I thought that for 300 getting an FX processor was going to rule. (I havn't upgraded since I made the mistake of buying a brand new 3800+ X2 so I havn't been following the scene.)I'm an AMD !!!!!! so i'm posting in the AMD forum BTW. My buddy said that the 2.4 core duo is overclockable to 3.5ghz core, and still kicks the ass of the AMD's. I can't compare off the top of my head because of the diffrence in how the motherboards are setup, so I ask you, at what points is this $70 cheaper intel processor going to overtake the FX? Please respond ASAP, the processor is on sale today at newegg and I wanna leap if nessicary.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor VS Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz
- Thread starter merach
- Start date
Ok over at tomshardware.com i'm comparing the 2 and the Intel bests the AMD in more catagories than I wanted to see.
Stats:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe (2400mhz/266 FSB?<-- Can anyone verify this?)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor (2800mhz/200 FSB? Read above)
3d Studio Max 8 - Dragon_Character_Rig 1:38 > 1:40 Intel
3Dmark06 - CPU - Version 1.0.2: 2167 > 2136 AMD
3Dmark06 - graphics - Version 1.0.2: 6161 > 6107 Intel
AVG Anti Virus 7.1 - Filescan (3.85 GB, 14007 Files, 1177 Folder): 56 min > 59 min Intel
Call of duty - timedemo demo2: 180fps > 153 FPS intel
Clone DVD 2.8 - Transcoding DVD 9 to DVD 5 GB (Terminator 2 SE) 8:18 > 8:29 AMD
Divx 6.2.2 - first 5 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE: 5:52 > 6:45 Intel
F.E.A.R. - (v1.04), Benchmark2: 67 > 62 Intel
F.E.A.R. - (v1.04), Benchmark1: 129 > 126 Intel
Stats:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe (2400mhz/266 FSB?<-- Can anyone verify this?)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor (2800mhz/200 FSB? Read above)
3d Studio Max 8 - Dragon_Character_Rig 1:38 > 1:40 Intel
3Dmark06 - CPU - Version 1.0.2: 2167 > 2136 AMD
3Dmark06 - graphics - Version 1.0.2: 6161 > 6107 Intel
AVG Anti Virus 7.1 - Filescan (3.85 GB, 14007 Files, 1177 Folder): 56 min > 59 min Intel
Call of duty - timedemo demo2: 180fps > 153 FPS intel
Clone DVD 2.8 - Transcoding DVD 9 to DVD 5 GB (Terminator 2 SE) 8:18 > 8:29 AMD
Divx 6.2.2 - first 5 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE: 5:52 > 6:45 Intel
F.E.A.R. - (v1.04), Benchmark2: 67 > 62 Intel
F.E.A.R. - (v1.04), Benchmark1: 129 > 126 Intel
Depends what OS you'll use for it. 32-bit intel all the way. 64-bit go AMD, FX-62 in 64-bit will kill the compitition. Don't listen to 3rd party benches, most are single threaded and thats just not what AMD's dual core was made for. C2D is not as good at multi tasking as AMD's are and the FSB issue has given the remark "LAG" used a lot for C2D. AMD's are more responcive despite C2D's speed ganes and huge L2.
Toms hardware is not very pro AMD. Go and look at indepentent benchmarking at Xtreme system forums. Nobody said C2D wasn't fast, cus it is, but its not the best for every solution. 32-bit is not the future and will not be around for much longer. Its life is almost history like 16-bit was to 32-bit 20 years later after 32-bit was 1st made down the road we are getting to the point that 64-bit will be the only current around. The only other thing C2D wins in is its ability to OC. But that will soon change with the unknown power of K10.
