intel user wants help to choose amd processor

ellover009 said:
I was thinking the 4000 or 4400 x-2 because they would bottleneck less a 7800gtx or new ati coming soon. I am still in process of figuring this out. then is either asus mobo or fatal1ty, and i think asus is better.
Click to expand...



Or, get a nice cheap X2 3800+, overclock it, and have a nice cheap X2 4800+ :D
 
DejaWiz said:
Oh really? This should put your AMD is slow idea to rest. ;)

In all seriousness, we overclock because this is [H]ard|Forum, not asket|Weaving. Hehehe
Click to expand...




Hahahahahahaha....QFT...and in my sig!
 
Russ said:
For the reasons people have said, don't get a X2. Waste of money and by the time they are needed there will be something new. Get a 3500+ and a PPU for christmas and you'll be doing WAY better in AOE3 than someone with a X2 4400+ for the same money or less.
Click to expand...


Oh boy, you are so wrong about that one.... :p
 
Russ said:
This has been discussed before, but imho A64s are fast enough for most people without hyperthreading or dual core for anything out right now. I have a 3000+ at stock right now and i can minimize my games and listen to music, chat on aim, and surf the web just fine.
Click to expand...


I can do the same, and my performance in a game or app while doing so will smoke that single core...


You really can't offer advice on this since you have not used an X2 and seen the difference. There is no comparison.
 
The x2-3800 is sweet, but how safe is it to overclock. Can u get decen't o/c with stock air cooling or do u need some fancy cooling with a giant heat sink? I don't wish to go to water cooling for me i'd be a messy installation. My idea was a x-2 4400 o/c to 4800 speeds easier since is closer
 
ellover009 said:
The x2-3800 is sweet, but how safe is it to overclock. Can u get decen't o/c with stock air cooling or do u need some fancy cooling with a giant heat sink? I don't wish to go to water cooling for me i'd be a messy installation. My idea was a x-2 4400 o/c to 4800 speeds easier since is closer
Click to expand...
The X2 3800+ contains Rev E cores with E6 stepping. They oc like mad with no to little increase in Vcore and with stock cooling. ;)
 
so the 3800 x-2 is equally inferior as the 4400, and i can push the 3800 to 4800 speeds on stock air cool?
 
ellover009 said:
so the 3800 x-2 is equally inferior as the 4400, and i can push the 3800 to 4800 speeds on stock air cool?
Click to expand...
Inferior is hardly the word. :D

All X2's are mean mutha's, regardless of core and cache size. And yes, oc'ing an X2 3800+ to 4800 speed on stock air should not be an issue whatsoever.
 
would the x-2 4400 be better than the 3800 to O/C since I get 2x1mb instead of 2x512
 
I have a primitive question: why AMD? Co. like HP or IBM only uses AMD on their low end, cheap end bargain basement laptop and desktop. High end workstation and server all uses Intel.

Intel has been way ahead of the game since their Pentium was ahead w/ amd 486. What so good about AMD? Name one thing that AMD is now ahead of Intel?

There is no way, that a tiny co. like AMD, has the R&D that remotely come close to Intel. And as you all should know, when it comes to CPU, it's all R&D.
 
That was cold man. Technically I am an intel man but I realized a few things.
The new INTEL naming system for theyr chips Sux like 280P 852GME, I miss the old days of intel where 2.8 c HT, was processor 2.8 then a=200mhz bus b=400 c=800, then there was HT next to it or EE. Can't understand new ones.
Pentium 4 architecture is outdated, AMD uses less juice, and amd offers both 64 bit and dual core in one package. Intel threw some junk together and called it dual core. Intels changed towards the dark side.
Most important AMD is not a small company, theyr chips are based on IBM chips (similar to ones found on apple G5). IBM has a contract to share theyr technology with AMD till 2011.
SLI is found to work way better on AMD mobo
If Intel's new chip proves we'll I might consider it.
Remember how Voodoo was the big thing back then, NVIDIA was small, it grew then crushed it?
 
Happy Hopping said:
I have a primitive question: why AMD? Co. like HP or IBM only uses AMD on their low end, cheap end bargain basement laptop and desktop. High end workstation and server all uses Intel.

Intel has been way ahead of the game since their Pentium was ahead w/ amd 486. What so good about AMD? Name one thing that AMD is now ahead of Intel?

