apples to oranges". You can crank the hell out of them but it's not their intended usage, nor is it "warranty-friendly". We'd be wise to keep it to "plug - n - play" processors.

I don't know if it matters, but AMD has one feature that is not listed on the box but is a big sway point for myself and many others. Customer service.

On the rare occasion something has failed, I've had nothing but headaches with Intel. AMD, on the other hand, was literally like the guy standing next to you going, "whoa... you set it on fire... cool! i'll send you another one."

I pretty much agree with you on that post dodge.

especially this: I think you will get a much better performance gain from using an X2 4600+ over an Intel, because Intel is still using a FSB versus a HT link between the memory and the CPU. Speeds things up a bit, and that is why Intel is going to get rid of their FSB soon.

I tend to lean toward the AMD side of things. Mainly because I have found that over the years AMD has the lowest price compared to Intel. Plus AMD, up until recently was an embarrassment for Intel. Right now I have seen that all AMD procs are priced well, this includes the newer AM2 socket. I can't quote where it is now but I just saw, in the last month, an FX-62 AM2 for under$700US. Considering that the FX series was in the $1000US price range a few short months ago, I want to thank Intel in helping to make these chips affordable. I was able to purchase an FX-60 socket 939 for less than $700US a month ago from NewEgg. In June I purchased an ASUS AM2 mobom only to find it was dead on arrival. After returning it to Monarch and waiting 2 months for them to get their heads out of their butts, they finally returned a good working mobo to us. There have been no problems with this board since it was replaced. I believe the board was an M2N32-SLI. After the fact I checked the ASUS forums and found there were a number of other people that were having problems with the same board. Hopefully they have worked the kinks out. Oh and, at the time, the other reason I stuck with AMD is SLI. It was not available for Intel based boards. Now I believe it is available for Intel but I am not sure how well it works as compared to AMD.

Wow! A lot of misinformation in this thread. First off, I own both AMD and Intel boxes, and have built several of both for 15 years. There is no question, subjective or objective, that Intel's newest Core2Duo processor lineup spanks anything AMD has to offer. Period. Last year, I would have told anyone to buy AMD because their CPU's were better in many ways - speed, cost, heat and power usage. Now with the C2D, Intel beats AMD on everything with the possible exception of price, and a slim margin at that, if any.

But after three pages, no one addressed the main concern. If you're buying a new C2D motherboard, chances are it will be the Intel P965 chipset. And rightly so - it's pretty darn good. However, support for this is only starting to show up in the Linux 2.6.18 kernel. So if you want to build a Linux box TODAY with any of the standard distributions available NOW, I would recommend a good Athlon 64 X2 with some nForce chipset. You could always compile a newer kernel for whatever distro you use, but if that isn't your thing, most of the existing distros will have problems with a C2D on a P965 chipset. There are a few threads about that on these forums.

Robert

thanks for that, i wasnet aware taht there was a problem with the intell chipsets,
i recon taht an AMD X2 will be the answer then, and ther eis a good chance taht AMD will develope somthing comparable to the conroe which will probally use AMD sockets...