I currently have the advantage and ability for the future. I wouldn't agree any other way at the current standpoint. Go AMD, wait until April 9th and the FX62 will only cost $200 and the X2 6000+ only $250. In 32-bit FX-62 is surpassed by the E6700. In 64-bit the E6800 is about equal agenst the FX-62 and surpassed by the X2 6000+ But the X6800 costs nearly one grand and the X2 6000+ costs less then 1/4th of it. Who has the real advantage here? AMD AM2 single socket solution. Flag Ship Processor $250. Intel Single Socket solution Flag Ship Processor $999. What a rip off!!! And quad core has no current advantages, maybe in 4 years. Dual cores are only supported by a fraction of software programers currently. You have no support from quad core parts as of yet. Thats why its best to just stay with Dual core C2D or AMD's current or future X2+ Star Processors in the next few months. What you'll use with quad core are only 2 cores and the other 2 will be on idle for 99% of its lifetime, despite benchmark tests. The OS can only use those cores for backround services if it supports that many threads. Benchmarks are not the real world People! The real world is a crual place and if you only knew the truth it would hurt pretty bad.
Most people don't get it, benckmarks are not real world results and will vary. True performance isn't mesured by how much FPS you get or how high your cpu score is. Its how quick it feels and how fast it gets the real task done. Not a simulated test.
Toms hardware is not very pro AMD. Go and look at indepentent benchmarking at Xtreme system forums. Nobody said C2D wasn't fast, cus it is, but its not the best for every solution. 32-bit is not the future and will not be around for much longer. Its life is almost history like 16-bit was to 32-bit 20 years later after 32-bit was 1st made down the road we are getting to the point that 64-bit will be the only current around. The only other thing C2D wins in is its ability to OC. But that will soon change with the unknown power of K10.
I currently have the advantage and ability for the future. I wouldn't agree any other way at the current standpoint. Go AMD, wait until April 9th and the FX62 will only cost $200 and the X2 6000+ only $250. In 32-bit FX-62 is surpassed by the E6700. In 64-bit the E6800 is about equal agenst the FX-62 and surpassed by the X2 6000+ But the X6800 costs nearly one grand and the X2 6000+ costs less then 1/4th of it. Who has the real advantage here? AMD AM2 single socket solution. Flag Ship Processor $250. Intel Single Socket solution Flag Ship Processor $999. What a rip off!!! And quad core has no current advantages, maybe in 4 years. Dual cores are only supported by a fraction of software programers currently. You have no support from quad core parts as of yet. Thats why its best to just stay with Dual core C2D or AMD's current or future X2+ Star Processors in the next few months. What you'll use with quad core are only 2 cores and the other 2 will be on idle for 99% of its lifetime, despite benchmark tests. The OS can only use those cores for backround services if it supports that many threads. Benchmarks are not the real world People! The real world is a crual place and if you only knew the truth it would hurt pretty bad.
Most people don't get it, benckmarks are not real world results and will vary. True performance isn't mesured by how much FPS you get or how high your cpu score is. Its how quick it feels and how fast it gets the real task done. Not a simulated test.
freeloader1969
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,238
If you're going to overclock, grab an Intel CPU. If not, you really can't go wrong with either high end chip. Be very patient though, AMD will have price drops on the 9th of April and Intel will have drops on the 22nd of April I believe. Quite significant drops as well. 
When K10 comes out Intel will drop there quad core prices by about 70% and make a QX6950 I beleave worth only $266 on K10's release. But if thats the case how well will AMD's K10 compare since these prices are just insane. If Intel has to make those kind of drastic desprate price cuts when K10 is around just to stay compeditive agenst a K10 quad, they must be worried about something we don't know about with K10's release. Perhaps Intel knows of its true danger agenst them they are facing.
And AMD will just do the same thing with more price cuts. But it might not need to because its performance is claming 40% ALU and 3.6X FPU over Intels current. By then Intel will be capable of atleast a wolfdile and yorkfeild at 4ghz and 3.7ghz to compete better with a K10. This confirms how powerful K10 really is and Intel knows it.
Intel doesn't release chips at a higher clock for no reason at all. Its to beable to stay in the game and be higher then the next model when needed. So a yorkfeild at 3.7ghz is needed to beat a 2.5ghz or so AFX. Then thats just insane and why Intel would price a flag ship processor at $266 just like AMD is currently doing. It usoully matches the model its trying to beat with its price per performance ratio agenst its higher priced compeditor.
