which one of these would you do for the money, the AMD machine for $100 less or the Intel machine for $100 more?
I'm not looking to do a massive amount of gaming, I'm more looking for a reliable recording machine for the next few years, so RAM and CPU processing power mean more to me than video cards.
Is there something else out there for a comparable price I should know about?
These two I put together tonight on newegg's site. The intel machine is probably a bit faster and the deal they had for it included twice the RAM. I'll be running XP on it, unless there's some advantage to Vista with the quad-core chips.
The AMD computer:
The Intel computer:
Most of my recent computer knowledge is in the low-power/small size market (I was paid to know this stuff and regurgitate it for our sales team), but here are my recommendations for a desktop system based on my knowledge of a totally different tech sector:
I'd go with the Intel system myself. The difference will not be tremendously noticeable, but I've found that a lot of drivers seem to prefer Intel systems over AMD, and general consensus is Intel makes a better 'performance machine' these days. Plus, doubling the RAM is worth the extra $10, and the more efficient CPU will make up the extra cost within a fairly short amount of time anyways.
Also, I'd recommend going with a more established name for the video card like Gigabyte, Asus, BFG, XFX, etc. Galaxy is not known for quality of components, unless they've changed in the past few months. Good choice on the nVidia-based GPU though, they're quite a bit ahead of ATI in terms of support and general horsepower.
Vista is more efficient with multithreaded applications and such, but right now I still prefer XP.
I don't know much about the Intel board you picked; Gigabyte does nice boards, but I'd try to make sure that whatever chipset is on there supports your processor specifically as quad-core support can be somewhat random across boards, especially when dealing with processor revisions and different cores and such.