Gigabyte vs Asus

"Steve" wrote in message
...
I'm trying to decide b/w the Asus A7N8X or the Gigabyte GA-7N400. I'm
mostly looking at o/c the AMD 2600+, not too much and running Dual DDR.
Couple of questions, is Dual DDR worth it (yes l am a big gamer) and l've
heard about heat problems with AMD chips. Can this be maintained or
should
l go Intel.

It depends on what you are willing to pay. Intel CPU's are generally higher
in price. AMD works just as well with a lower price. As for stability and
heat issues...I have never had any problems with AMD. Intels are worth the
extra money because of the added oveheat protection they offer. They will
slow down when overheated or if no heatsink is attached. if you plan on
keeping the motherboard/CPU for a while ( 1 year) without upgrading then
Intel would be a good deal. However if you plan on tinkering with the system
and O/C it then AMD would be the safer bet because if something goes wrong
then you wouldn't have invested more into the system. Dual channel DDR is a
nice thing to have but for me ther is no reson to play Quake 3 at 200fps
when 100fps is already overkill. This of course depends alot on the graphics
card. Computers are so fast today for games because of the graphics card
itself and not so much the CPU.

Steve wrote:
I'm trying to decide b/w the Asus A7N8X or the Gigabyte GA-7N400. I'm
mostly looking at o/c the AMD 2600+, not too much and running Dual
DDR. Couple of questions, is Dual DDR worth it (yes l am a big gamer)
and l've heard about heat problems with AMD chips. Can this be
maintained or should l go Intel.

Both motherboards are well made and easy to work with. The original AMD
Thunderbird 1400 ran pretty warm. That was 2 years ago. The newer T-Bred B
and Barton core models run much cooler, even while overclocked.

--
Winerr 012 - Cash Underflow - Credit Card Number Will Be Assimilated