And AMD will just do the same thing with more price cuts. But it might not need to because its performance is claming 40% ALU and 3.6X FPU over Intels current. By then Intel will be capable of atleast a wolfdile and yorkfeild at 4ghz and 3.7ghz to compete better with a K10. This confirms how powerful K10 really is and Intel knows it.
Intel doesn't release chips at a higher clock for no reason at all. Its to beable to stay in the game and be higher then the next model when needed. So a yorkfeild at 3.7ghz is needed to beat a 2.5ghz or so AFX. Then thats just insane and why Intel would price a flag ship processor at $266 just like AMD is currently doing. It usoully matches the model its trying to beat with its price per performance ratio agenst its higher priced compeditor.
Can you back up any of those claims or are you just going by one test?
wesleys_dad
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
- Messages
- 1,271
Ill tell you I was pleased to read your thoughts [serge84] on the amd cpu's and how they do and will compare to the c2d's.. I read so many posts on the intel chips that I cant believe why im so happy with my 939 rig.. By all acounts it should be a slow and very unresponsive system..
The intel c2d systems ive built for a few customers dont seem any faster than my 939 rig doing all real world tasks..And burning dvd's may take my rig 30-60 seconds longer but it is hardly noticeable to me...
Your posts above mine here are so true and really hit the nail on the head.
when I show a customer the 2 systems i have setup for demo's,1 amd am2 and 1 intel c2d both o/clocked the same percentage with the cost of the rigs placed on top of each tower. almost all people seem to choose the amd systems. The better bang for the buck i guess. The time differences to complete different tasks that intel is faster at is so small that to the average consumer it makes no difference.. were talking a minute or two and if it bothers you look in your wallet and see the the cash you saved and then think about how great your amd system runs..All the hype about these intel cpu's are so much over kill,they are great cpu's and they are faster than the current ams cpu's but they arent so much faster that your amd system is so slow in comparison that its unuseable.
That is the impression you get reading all the intel fanfare and alot of these intel boys i think really believe it.
Im waiting for the am2+ motherboards come out and the new k10's are available and then im going to do a major upgrade and until then im going to enjoy my 939 system and get a kick out of how fast it is ..And in a strange way ill be sorry to see am2+ come out because my current rig will be my backup or ill have to sell it..To be totally honest this system is the most stable and enjoyable system i have ever built for myself.
These are just some thoughts on how i see the current flavor of the forums these days......
The intel c2d systems ive built for a few customers dont seem any faster than my 939 rig doing all real world tasks..And burning dvd's may take my rig 30-60 seconds longer but it is hardly noticeable to me...
Your posts above mine here are so true and really hit the nail on the head.
when I show a customer the 2 systems i have setup for demo's,1 amd am2 and 1 intel c2d both o/clocked the same percentage with the cost of the rigs placed on top of each tower. almost all people seem to choose the amd systems. The better bang for the buck i guess. The time differences to complete different tasks that intel is faster at is so small that to the average consumer it makes no difference.. were talking a minute or two and if it bothers you look in your wallet and see the the cash you saved and then think about how great your amd system runs..All the hype about these intel cpu's are so much over kill,they are great cpu's and they are faster than the current ams cpu's but they arent so much faster that your amd system is so slow in comparison that its unuseable.
That is the impression you get reading all the intel fanfare and alot of these intel boys i think really believe it.
Im waiting for the am2+ motherboards come out and the new k10's are available and then im going to do a major upgrade and until then im going to enjoy my 939 system and get a kick out of how fast it is ..And in a strange way ill be sorry to see am2+ come out because my current rig will be my backup or ill have to sell it..To be totally honest this system is the most stable and enjoyable system i have ever built for myself.
These are just some thoughts on how i see the current flavor of the forums these days......
SpoogeMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,934
I don't think intel is afraid of anything at the moment. They're cutting prices because 45nm penryn is right around the corner, with nehalem not far behind.
SpoogeMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,934
nvm
No Test, Benchmark is a accreate measure of real world performance. If you had both systems you could make that assumption and find out for yourself. The majority of ppl will tell you who know what they are talking about, exactly what I stated here with 32-bit and 64-bit statements. 2nd of all do you have a 64-bit OS to see these yourself and a AMD system of similar performance, configured a similar fair way?