There is no way, that a tiny co. like AMD, has the R&D that remotely come close to Intel. And as you all should know, when it comes to CPU, it's all R&D.
Click to expand...

games.
 
ellover009 said:
Pentium 4 architecture is outdated, AMD uses less juice, and amd offers both 64 bit and dual core in one package. Intel threw some junk together and called it dual core. Intels changed towards the dark side.
Most important AMD is not a small company, theyr chips are based on IBM chips (similar to ones found on apple G5). IBM has a contract to share theyr technology with AMD till 2011.
SLI is found to work way better on AMD mobo
Click to expand...

I know AMD makes a better 64 bit processor, but that's because Intel really screw up their 64 bit processor. But AMD has serious overheat problem on their 32 bit processors, and do they have the same overheat problem on their 64 bit processors?

As to IBM, IBM doesn't make CPU anymore, not since NextGen or their Risc processors for PS/2. So sharing technology, (and specifically what technology do they share) won't do any good unless IBM has Intel CPU Pentium 4 technology.

There is hardly any Intel motherboard w/ SLI, so it's hard to say whether it works better w/ SLI than AMD.
 
Happy Hopping said:
1.) I know AMD makes a better 64 bit processor, but that's because Intel really screw up their 64 bit processor. But AMD has serious overheat problem on their 32 bit processors, and do they have the same overheat problem on their 64 bit processors?

2.) As to IBM, IBM doesn't make CPU anymore, not since NextGen or their Risc processors for PS/2. So sharing technology, (and specifically what technology do they share) won't do any good unless IBM has Intel CPU Pentium 4 technology.

3.) There is hardly any Intel motherboard w/ SLI, so it's hard to say whether it works better w/ SLI than AMD.
Click to expand...
1.) intel didn't really screw up their 64-bit processor. They initially chose a different route (the Itanium, followed by the Itanium2) which was purely 64-bit and not backwards compatible with 32-bit software like the A64 was. This hurt intel because, as we all know, support for a pure 64-bit software environment sucks right now. Now that intel has adopted X64 and did away with IA64, their 64-bit cpus now have more software support. They work just like A64's do in both 32 and 64 bit environments. And no, the A64 line does not run hot at all because they draw very little power compared to a similar performing P4.

2.) IBM and AMD have a partnership. Check this out.

3.) There is a good handful of available SLI boards for the intel crowd.
 
Happy Hopping said:
I have a primitive question: why AMD? Co. like HP or IBM only uses AMD on their low end, cheap end bargain basement laptop and desktop. High end workstation and server all uses Intel.

Intel has been way ahead of the game since their Pentium was ahead w/ amd 486. What so good about AMD? Name one thing that AMD is now ahead of Intel?

There is no way, that a tiny co. like AMD, has the R&D that remotely come close to Intel. And as you all should know, when it comes to CPU, it's all R&D.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. HP does offer dual Opteron platforms for their professional workstations. And single, dual, and quad Opterons for their high end servers. They offer AXP and A64 processors in their lower end laptops and desktops mainly because AMD can't supply the volume of processors like intel can right now.

One thing that AMD is ahead of intel with? How about many:
1. Less power draw.
2. Less heat output.
3. More performance with considerably less MHz.
4. A superior dual core architecture.
5. Wide spread support in the market. For both consumer and enterprise fields.
6. Better memory bandwidth with DDR1 vs intel with DDR2.
This list could go on and on, but I'll stop here to let others add to it to prove that I am not the only one that knows the facts.

AMD has the resources for great R&D because they don't spend a lot on advertising. They develop other technologies besides cpus, just like intel does. Hence, they can afford great R&D despite being "tiny" compared to intel. See my previos post about the IBM + AMD partnership. That's some seriously awesome R&D going on. Forvige me if this sounds harsh but please, when you post in the future, gather some facts instead of opinions. I like intel as much as AMD, but I know who's got game right now.
 
Look, this guy can't even spell. Don't expect him to buy an AMD and then try to overclock it because it isn't easy for stupid people. The advantages have been explained to him. At this point he's picking straws.

Tell him to buy an HP, get him off our backs.
 
Boltaction said:
Look, this guy can't even spell. Don't expect him to buy an AMD and then try to overclock it because it isn't easy for stupid people. The advantages have been explained to him. At this point he's picking straws.

Tell him to buy an HP, get him off our backs.
Click to expand...
Watch it. No flaming please, methinks the OP is willing to learn, therefore, this thread remains active. No !!!!!!ism will be tolerated though, so watch it, all of you.
 
