Slashdot Mirror


AMD's Phenom II 965, 3.4GHz, 140 Watts, $245

Vigile writes "While AMD does not have the muscle to push around the i7, they certainly have the ability to give the older and more common Core 2 Quads a run for their money. With the release of the Phenom II X4 965, AMD further attempts to dethrone the Core 2 Quad as the premier midrange CPU offering. While it may not be a world-beater by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly is catching Intel's attention in the breadbasket of the CPU market. The X4 965 is the fastest clocked processor that AMD has ever produced, much less shipped in mass quantities. While the speed bump is appreciated, the cost in terms of power and heat will make the introduction of the X4 965 problematic for some. Many of us thought that we would never see another 140 watt processor (as the Phenom 9950 was), but unfortunately those days are back. Still, AMD offers a compelling part at a reasonable price, and their motherboard support for this new 140 watt processor is robust."

54 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm running a Q9550 at 3.4 Ghz right now (with the ability to go much higher) and mine only uses 95 watts.

    AMD has a long ways to go to get back in the game. I can't imagine craptacular ideas like purchasing ATI are helping.

    1. Re:FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Intel and AMD release different numbers for their CPU's power consumption. Intel gives an average and AMD gives a maximum. They're not comparible. In real world testing, the X4 965 uses slightly less power at idle and slightly more power at full load than a stock Q9550.

    2. Re:FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has been fairly well proven that AMD is full of it in that regard. Just search and you will find lots of tests comparing the actual power usage and Intel always comes out on top.

    3. Re:FAIL by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Intel and AMD release different numbers for their CPU's power consumption. Intel gives an average and AMD gives a maximum. They're not comparible. In real world testing, the X4 965 uses slightly less power at idle and slightly more power at full load than a stock Q9550.

      Sadly, that is incorrect.

      http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-965_4.html#sect0

      While idle is comparable (Intel has a slight lead), full load most definitely isn't - 75% extra power consumption (which amounts to over 60W!) for the X4 965 over a Q9550 is far from "slightly more".

    4. Re:FAIL by avandesande · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It certainly appears that the Q9550 is in a sweet spot for low cost (including platform), power draw and performance.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:FAIL by mdm-adph · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You were running 95 watts at stock (2.83 GHz). You're way, way over that by now!

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    6. Re:FAIL by Pentium100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is that the Phenom 2 965 is designed to run at this frequency, while you are overclocking your CPU. It's great when overclocking works, but not all CPUs may be able to do it (I cannot go to a store and buy this CPU thinking that I would run it at 3.4GHz - I may get a CPU that runs OK at the specified frequency but cannot be overclocked much).

      And the power consumption isn't that big, my dual Opteron 270 PC probably uses more power (each CPU has TDP of 95W).

    7. Re:FAIL by Nuno+Sa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sadly, that is incorrect.

      http://techreport.com/articles.x/17402/11

      "Interestingly enough, the systems based on Phenom II quad-cores (including the X4 965) draw quite a bit less power at idle than our Q9550-based test system."

      "That said, the X4 965-based system draws only 15W more than the Q9550-based one. The gap between the Q9550- and X4 965-based systems is thus smaller than the processors' TDP ratings alone suggest. [In full load]"

      "By virtue of its lower system power draw at idle and its ability to finish the rendering task sooner, the Phenom II X4 965 fares better than the Q9550 in our two most important measures of energy efficiency."

    8. Re:FAIL by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The difference is not quite so stark at Anandtech, I wonder what the difference is between their tests?

      http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3619&p=8

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    9. Re:FAIL by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tech Report tells a different story: ... A story that says that you can't necessarily compare like-for-like when using different motherboards.

      Which is why X-bit Labs did this:

      To get a better idea of the situation, we performed a separate Phenom II X4 965 power consumption test under heavy load when none of the other system components are taken into account. To be more exact, we measured the consumption along the 12 V power line connected directly to the processor voltage regulator on the mainboard. In other words, this measurement method didnt take into account the efficiency of the voltage regulator circuitry. ... and got 84W for the Q9550 and 147.6W for the X4 965. Granted, like they said in the last sentence, this doesn't take VRM efficiency into account, and it might as well be that those on the AMD motherboard were woefully inefficient and the CPU itself uses plenty less watts than measured. Still, this is 75% extra, and the VRMs cannot be the main reason for it.