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7491
Don't expect a saving grace. Both won't be out before wolfdile or yorkfield anyways because there will not be a 1600FSB until the end of the Q3 2007 it won't even be chipset compattible. But these will... Wolfdile and yorkfield will outperform penryn from a speed perspective anyways so those are the ones to look forward to on a 1333FSB and are prob supported today.
http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/RoadmapQ307.htm
Nehalem will not be out until the end of 2008 around when AMD will have APU's K1X around the same time that feature 4 or more cores, a replacement of the CPU with Fusion type cores in desktops and servers to counter Nehalem. But AMD is generations ahead of Nehalem in CSI With HT-4 (In 2008 on AM3 also DDR3), memory controllers, PCI-E controllers, North bridge on die, CPU/GPU cores because of ATI's superior GPU tech agenst Intel, and Direct connect arc. Intel isn't going to be in the lead with just minimal editions that have been around for oh since about 2003 for most of the stuff. CSI is a rip off of hyper transport.
http://rubyworks.net/forumz/viewtopic.php?t=363
Just because they copy AMD doesn't mean it will be as good, they have no experionce in the field. AMD however has the most advanced GPU market, and development experionce to backup the performance agenst cheap imitations of something thats been out since 2003 for the most part. And don't even talk about where Intel is VS another GPU company, cus they don't compare to even the 4XXX series of anything invidea has much less the FX5XXX series or Radeon 9XXX series. I seriously doult intel can come close to any of them anytime soon when they do put GPU's into CPU's as editions vs something remotly close to the 2K series or 8XXX series build into a die with cpus.
http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/Roadmap20XX.htm
Mr. Stryker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,221
Well done Serge84. I strongly support your responses.
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
The Intel Core 2 Duo at stock will already be slightly faster then the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, as that is essentially a 5600+ at higher TDP and unlocked multiplier, the 6000+ can match the E6600 evenly with them trading blow for blow.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup.html
If your buying AMD, wait a week or so more for it if you can and grab either the 5600+ or 6000+ if you want, as they will be pretty even with Intel on pricing once those price drops occur. If overclocking however, Intel blows AMD away at the current moment as your lucky if you get 3.2GHZ on the Windsor based cores today, and your already starting from 2.8GHZ, while a Conroe that starts at 2.4GHZ can potentially get to 3.5GHZ and that is more then a 50% increase of Core 2 Duo.
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
Nice try, but this kinda thing brings human subjectivity into the equation, and for comparison purposes that is unacceptable as humans are biased individuals. That is why benchmarks were developed in the first place as you have the law of the scientific method.
Alot of these tasks, while they are benchmarks of what you would do in real life, they have just been standardized so they can be run exactly the same on multiple machines.
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
Intel isn't afraid, they are just focused on regaining marketshare as quickly as possible. The Q3 2007 are going to make AMD's desktop K8L/K10 parts priced either competitively to maintain parity with Intel or AMD can price higher and lose marketshare.
The Penryn family is sometime down the road, were looking at perhaps Q4 2007 for the server and Core 2 Extreme launch and then Q1 2008 for the mainstream desktop launch not too sure about where the mobile launch would fit in.
Nehalem at this point in time is a bit over 1 year away. So it's a tad early to be discussing it at this time.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
So what's coming out in the next 6 months or so from both Intel and AMD?
I need to build a high end Vista rig, and right now I plan on going this the Core 2 Quad Core. Anything worth waiting for other than price cuts?
I need to build a high end Vista rig, and right now I plan on going this the Core 2 Quad Core. Anything worth waiting for other than price cuts?
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
1) I'm pretty sure that on almost all benchies, the c2d-e6600 will be the winner.
2) You can get the FX-62 for $299 .. as of 12:39 EST, on 03/31/2007 code "AMDROCKS329" still works @ newegg.
3) the e6600 is $299
That being said.
The cost of a new motherboard if you don't have a c2d setup over the cost of just popping in an fx-62 if you DO have a setup that supports it makes going intel more costly.