Boltaction said:
Look, this guy can't even spell. Don't expect him to buy an AMD and then try to overclock it because it isn't easy for stupid people. The advantages have been explained to him. At this point he's picking straws.

Tell him to buy an HP, get him off our backs.
Click to expand...
Dude, now that was harsh! As TechHead pointed out, he's here to learn, so let's all keep this friendly and fact based. ;)

You're right, overclocking isn't a very easy thing for a lot of people, but we all have to start somewhere. And I feel the OP has come to the right forum site for exactly this.
 
Just dump Intel man. Theya re #2 right now as AMD has finally chopped the giant down. The Dual Core AMD's, all of them, are truely amazing. i just installed my new X2 4800 and sent my FX47 back. Totally happy with it. I can RAR or convert Video and play half Life two with only a 5% frame rate slower Frame Rate than the FX57 did with NOTHING running in the background. Incidentally, the FX 57 will not run Half Life 2 at all while I'm running Win RAR to compress a file. The X2 runs it with no problem.

ellover009 said:
The deal is I used to know bout intel processors until they changed configurations, before 3.2 p4 code A for 200mhz bus, B for 400mhz bus and C 800mhz bus, Now its pentium 4 552, 558 ect. AMD does little to help 64 4600 x-2 is clocked at 2.2 mhz but it does not tell truth bout performance. 2.2 sounds puny, but its not intel small engine light body can go faster, amd truck engine slower can hawl a lot more at once. Irony consumer ends up bending over. But I know enough to know amd is more power efficient. problem AMD version of Intels Hyper Threading is dam expensive.
Click to expand...
 
DougWD said:
Just dump Intel man. Theya re #2 right now as AMD has finally chopped the giant down. The Dual Core AMD's, all of them, are truely amazing. i just installed my new X2 4800 and sent my FX47 back. Totally happy with it. I can RAR or convert Video and play half Life two with only a 5% frame rate slower Frame Rate than the FX57 did with NOTHING running in the background. Incidentally, the FX 57 will not run Half Life 2 at all while I'm running Win RAR to compress a file. The X2 runs it with no problem.
Click to expand...

This has always been the argument for/against getting an x2. If your running several cpu intensive apps and playing games, then the x2 is for you. If you're idea of multitasking is running 2-3 IE windows, aim, and winamp.....stay with a regular a64, or even an axp for that matter.


BTW why are you always crunching 4gb rar files? Are you some bit torrent video haxor? :D
 
SpoogeMonkey said:
If you're idea of multitasking is running 2-3 IE windows, aim, and winamp.....stay with a regular a64, or even an axp for that matter.


:D
Click to expand...


Not so very true. First of all the AXP gets owned by "any" A64 due to the integrated memory controller of the A64. Also NV has multithreaded drivers coming out soon which WILL take advantage of the second core and get some nice boosts in game speeds....some people keep cpu's longer than 6 months as well. There is NO compelling reason at this point (except maybe price) to NOT get an X2 if you are going to do a major upgrade. Windows itself runs a bit smoother even if you only have one app running at or near 100%. AND, having say, an AV program, chat program, a couple windows open, and maybe some mp3 playing, while trying to game, WILL reduce the framerate on that game by a considerable amount using a single core. An X2 will laugh at that and keep going. You just can't understand it unless you have tried it....also Photoshop can use 2 cpu's very effectively....


I had an S754 A64 at 2.5ghz before this rig (now my 6 year old has it)....this one smokes it badly in overall smoothness and snappy feel.
 
once again, I call for a "pepsi challenge" on the smoothness arguement under basic use (aim, IE, etc.)

I honestly can't tell a real difference between a barton and a venice. As much as I'd like to tell my self how "fast" 3ghz feels when I fire it up after dropping $$ on a vapochill, I know that 3ghz vs. 2ghz. isn't much of a difference, if ANY, in basic use.

Then again, maybe I'm completely inept when it comes to the "smoothness" detection.

Either way, given all the talk of "smoothness" and "feel", I'd love to see a real blind test. I mean, it only makes sense that after dropping $$$ there's going to be something of a placebo effect!

Not to say that they are exactly the same in performance. Simply that in basic use, I question the ability to tell the difference. Honestly guys, WinXP ran plenty zippy with a "top of the line" (and less) computer when it came out, and how long ago was that?
 