      They do similar measurements for graphics cards, too, because measuring total system power consumption from the wall can only get you so far.

      I'd personally be more inclined to trust the Ukrainians.

    10. Re:FAIL by evanbd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Generally speaking, CMOS power consumption is the result of charging and discharging gate capacitors. The charge required to fully charge the gate grows with the voltage; charge times frequency is current. Voltage times current is power. So, as you raise the voltage, the current consumption grows linearly, and the power consumption quadratically, at a fixed frequency. Once you reach the frequency limit of the chip without raising the voltage, further frequency increases are normally proportional to voltage. In other words, once you have to start raising the voltage, power consumption tends to rise with the cube of frequency.

    11. Re:FAIL by warrior · · Score: 2, Informative

      For a while it will be proportional to (V^2)*f. However, transistor leakage is exponential with respect to Vds due to DIBL (drain-induced barrier lowering) and the resulting decrease in threshold voltage. Raising the voltage too much is a double-whammy WRT power consumption.

      --
      Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
    12. Re:FAIL by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't take a lot of thinking to see that the Q9550 power draw is bunk. Their fully loaded system power for the machine was 208 Watts. Their Idle load was 120 Watts. Either the Q9550 processor supplies 4 extra Watts to the motherboard at idle or something fishy is going on there.

      Nothing fishy going on. Power supplies and VRMs on motherboard have efficiencies below 100%.

      If the PSU has 70% efficiency at 70W load, which isn't unheard of, it will draw 70/0.7 = 100W from the wall. If it has 80% efficiency at 180W load, it will draw 225W from the wall. The difference measured from the wall in the two scenarios is thus 225-100=125W, while the component load increased by 180-70=110W in this example, for a "mysterious" difference of 15W.

      Also, don't forget that you can never only stress the CPU; the motherboard takes its power, too. Higher temperature also increases power consumption.

      Nothing is linear.

      There's also something horribly wrong with the 147 Watt measurement for the AMD processor. That's 7 Watts over it's absolute maximum design rating which would put it over and above what the Motherboard manufacturer's are supposed to design for.

      Motherboard manufacturers *always* design for higher loads because of overclockers and future CPUs. It is also quite possible that other AMD motherboards have more efficient VRMs, so an X4 965 using 147W on that motherboard could use 120W on another.

      In short, X-Bit has power numbers that are well under the real Q9550 numbers and well over the real X4 965 numbers which would make them seem to be fairly untrustworthy in my opinion.

      Not at all. They are the only ones to have tested the true CPU power consumption - granted, before the VRMs kick in, as there's no other way of doing it. Other sites only measured total system consumption from the wall, which is far more inaccurate.

      Clearer now?

      Oh, I forgot to mention - Intel has a Q9550S, which is a 65W TDP version of the Q9550. Do you think it uses 30W less than the regular Q9550?

    13. Re:FAIL by Mozk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Though power consumption alone turns me off.

      You're a circuit breaker?

      --
      No existe.
  2. My Computer ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. can now double as still for my homemade vodka

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. problematic for some: by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    read: if you didnt shit in a marble toilet this morning and start the day trying to figure out which of your sedans to drive to the office, you may find this chips introduction "problematic" from a pricing standpoint.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:problematic for some: by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you kidding? It wasn't THAT long ago that $245 bought you a budget CPU, and plenty of people without "marble toilets" had computers back then. Yes, it costs a bit more than the $50 budget chips that are available now, but I think you're exaggerating the impact of the price here. It's not that bad . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:problematic for some: by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing is, it's the value proposition of AMD that's attractive... the motherboards are cheaper, and you can upgrade incrementally with them. You don't have to get a whole new system to upgrade. The AM3 chips fit into the AM2+ sockets, the AM3 chips are compatible with DDR2 RAM as well as DDR3...

    3. Re:problematic for some: by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could, but I can't justify it to myself. Replace a whole PC, and you can do something useful with the old one. Replace a part.... this RAM is still perfectly good, but I can't do anything with it.

    4. Re:problematic for some: by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see your point there, but, for me at least, I eventually run out of "useful" things to do with my old pcs a while back. Router and NAS are handled by dedicated devices (both are running embedded Linux though so I can technically SSH in and still play with em). I've got 3 desktops (Mac, Linux, Windows), a 4th desktop for playing with stuff (currently running Syallable, though will likely switch to Haiku if they get a better installer available), a Windows laptop, and a MythBuntu based HTPC.

