Curse

deluxe · Apr 06, 2008, 05:17 AM // 05:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

So in other words It'd be a bad idea to get it, wasn't going to - just asking for informational purposes.

Since you mention Intel, is a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz better than an AMD Athlon 6000+?

I Would take the cheapest Core 2 Duo over the latest Athlon, it's just not in the same league. Phenom and Core 2 Duo are in the same league, but still intel beats amd there.

I Dont Do Coke · Apr 06, 2008, 05:45 AM // 05:45

And not to mention that Core 2s overclock better and more.

Blackhearted · Apr 06, 2008, 06:04 AM // 06:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

AMD chips have no FSB, per se, and uses HT technology as a replacement for their modern chips (Intel on the other hand, got rid of HT after Pentium->Core).

I think you're mixing Hypertransport and Hyperthreading up a bit here. Intel has never used Hypertransport on their cpus. The HT you're thinking of that they ditched between the Pentiums and the Core 2 is the hyperthreading kind. Which trys to act like a (kinda) second cpu of sorts, not an FSB.

Brianna · Apr 06, 2008, 06:11 AM // 06:11

So.. It's really that bad for AMD now is it?

Well, guess I'll make an Intel based computer next time, but for now this one runs really fast so I'm not complaining.

Maybe the OP can take or leave a few things from that, who knows.

Master Ketsu · Apr 06, 2008, 06:27 AM // 06:27

HDD makes a difference, but not as big as CPU clockspeed, RAM, and you graphics card. Go for Processor upgrade. A video card with plenty of dedicated RAM on it is also a good bet.

Admael · Apr 06, 2008, 06:45 AM // 06:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

I think you're mixing Hypertransport and Hyperthreading up a bit here. Intel has never used Hypertransport on their cpus. The HT you're thinking of that they ditched between the Pentiums and the Core 2 is the hyperthreading kind. Which trys to act like a (kinda) second cpu of sorts, not an FSB.

Actually I did get it confused because both HT were released around the same time and I keep forgetting because Intel keep promising to bring back HTT.

Anyways I'm not saying AMD is "that bad" because in theory having the FSB built directly into the processor makes AMD chips faster, in theory.

But as far as performance vs price goes: Intel is hands down the best.

Brianna · Apr 06, 2008, 06:57 AM // 06:57

Well, I noticed that all high end gaming boards have Intel sockets, I've yet to find one with AMD, so originally that told me something.

And most gamers usually seemed to go with Intel anyway, and I've been meaning to give them a shot again - I remember 10 years ago or so I started hating them a lot for some reason, and went AMD every since.

But as you all know days and ages change, who knows, some day maybe ATI will dominate the gamer's choice market, etc. But I'm sure not giving up my Nvidia chips for a long time.

Admael · Apr 06, 2008, 09:16 AM // 09:16

About a week ago, Intel released the Skulltrail (it's not named Skulltrail anymore, but I refuse it to call it whatever Intel calls it).

Along with the D5400XS Skulltrail, released a second QX Penryn, the QX9775.

Before I get into specs, I'd like to say, nothing on the AMD market (gaming or otherwise) compares with this setup.

The downside is, it costs 3700 USD for the board + processors. *ONLY*
So you can rest assured it's a pure gaming system.

So smooth sailing for Intel? Nope. They give this board FBDIMM support.
Seriously, Full Buffered DIMMS? Who uses those? DDR2, no less.

Anyways, I don't have much faith in AMD either, ATI seems like it would be a good way to go... but I wonder with Larabee in the near future, is there any room left for ATI/AMD?

Gaming boards for AMD?
AMD 790FX

EDIT: Oh right, specs

D5400XS Skulltrail:
NB: Intel 5400 Skulltrail
FSB Standard: 1600
Memory Standard: DDR 800/667 (FBDIMM)
PCI-e: 4 (1.1 @ 16x, Crossfire or SLI)

QX9775 "Penryn" Yorkfield
FSB: 1600
Clock: 3.2GHz
L2 Cache: 12MB (6k x2)
Vcore: 1.212v (ouch)
Therms: 150W (ouch)

Blackhearted · Apr 06, 2008, 04:11 PM // 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

But as you all know days and ages change, who knows, some day maybe ATI will dominate the gamer's choice market, etc. But I'm sure not giving up my Nvidia chips for a long time.

Nvidia's current dominance has made them lazy and their driver support pretty bad. Aside from barely releasing any new, non-beta drivers, they also refuse to fix huge bugs their competitor does not have.

Brianna · Apr 06, 2008, 04:18 PM // 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

Nvidia's current dominance has made them lazy and their driver support pretty bad. Aside from barely releasing any new, non-beta drivers, they also refuse to fix huge bugs their competitor does not have.

Yeah I noticed, their new lineup of GPU's is pretty lame, I'm sticking with my 8800's, the 9 series is a waste of cash.

Also I have had no driver issues on my part - but I know other people are, pretty annoying none the less.

But yeah Admael, I heard about that stuff being released, but there is no way I'd pay that much, something like a simple Intel dual core and a 790i would be sufficient for a ''Super Gaming Rig'' on my part.

Admael · Apr 06, 2008, 08:09 PM // 20:09

E8400 and 790i?

It's kinda sad when the mobo cost more than the processor.
I'd go with the E8400 and 750i. It's essentially the same board as the 780i without the Tri-SLi, and you keep DDR2 memory.

Pasha the Mighty · Apr 06, 2008, 09:18 PM // 21:18

e8400 rules! If you have a fast cpu, then you could consider getting a 10k hdd for your programs, it will speed up your boottime and startup time for games, but imho it's a bit of a waste. Invest it in a 1 TB hdd and put that to good use.
@Brianna: the 9900gt is supposed to be as good as the 9800gtx, and the 9900gtx and 9900gx2 are supposed to be amazing. Let's just hope they are!

Admael · Apr 06, 2008, 10:20 PM // 22:20

The E8400 does rule, but I'm afraid it stops there. Intel doesn't find AMD as worthy competition anymore, so they're slowing innovation and raising prices.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=486

Quaker · Apr 07, 2008, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

So in other words It'd be a bad idea to get it, wasn't going to - just asking for informational purposes.

Since you mention Intel, is a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz better than an AMD Athlon 6000+?

For most things, yes. But the AMD 6000+ is probably cheaper and better than the Intel processor of the same price.

If you want bang-for-the-buck, go AMD. If you just want bang, never mind the buck, go for Intel. Of course that`s today (or yesterday) - tomorrow could be different.

Admael · Apr 07, 2008, 08:07 AM // 08:07

If you're referring to the Conroe E6750, that thing will light your house on fire. Safety hazard for sure, so steer clear

But the E6750 (333x8) is faster than the X2 6000+ (200x15).

And I shit you not, they just dropped the price on the E8400. It costs about $60 more than the X2 6000+.