DejaWiz said:
Not true at all. HP does offer dual Opteron platforms for their professional workstations. And single, dual, and quad Opterons for their high end servers. They offer AXP and A64 processors in their lower end laptops and desktops mainly because AMD can't supply the volume of processors like intel can right now.
.
Click to expand...

HP only have 3 models in their Density Linear line (Proliant DL) that offers AMD out of 18 Proliant ML + DL lines, that's only 1/6. The high end DL that comes w/ 8 Processors are Intel Xeon only, no CPU for AMD in the high end 8 CPU DL series.

As to workstations, out of the entire Professional workstaton line and their high end business class DC7100 lines desktop/tower, only ONE model c/w AMD, the rest is all Intel P4 or Xeon..
 
DougWD said:
Incidentally, the FX 57 will not run Half Life 2 at all while I'm running Win RAR to compress a file. The X2 runs it with no problem.
Click to expand...

And so does my P4 570... and 550... and 3GHz Northwood :D
 
Happy Hopping said:
1.) HP only have 3 models in their Density Linear line (Proliant DL) that offers AMD out of 18 Proliant ML + DL lines, that's only 1/6. The high end DL that comes w/ 8 Processors are Intel Xeon only, no CPU for AMD in the high end 8 CPU DL series.

2.) As to workstations, out of the entire Professional workstaton line and their high end business class DC7100 lines desktop/tower, only ONE model c/w AMD, the rest is all Intel P4 or Xeon..
Click to expand...
1.) DL145, DL145G2 (single processor - 1U), DL385 (dual processor - 2U), DL585 (quad processor - 4U). That's 4 models, not 3. And that's out of 17, not 18 total. And that happens to be all the Opteron models that are needed to get the job done (let's not forget about the 3 out of 6 total blade server models offered with Opterons = 50%). Oh, and guess what? The DL585 can be configured with a total of FOUR DUAL CORE Opterons making it essentially an 8-way server that'll smoke the Xeon 8-way DL740 and DL760Gen2 models. While drawing less power and producing a lot less heat (very improtant factors for a controlled environment data center).

2.) Business PC's with AMD = D325 series (Athlon XP uTower, SlimTower, and MiniTower), and DX5150 (A64 and Sempron MiniTower and SFF). Professional Workstations with AMD = XW9300. This also happens to be the top of the line workstation in contrast to the rest of the line: XW4200, 4300, 6200, and 8200.


Anyway, what's your point with the number of intel vs. AMD models offered?

Again like I said, this has to do with volume availability. intel can get the chips to HP in greater quantity than AMD can, so naturally HP is going to develop and offer more intel based platforms. Just because they sell more intel cpus doesn't qualify the Pentium 4 and Xeon lines to be the best damn processors ever made. They're good, but not the best, imo.
 
Happy Hopping said:
I have a primitive question: why AMD? Co. like HP or IBM only uses AMD on their low end, cheap end bargain basement laptop and desktop. High end workstation and server all uses Intel.

Intel has been way ahead of the game since their Pentium was ahead w/ amd 486. What so good about AMD? Name one thing that AMD is now ahead of Intel?

There is no way, that a tiny co. like AMD, has the R&D that remotely come close to Intel. And as you all should know, when it comes to CPU, it's all R&D.
Click to expand...
Having worked for a high end workstation company, BOXX, I can tell you that you're way off base. We sold an unusually high number of AMD systems to notable studios like Troublemaker and others.

Also:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=33905
 
mikelz85 said:
once again, I call for a "pepsi challenge" on the smoothness arguement under basic use (aim, IE, etc.)



Then again, maybe I'm completely inept when it comes to the "smoothness" detection.

Either way, given all the talk of "smoothness" and "feel", I'd love to see a real blind test. I mean, it only makes sense that after dropping $$$ there's going to be something of a placebo effect!
Click to expand...


The smoothness I am talking about comes from having dual cpu cores...even a true dual AMD 1.1ghz Duron rig is a bit zippier and smoother than a 4ghz monster with only a single core...like I said, you can't understand or know it, until you have ran a good dual core in action.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougWD
Incidentally, the FX 57 will not run Half Life 2 at all while I'm running Win RAR to compress a file. The X2 runs it with no problem.

jon67 said:
And so does my P4 570... and 550... and 3GHz Northwood :D
Click to expand...