You might even need new ram by switching to intel
The point I'm making here is
If I was building a system from scratch, I'd go with an intel e6600 rig over an amd fx-62 rig
If I already HAD, say, a 4400+ am2 and was just gonna be popping in a cpu, I'd go for the fx-62
The lead that intel has over the fx-62 is marginal to medium. It's not DRASTIC
vanilla_guerilla
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,895
not to start a flame war (i have intel and amd dual cores and like them both), but amd lost how many hundreds of millions the last several quarters in a row? intel made 1 point what billion last quarter? (my numbers may be slightly off, but you get the idea) danger? desprate(sic)? compeditive(sic)? its all just marketing crap on both sides. doubtful either will be selling their cpus at a loss. if they can sell their top of the line cpu at $266, you can be sure it probably costs less than $100 to fabricate.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
This rant is based on the belief that the overall construction cost of an equally performing am2 rig over a c2d rig is signifigant.
Video cards, harddrives, cases, power supplies, sound cards, optical drives, monitor, mice, and operating systems all cost the same no matter what PROCESSOR you are using.
Motherboards tend to be very similairly priced within 5-10% for equally matched setups.
Some amd rigs can still use DDR (but hell, so can some c2d rigs.. )
but ram is pretty uniform accross the board unless you are comparing PC3200 vs DDR2-800 or something.
FX-62 is $299-369
C2D-E6600 is $299.
They are equally matched performance wise.
What you are comparing, probably, is some x2-3500+ cpu vs an e6700 and noticing that it takes only a few seconds more to do some light duty test that really isn't stretching the limits of the processors.
Compile a 90 minute 3d rendered movie, that's got 160,000 frames to render, then tell me which one is done first.
Your "end user" who can't tell the difference between the performance of an x2-3500+ and an e6700 ALSO couldn't tell the difference in performance of a k62-500 and an x6800 for writing a letter in ms-word
The fact that you use "burning a disk" as a reference of system performance shows what little you understand.
The point he is making is that AMD CPU's are not "bad". What I don't get is how since Intel has put out C2D, which as everyone can see, is faster than AMD, it automatically means that AMD is making the crappiest proc ever invented. Obviously not, it's still dual core and it'll still get things done faster than any single-core out there.
I just bought my new rig yesterday, despite what people who love Intel told me on this forum. I bought a 3600+ brisbane and Tforce 550 mobo combo for $133. Is that dumb? I'm pairing it with an 8800gts 320MB. If i left it stock obviously I would.... BUT it's common to get that thing overclocked to at least 2.6Ghz, not uncommon to hit almost 3 if not 3.1 Ghz. What does that equal in terms of C2D? Well, on average, X2's need about 600 Mhz more to compare to a C2D, so basically I just bought a stock E6600... IF I wasn't overclocking. But how much did I pay? Under half of JUST what the E6600 costs, not to mention how much more expensive Intel Mobo's are.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/
I put together a rig for $800. You can't do that with C2D. I was getting people telling me I should at LEAST buy an E4300... why? I bought a CPU and mobo for $30 less than just that proc. I'm probably only going to be using this rig for about a year. Not everyone has 4 grand for an X6800, 8 gigs of ram, etc etc....
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
Again with the overclocked to stock comparison, normalize the comparisons please, while you did get "stock E6600" performance by overclocking the Brisbane 3600+ to 3.0GHZ or somewhere in that ballpark. You can achieve greater then "stock X6800" performance by overclocking something like a E4300 or E6300 on the Intel side as well. It costs more but you get more as well.
This doesn't make the Brisbane a bad deal by any means, but the overclocked to stock comparison is really getting old.
For $800USD, it depends on how many other components you need, a E4300 + P965 combo would run you about $260, but it gives stock performance on the level of the 4400+ and there is good probability your going to get to 3.0GHZ with such a combo.
The same can be said with the Athlon 64x2 vs the Pentium D comparison, but we still had the same reactions then, that we did now.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
I beg to differ.
I have an e6300 system sitting 10 feet from me that cost me less than $600 to build, including e6300 cpu, mobo, new psu, new case, 7800gs video card, 500gb storage, 16x optical, 2gb ram.