      Honestly I just don't see many niches for extra computers to do much more for me other than drive up the power bill more. If at all possible I pretty much always go for upgrades, unless a computer is just in need of an overhaul, at which time I still usually salvage SOME stuff from the system it's replacing. And if I get too tired of how my computer looks I'll just buy a new case next time I format it. That makes it seem new, at least :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  4. This is midrange? by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is a $245, quad-core chip considered mid-range?

    1. Re:This is midrange? by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Have you seen Intel's pricing? Can't get a decent solution from them including a motherboard for under 500 whereas I just recently built a full Phenom II computer for about 400 (including hard drive). I'm not convinced that Intel is really interested in mid-ranged computing.

    2. Re:This is midrange? by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because it's between this

      And this

      --
      Loading...
    3. Re:This is midrange? by kieran · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't let the quad-core bit fool you; that'll be low-end in a couple of years, no doubt.

      Still, the chip in question is definitely at the upper reaches of "mid-range" in my book. I've just picked up the X3 720 model for my home machine, and that was stretching the wallet as far as I was inclined to.

    4. Re:This is midrange? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it's between $100 and $500 which is probably the high end for most PC class processors. Intel has the Core2Duo at the low end, the Core2Quad and the low end Core i7 in the midrange and the faster Core i7 at the high end with a few enthusiast offering at the extremely high end (~$1000). That's basically been the market as long as I can remember which dates back to the early 90's.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:This is midrange? by Albanach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't let the quad-core bit fool you; that'll be low-end in a couple of years, no doubt.

      We've been waiting a decade for improvements in multi-threaded processing to take advantage of multiple cores.

      Are you suggesting programmers are going to make the dramatic developments in the next couple of years that they have been unable to in the last ten?

      Certainly I can see the number of cores increasing at the server end - it's straightforward enough to run one process per client. I'm unsure what's going to change on user desktops that will drive any massive increase in core numbers. Still, I'm prepared to be surprised.

    6. Re:This is midrange? by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just built a new computer for my parents with an Intel boxdg41ty, E6300, 4 gigs of Patriot DDR2, a 1 terabyte Seagate drive, and a Corsair 400 watt power supply for about 275 after rebates and shipping. It isn't a gaming machine, but it works beautifully for just about anything the average non gamer will throw at it.

      --
      The television will not be revolutionized.
    7. Re:This is midrange? by anagama · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think he was including the motherboard in the price.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:This is midrange? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

      You still need DDR3 RAM, and an i7 mobo. Those are both more expensive than an AM3 motherboard with DDR2 RAM. Not as fast overall, but it's a fair bit better value for the buck. Not to mention that you can upgrade incrementally with AMD... the AM3 CPU's work with both DDR2/AM2+ motherboards and DDR2/AM3 and DDR3/AM3 motherboards.

    9. Re:This is midrange? by k_187 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, I think its been a chicken and egg problem for a while. Nobody used multiple cores on the desktop because software didn't take advantage of it and the software didn't take advantage of it because nobody had multiple processors. Intel and AMD realized that if they wanted to keep on the MOAR POWAR treadmill, they were going to have to start packing more cores into the processors. There's no reason to think that programmers won't catch up eventually. We're already seeing stuff take advantage of dual cores.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
  5. The era of the silicon chip is gone. by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: 3, Funny

    AMD and Intel are just running on its fumes. Silicon (Si) is inherently limited by its inorganic composition which means it produces lots of heat especially when it is on the Web. All the smart engineers at the secret R&D labs are working on organic computing: solving the paradox of user interface versus wattage by harnessing the power of bacteria to create a new paradigm of information that is multi-dimensional. Instead of "processes" and "treads" and "HTML" we will have gases and sugars dancing to the rhythm of our wildest imaginations. And one more thing... you will not need your eyes any more since the two-dimensional "screen" and "paper" metaphor will be replaced by a revolutionary direct access to pure consciousness. Buy my book.

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
  6. i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. by millisa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When it comes down to processor comparisons, I see very little compelling about this new AMD proc. The i7 920 is going to outperform it at most things, uses less power and is only 35 bucks more. Eventually for those of us always-on users, even the 10 watt savings of the i7 is going to kill the slight price advantage.

    The only thing I see interesting here is the fact that you have more commodity boards to choose from, could do a slower upgrade (re-use your ddr2!) but this isn't any different than the currently line of quad proc amd chips, many of which can be had for cheaper and use less power.