Horsecrap....your cpu may actually run HL2 while it is compressing a RAR file, but I guarantee you it is slow as ass....compared to an X2 that is using one core to RAR and the other to play a game, and the X2 at say, 2.4ghz on each core, will be wiping the floor with your Northwood for the game (all other things being equal). Don't be asinine....
 
Again.. stay on topic, especially jon67. This is an AMD forum, if you want to praise your Intel CPUs, do so by all means... in the appropriate fora..
 
TheRapture said:
Not so very true. First of all the AXP gets owned by "any" A64 due to the integrated memory controller of the A64. Also NV has multithreaded drivers coming out soon which WILL take advantage of the second core and get some nice boosts in game speeds....some people keep cpu's longer than 6 months as well. There is NO compelling reason at this point (except maybe price) to NOT get an X2 if you are going to do a major upgrade. Windows itself runs a bit smoother even if you only have one app running at or near 100%. AND, having say, an AV program, chat program, a couple windows open, and maybe some mp3 playing, while trying to game, WILL reduce the framerate on that game by a considerable amount using a single core. An X2 will laugh at that and keep going. You just can't understand it unless you have tried it....also Photoshop can use 2 cpu's very effectively....


I had an S754 A64 at 2.5ghz before this rig (now my 6 year old has it)....this one smokes it badly in overall smoothness and snappy feel.
Click to expand...

You're kinda missing the point, I agree with some of what you say, but: For regular mom n pop internet users, they have no need what so ever for an x2. I'm sure solitaire, mine-sweeper, and aim run just fine on a single core.

When I game, I GAME....no distractions running in the background. When I encode video, I might browse the forums for 20 min until its done. And when I just browse the net, then winamp comes on, maybe. I personally don't have a need for an x2 other than to have an extra core to fold 24/7.

As for dual-core optimized drivers giving a substantial performance boost"....... I don't think so. There's no magic video card driver that is going to miraculousy turn any game written to run on a single cpu, into an smp powerhouse.....it just doesn't work that way. The new drivers may help a little.....maybe 3-5fps, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any divine intervention on that one. And if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe John Carmack. And I quote:
"To make up for this deficiency, multiple processors are used: multithreading and parallelism is the way to go. But this isn't easy to do in games! "The returns will initially be disappointing," he explains.

It will take a long time before game developers will figure out how to get the most out of parallel processors, and in the meantime, it's going to make high-end game development more difficult -- "Not a good thing," Carmack says. There's no easy solution to this problem, no special compiler that'll take away the grunt work. "There's no silver bullet for parallel programming."

I'm not saying dual cores are bad, if I could get a dual core running @ 2.8ghz for $200, then I'd switch. But for now I'll take my $140 cpu that beats an $1100 fx-57 in almost every real-world test....even if only by 1-2seconds or 3-5fps. When Unreal Tourney 2k7 comes out and my 2.9ghz venice and oc'd 7800gtx (or 2) can't cut it, then I might consider an x2.

But I'm glad you're happy with your new setup. You obviously have a need for a dual core, and are reaping the benny's on a daily basis.....which is a good thing, and more than could be said for alot of others who didn't fully understand what they were buying.
 
TechHead said:
Again.. stay on topic, especially jon67. This is an AMD forum
Click to expand...

OK, point taken.

Although I don't think I was being way off-topic. The thread was started by an intel user who is considering an AMD system, and the poster I quoted (DougWD) made an argument that could actually be interpreted in favour of HT processors.

TheRapture: Horsecrap or not, I've played HL2 and encoded video simultaneously on my Northwood, and the vid card (9800Pro) was still holding me back at around 50 fps at 1280x1024 resolution. The clue is to set the priority of the second process (encoding) to BelowNormal (or increase the priority of the game). Same principle as with gaming and folding. I did not say that HT processors are just as good as dual-cores for multi-tasking, which of course they're not.
 
SpoogeMonkey said:
This has always been the argument for/against getting an x2. If your running several cpu intensive apps and playing games, then the x2 is for you. If you're idea of multitasking is running 2-3 IE windows, aim, and winamp.....stay with a regular a64, or even an axp for that matter.


BTW why are you always crunching 4gb rar files? Are you some bit torrent video haxor? :D
Click to expand...