That doesn't include the o/s
7800gs = 137.87 (a.r. of $50)
2gb ram = $101.39
500gb storage : 99.00 (ar of $20)
psu = F.A.R.
cpu + mobo combo = 161.60
case = F.A.R.
optical drive = $35.64
($685.50 before rebates, 535.50 after rebates)
even if i bought some highish end psu (say .. $100) i'd still be in the low 600s (635.50)... hell, i coulda bought a silencer750 and been only at $734.50
I could have gone with a higher end video card (the 7800gs doesn't suck, but it's not an 8800GTX, either) but i wouldn't consider it on par, with say, onboard video
But even the ati 1950s are in the low 200s for some of them now.. and you can get an 8800gts for only $200 more than my $535.50 total price, making it STILL under $800 for a c2d system.Well I would never buy a PSU for free... rather important part.
X2 3600+ and Tforce 550 - $133
Buffalo Firestix 2Gb Ram - $190
500GB Barracuda - $120
Ultra Wizard Case - F.A.R.
EVGA 8800 GTS 320MB - $280
Xclio 460W STABLEPOWER - $50
Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro - $30
Samsung DVD Burner - $31
Total $834
As you can see, I bought an 8800GTS... now if the CPU oc's to even 2.6Ghz, it won't be bottlenecked, and I'll have a much better gaming rig than with a 7800GT.
I'm not saying that C2D isn't worth the money, don't get me wrong, it's worth every penny. BUT if you don't have the cash I don't think you need to make exceptions everywhere else just so you can have a C2D. X2's will still do almost anyone just fine, it's just a lot of hype since it's faster. I'm actually kind of happy I didn't have to jump on the Intel bandwagon since for the last 4 years I've used AMD.
It's just annoying that people say AMD suddenly sucks because Intel made a faster proc. It doesn't make sense. It's common sense to get a better video card than CPU if you can, as long as it's within reason. I have a feeling I'll be much more happy with this setup than I would with an E4300 and a 7800GT... This will give me much better FPS and be ready for DX10.
X2 3600+ and Tforce 550 - $133
Buffalo Firestix 2Gb Ram - $190
500GB Barracuda - $120
Ultra Wizard Case - F.A.R.
EVGA 8800 GTS 320MB - $280
Xclio 460W STABLEPOWER - $50
Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro - $30
Samsung DVD Burner - $31
Total $834
As you can see, I bought an 8800GTS... now if the CPU oc's to even 2.6Ghz, it won't be bottlenecked, and I'll have a much better gaming rig than with a 7800GT.
I'm not saying that C2D isn't worth the money, don't get me wrong, it's worth every penny. BUT if you don't have the cash I don't think you need to make exceptions everywhere else just so you can have a C2D. X2's will still do almost anyone just fine, it's just a lot of hype since it's faster. I'm actually kind of happy I didn't have to jump on the Intel bandwagon since for the last 4 years I've used AMD.
It's just annoying that people say AMD suddenly sucks because Intel made a faster proc. It doesn't make sense. It's common sense to get a better video card than CPU if you can, as long as it's within reason. I have a feeling I'll be much more happy with this setup than I would with an E4300 and a 7800GT... This will give me much better FPS and be ready for DX10.
This backs absolutely NONE of your claims. Of course being 2nd best doesn't mean you suck. Intel already showed off System On a Chip. They had a working Integrated memory controller on Timna long before the first Athlon64 shipped, Copied?
Alpha first with IMC
Timna second
Athlon64 third
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070205043526.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/2007-3-28.html
Believe it or not, this is closer than Fusion from what I've read.
Integrated memory controllers and AMD's BUS are both Alpha's IP LOL! Microsoft forced Intel to use AMD's 64bit additions to INTEL'S X86 LOL! Copy your say?
Of course you talk of benchmarks not counting since Intel is kicking ass in them. I like my 3500+ and even like my bud's [email protected], yet both gets their asses kicked by my E6600. I'm talking real world 23% faster IN XPeg/DivX, 20% Foobar conversions hell you name it?
No, the Athlons and Opterons do NOT SUCK. They're just not as fast and not a as good of a deal=P I agree, many non [H] users might NOT notice
Nice rig except for that PSU!