    Come on, AMD, you can do better.

    1. Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. by lukas84 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, but the i7-920 requires a mainboard with triple channel memory and a quick path interface. They're more expensive than the AMD board, making the price comparison a bit more difficult.

      That said, i bought an i7-920, i think it's the better choice - so far, i haven't been disappointed. We have a few new servers with 5540 Xeons, and they're absurdly fast.

    2. Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can get an i7 920 for $200, so not only is it faster and lower power, it's also cheeper.

      http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0302727

    3. Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but you have to pay the "i7 tax" for a new $220+ motherboard. Core2Duo/Quads will happily plug into any $50 motherboard you (already) have.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  7. Space heaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That is why we have our computers in the cold basement, heat down there is good year round.

  8. Re:is this for desktop or server ? by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wait what? This also serves as a penile extension??!!?? I"ll take 3!

    --
    Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
  9. Re:Q6600 by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've had a Core 2 Duo E4300 running at 3.0 ghz for almost three years now and I haven't found a reason to upgrade. Friends with quad core report no increase in speed or performance, and the only thing that would encourage me to upgrade is a more smp friendly OS but the offerings from Microsoft (Vista and Windows 7) have been pretty poor lately.

    So are we done with the mhz battle? Is ~3ghz the breaking point? We've had Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now. That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"? We should be around 24ghz by now.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  10. Re:More cores? by lukas84 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Beckton, the 8 core / 16 threads Nehalem CPU will be out in Q1 2010.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1050976/intel-bunch-fun-cpus-moves-2010

  11. Re:Q6600 by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"? We should be around 24ghz by now.

    If you're referring to Moore's law, it's not a doubling of speed every 18 months, it's a doubling of transistor counts. Clock speed has never been part of that equation, no matter what intel's late-1990s marketing department would have you believe.

  12. hard comparison to make by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Interesting
    • AMD Phenom II X4 965 - $249
    • Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 - $219
    • Intel Core i7 920 - $279

    Article shows that performance is roughly equivalent beween the Q9550 and Phenom 965, with the AMD part enjoying a slight advantage if you look at all the benchmarks together. This while costing $30 more and consuming more power.

    Would be interesting to see a comparison of the i7 920 with the Phenom. I'm guessing the 920 would outperform, which is what you'd expect since you're paying $30 more.

  13. 38 C ain't that hot by Kyont · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recently completed a home-build with this very CPU. Sure, the chip was the single most expensive piece, but with NewEgg combo deals and shipping discounts, I got the entire machine for about $600, including a smashing new case, plenty of RAM and disk space, extra USB ports and two disc burners. That's mid-range in my book.

    I'm sure some of you hardware nerds will smack me down for one reason or another, but as a starting point I just installed the AMD factory CPU cooler it came with. I don't know what wattage it's pulling, but the CPU temperature is holding very steady at about 38 Celcius, and the fans don't even seem to be working very hard for that. It's working great, and at those temperatures, it should do fine for years to come.

    My $0.02 on the very rare occasion of having first-hand experience with the actual hardware in the story.

    --
    You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
    1. Re:38 C ain't that hot by JumpDrive · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd mod you up.
      But this is the customer line they are looking for. We currently use 6 computers with Phenom II 940's onboard at this time for data analysis. When comparing these with Intel computers the cost would have been much higher. What we found repeatedly during matrix calculations was that the performance vs cost just wasn't a contest.
      I am really really beginning to wonder how much calculation stress people put on their computer in this mid-range market, because I hear and see all of these benchmarks and people discussing their performance and I just don't see a cost performance comparison. I have talked with other people who do some of the same type of work and they see the same thing.
      We do take some added cautions with air circulation just to make sure that we don't run into issues. We repeatedly have cranked these things for 24 hours straight with cpu's running at 70 to 95% of capacity and actually had one occasion where the systems ran over a weekend (limits weren't set correctly).

    2. Re:38 C ain't that hot by Nuno+Sa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah. Intel's TDP definition is different from AMD's. AMD reports the maximum wattage the CPU can burn at full load. Intel reports a "typical" number.

      If this was an Intel CPU the number would be something like 90W or 95W for the very same CPU.

      Anyway, everybody knows that. You can't trust vendor's numbers. Just do your own checking with a power meter.