Let's just say I use a lot of CPU power now and then while running more than two CPU intensive applications :)

Well, you are right. But, what I have found is that I think differently now about how I do things. I can start a video conversion process, say MPG to WMA, work in photoshop CS2 with 100-300MG images, and RIP MPs and back up large files to RAR all at the same time with NO slowdowns. Or I can start a process and play a game without slowing the process down. I mean I can do anything now at the same time. OR I can run two virus scanners, and two spyware scanners on my entire ahrd drive looking at EVERY file, not just program files and play a game or work with Photoshop or video editing software with, again, NO slowdows. So you know how virus scanners and other programs like that eat up clock cycles.
 
jon67 said:
And so does my P4 570... and 550... and 3GHz Northwood :D
Click to expand...

Well, ok, it will run them but it will clip on starting and take some time to smooth itself out. A good example of that is my freind who had a 3.2 Itel HyperTHreaded CPU. He upgraded when I built my new system, and he bought the same thing I did--ASUS A8N Premium with the X2 4800 processor--I actually bought the FX57, but exchanged it for the X2, as stated above.

Anyway, he programs for the game Dark Age of Camelot and does TONS of video type compression and debugging in his programming and 3D modeling programs--and he runs DAOC at the same time in seperate windows.

So yeah, he loved his HT Intel, until he bought the X2 4800. He says there is no comparison in the smoothness of the X2 4800 compared to the HT Intel. So that is what a VERY power hungry user has to say about it. I mean think about it. HT vs TWO CPUs! HT can't compete with two processors. I mean the X2 4800 actaully has two full K8 FX53 CPUs on the chip with all of the latest archetecture changes made in the last year to AMDs pipelines. Also, AMD has no FSB so the pipeline to the CPU is not bottlenecked.

Next, 64bit chips kick ass on 32 bit, even in 32 bit apps in soe instances. Wait till early 2006 when applications start hitting the market as 32 bit, like Adobe Photoshop, Vid editing, programming tools, and yes, games, and the 32 bit Intels are gonna get smoked. I don't think Intel even has a 64 bit CPU ready to go even at this late game. Also remember that the X2 Dual Cores are also hyperthreaded, called Hyper Transport on the AMD chips. So imagine having HT plus another CPU on your Intel platform--not that it wouldn't go up in flames with Jerry Lee Lewis blarring "Great Balls of Fire" as your CPU melted into the carpet--Intel's cook.

On that note, heat: My x2 4800 idles at 31 C and has never broken 47C under full load for hours.

Last, a summary:
X2 4800 has Two fullbred K8 FX 55 chips.
X2 4800 is full 64 bit
X2 4800 has no FSB
X2 4800 runs at 2.4 Ghz and 47C max temp
X2 4800 Runs 64 bit applications without a 32 bit immulator
X2 can RUn Win 64 bit

So I'd try it if I were you. I don't think you will be dissapointed.

If you want a real world test, check out the thread here titled "real world photoshop test" located here:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=926660

Try RARing a file all the way through the Photoshop test and see how you do along side the X2's. If you do well, open two RAR instances plus a game FPS demo running in windowed mode and then try running the PS test. Most people don't really do True Multitasking, which is running three or four programs that max your CPU at a time. like my friend above.

So if you want to see if you really need it, try using more than two programs at once that peg your CPU plus open Doom 3 and see if you can still play at more than 3 FPS. I promise that Intel will get slower and slower while the X2 stays the same for each program opened past two.
 
robberbaron said:
4000+'s. They arent multi-unlocked upwards ;)
Click to expand...

haha Again you are right. They are both K8 cores. And I guess with the new archetecture, they run faster than the old FX 53s and the same as the FX 55s--at least in testing that's what it looks like.

So as an aside, how far can you clock the X2 4800?

Last, here is a good comparison of the Intel and X2 CPUs.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1
 
The "Best" Processor is the Athlon X2 4400+

Best of course if subjective but

It has the Best Price / Performance Raito , The best Performance / Lifetime ratio / And Is Widely available right now... so Best is a term I would use :)
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
The "Best" Processor is the Athlon X2 4400+

Best of course if subjective but

It has the Best Price / Performance Raito , The best Performance / Lifetime ratio / And Is Widely available right now... so Best is a term I would use :)
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I'd say the $400 3800+ is better for Price/Perf on the dual core side. 4400+ is definately a cool CPU with the 2mb low latency cache. But I'd also say the best price/perf on the single core side is the Opteron 144, but, that's something that I'll prove once I get the damn thing haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top