I've not seen anyone say AMD suddenly sucks. Many do except reality and say C2D is faster. Since C2D proves itself, it's not Hype. Being loyal to Intel or AMD is kind of wacky
That's what makes them lazy, raise prices, stifles innovation and other negative market forces.alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
Nice rig for a low price and yet Donnie's E6600 rig will get its ass kicked by your X2 3600+ rig, I'm talking about real world, faster in most games
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
Nice rig for a low price and yet Donnie's E6600 rig will get its ass kicked by your X2 3600+ rig, I'm talking about real world, faster in most games
When the video cards aren't normalized then the comparison is invalid.
Nice rig for a low price and yet Donnie's E6600 rig will get its ass kicked by your X2 3600+ rig, I'm talking about real world, faster in most games
Yup and mine kicks the shit out of his when everything but video card dependent games are tested LOL! That has nothing to do with his X2 3600+ but coming from you, I'm not surprised. I'm talking real world too LOL!
Edit, kicks the shit out of yours too LOL!
(cf)Eclipse
Freelance Overclocker
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,027
heh...
except if all he's doing is playing games....
go find something better to do than flamebait the amd forums donnie, it's getting old now
The cool thing about "everything else" is that I don't mind walking away and doing something else while ripping a CD converting a movie... not that I do that very much anyways.
And yes, most people on here will now say that AMD sucks. Check the posts.
And yes, most people on here will now say that AMD sucks. Check the posts.
heh...
except if all he's doing is playing games....
go find something better to do than flamebait the amd forums donnie, it's getting old now
Mine was said jokingly after I only said something about a PSU, please direct your comments to alg7
You saw what I said to you, what I said to the other guy wasn't directed at you. I only commented on your Power Supply, NOT the rest of your rig
Again, nice rig and congrats.If you're overclocking and using a power hungrey 8800GTS you'll be putting a strain on any good 550W PSU. Even the Xclio 550W model from the same company or the 500W model at the minimum. If you're running stock 460W is barely enough, but that's just in my opinion.
heh...
except if all he's doing is playing games....
go find something better to do than flamebait the amd forums donnie, it's getting old now
Oh and next time, please don't skip someone else flamebait to try and moderate any phucking thing I posted! By doing that, YOU encourage others to pull the same crap alg7_munif did!
Even Newbie knows games are video card dependent and has very little to do with a Processor. If he'd said "Nice rig for a low price and yet Donnie's X1800XT rig will get its ass kicked by your 8800GTS rig, I'm talking about real world, faster in most games"
I'd only reply with a QFT! Now the only reason I'd NOT tell you to $^#% off is that it'd get me banned! Your one sided BS blinds you and is not just old but very tiresome as well!
BAC4D00R SP1D0R
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 392
lol u guys are funny.. really to me I don't care much less what's better Intel or Amd all i care is which one is good TODAY. I agree AMD has it's pros and cons.. Intel is a large corporation and they won't be afraid to flex their muscle. I remember Herbert Hoover said "The business in America is business". So basically I'm seeing all this as a business perspective. Really to me if the company gets a decent sized market share and has a good product like what Intel has with it's Core 2 Duo when they REALIZED they were getting their asses kicked by AMD's 64 bit cpus. So it's a wake up call for them and I guess I'm just happy that there is competition that will benefit us as a customer. I just follow what's good that's all
lol u guys are funny.. really to me I don't care much less what's better Intel or Amd all i care is which one is good TODAY. I agree AMD has it's pros and cons.. Intel is a large corporation and they won't be afraid to flex their muscle. I remember Herbert Hoover said "The business in America is business". So basically I'm seeing all this as a business perspective. Really to me if the company gets a decent sized market share and has a good product like what Intel has with it's Core 2 Duo when they REALIZED they were getting their asses kicked by AMD's 64 bit cpus. So it's a wake up call for them and I guess I'm just happy that there is competition that will benefit us as a customer. I just follow what's good that's all
haha I really couldn't agree more. I'm actually very thankful for Intel... if they had never released the C2D and had stuck with Netburst.... I definitely would not have been able to buy an X2 and mobo for $133!
QFT!