    3. Re:38 C ain't that hot by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know what wattage it's pulling, but the CPU temperature is holding very steady at about 38 Celcius, and the fans don't even seem to be working very hard for that. It's working great, and at those temperatures, it should do fine for years to come.

      What wattage it's pulling is highly relevant, however. That's the amount of energy turned into heat, after all. Did you measure this while idling, during typical use, or at full load? 38 degrees while not doing anything special is not anything special. If you can keep a 140W processor at 38 degrees at full load, that'd be quite spectacular.

    4. Re:38 C ain't that hot by Retric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cost benefit curve in the consumer CPU space is strange. A 10% faster might be worth twice as much or be totally useless.

      EX: Real time playback of HD movies. If your CPU can't do that it's a pain. However, if it can then extra speed is pointless for that task.

    5. Re:38 C ain't that hot by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really don't understand why anyone would buy the Phenom.. At $245 it's $46 more expensive than the Core i7 920 and performs significantly worse. The 965 isn't listed there, but 955 is, and it's passmark rating is 3,571 while the i7 920 is rated at 5,440. And that's not even considering the fact that you are using triple channel memory access versus dual channel, etc..

      Granted, you can get AM3 motherboards cheaper than X58 boards, but Intel is coming out with more consumer i7 chipsets very soon.

  14. Re:AMD... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now if I could only efficiently recirculate air from my 150 sqft office to the rest of the house, I wouldn't need a furnace...

    If you have a furnace (or forced air system) see if you can turn on the fan only. The return(s) in the room should pull the heat out of the office to the other rooms. That is if you have a return in the office, a good system has a return (even a small one) in every room. My house built in the mid 1950's has small returns in every room.

  15. Re:Q6600 by mdm-adph · · Score: 2, Informative

    The newer batches of the Q6600 (2.4 GHz stock, by the way) are terrible overclockers -- you'll have to buy one of the older ones off of Ebay to have any chance of getting it above 3.2 GHz (even experienced overclockers had tons of trouble with the newest Q6600's).

    Just get a Q9400 -- it's both faster, cooler, and has more overclocking headroom.

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  16. Re:More cores? by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

    no.
    in a multi chip module (MCM), intel calls it a Multi Chip Package (MCP).
    It's two single chips of 6 cores each in one package.
    It is two chips in one socket.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  17. Re:AMD... by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wouldn't need a furnace...

    How would better air circulation eliminate the need for your P4 system?

  18. AMD vs Intel by sanosuke001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know I'll be called a fanboy or something but I've been building AMD/ATI systems for the last ten years based solely on the fact that it isn't Intel/nVidia. I'm not going to pay $1000 for the top-of-the-line Intel chip anyway and I'd rather see AMD in business than Intel be the only big player.

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:AMD vs Intel by citylivin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A fool is someone who blindly sticks to their brand preference. Yes, ten years ago when the athlon xp line of amd processors came out, they were owning up and down the crappy p4s. Intel has come a long way. They pioneered multiple cores, at which time they surpassed amd in terms of performance and heat. Anything before core2 was crap, but after that everyone who doesn't want to lie to themselves switched to intel.

      I ran dual opterons for years, but it got replaced with a quad processor intel machine last year. I even had a cyrex back in the day, so I am no fanboi. The better decision is to use what benchmarks the best at the right price point.

      As for video cards, ati has always had ass drivers, whereas nvidia drivers are constantly rock solid. For me that is no contest. Being brand loyal is at best a disservice to yourself, and at worst you will make bad purchasing decisions for others. Perhaps if you supplied reasons for your choices, a reasoned argument why ATI and AMD is better (and there are some, price for instance) then people will take you more seriously.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  19. Re:Phenom II X4 965 by jdb2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been a Linux user for several years and prior to that I was a Windows junkie. Back then, when I upgraded my hardware I never had to do a reinstall of the OS ( XP ) or applications. I don't know if that's what you intended but if not here's a tip :

    Say your system files/data are stored on a single hard drive, ( this also applies to the multiple hard drives ) then, before you do anything with regards to a hardware upgrade, such as changing the mainboard, go into the device manager and replace all your system specific devices with the generic Microsoft equivalents. Now, after you've built the new system install your system drive and you should be able to boot up in a generic VESA display mode in which you can allow Windows to autodetect the new hardware and/or in which you can manually install the new system specific drivers.

    Always worked for me.

    Cheers,

    jdb2