# Need info on gaming computer



## barrypatch (Sep 10, 2004)

My son is on his third computer in the past few years and he says this one isn't good enough for new games. I want to get him a computer that will last and will work for his games. His current machine is a Compaq, which we have added a graphics card and he is up to 1 GB RAM. 

I have no clue where to begin. His gaming friends say his power supply isn't big enough, but I think I should just get a new machine that is made for gaming and not try to buy a standard machine and upgrade what I can.

Where do I start? What kind of specs should I look for? 

Thanks.

Nancy


----------



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

I'm not into gaming, but I can ask some preliminary questions that will help others help you.

First, what games does your son play? Different games have different hardware requirements. 

Second, what are the specs of his current computer? Provide as much info as you can. Knowing 1GB of RAM is good, but we need processor speed, the model of the graphics card, the brand and wattage of power supply, etc. 

With my limited gaming knowledge, I can't imagine that your son needs a new or upgraded computer nearly every year to play new games. I fear he may just be scamming you for better hardware. How old is he? Does he have a part-time job so he can earn money for his upgrades? The best way to determine if a purchase is really necessary is to make a kid pay for it themselves.


----------



## tajaemax (Aug 26, 2004)

DoubleHelix said:


> With my limited gaming knowledge, I can't imagine that your son needs a new or upgraded computer nearly every year to play new games. I fear he may just be scamming you for better hardware. How old is he? Does he have a part-time job so he can earn money for his upgrades? The best way to determine if a purchase is really necessary is to make a kid pay for it themselves.


True, but she did say that it was a Compaq, and my gaming experiences with those has been problematic to say the least.

My formula is an upgrade at two years, and a full system overhaul at four years.


----------



## barrypatch (Sep 10, 2004)

He is 18 and he has some severe health issues, but he does help me with my business and with my job (I work at home). He does whatever I ask him too and is a very good kid. I wanted to get this for him for Christmas, but he agrees that we don't just want to buy another computer if it won't work.

His Compaq has an AMD Sempron 3200+ / 1.8 GHz, 1 GB ram and an ATI Raedon X1600 card. He downloaded a sample of Company of Heroes and said it lagged. Here are the requirements from their site:

Minimum Requirements:
Windows XP 
Processor: 2.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4 (or equivalent) or AMD Athlon XP (or equivalent) 
RAM: 512 MB 
Video Card: 64 MB video card with Pixel Shader 1.1 
DirectX(R) 9.0c compatible 16-bit sound card

Recommended requirements: 
Windows XP 
Processor: 3.0 GHz Pentium IV (or equivalent) 
RAM: 1 GB RAM 
Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 6800 256 MB 
DirectX(R) 9.0c compatible 16-bit sound card

His current computer was just a "cheapie" from WalMart http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4532527#Specifications

We did upgrade the memory to 1 GB and replaced the graphics card. I haven't been able to find the model and info on his power supply, will keep looking.

I don't want to spend thousands of dollars, but I don't mind getting a new machine, if it will work.

Thanks for your help.

Nancy


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Well having recently just built my own PC, I may be able to offer some insight. Mine didn't start out being a gaming PC but has "evolved" into a rather sweet gaming machine if I do say so myself. However, this may not be the advice you wanted to hear, to get the most for your money, building your own PC is really the way to go. I can offer advice on which parts to buy, but if you are lucky there may be a locally owned computer store in your area that will custom build your system without too high of a fee. To build my own it cost me around 850 dollars (excluding labor).

Odds are the Compaq you have is going to be either impossible or insanely expensive to upgrade, Compaq is famous for their incompatibility with all but their own hardware.

As for Company of Heroes, it sounds as though the machine meets the requirements in all but the processor (Sempron is a lower grade processor than the Athlon, kind of like AMD version of the Celeron). But just wondering, how do you connect to the internet?


----------



## Nurdle (Nov 12, 2005)

The system specs for Company of Heros are intense. My machine is rather outdated but meets minimum specs and still stuggles with the game. Most people find turning down the detail levels slightly and disabling post process effects in the games options help with the framerates.


----------



## barrypatch (Sep 10, 2004)

Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it. I can check with one of our local companies, I am just not sure what specs to give them. I thought the requirements of Company of Heroes was pretty intense. I don't think I want to upgrade the processor, I would rather use his machine in my office and then get him a new one.

We have a cable broadband connection (I have to have a reliable fast connection, I do contract work for the government). I am usually able to connect at 3.5 to 3.8 and it has been great since I upgraded from DSL earlier this year.

I will call the computer place today and give them the specs of that game, hopefully since that seems to be intense, it will be on the higher end of what he needs, for now. 

Nancy


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Well while Company of Heroes is pretty intense, there are more intense games out there. Hence why I asked what kind of games he played.

You definitely want an AMD processor (I suggest Athlon X2), while others might suggest the Pentium dual core, it is improbable providing a tiny speed boost over AMD for sometimes double the price.

I would suggest between 1 - 2 gigs of RAM (Corsair is what I use but there are other quality brands as well) and either a 512 DDR video card or a 256 DDR2 video card (I prefer ATi but thats a personal preference)

As far as a hard drive you want an SATA for faster data transfer.

For a power supply I suggest Antec, while not the cheapest in the market they are the best as far as ventilation and power stability.

And to make it look cool, I suggest you find a case for all the parts to go in that also allows the computer to be shown off. They are relatively cheap nowadays. Some brands include Thermaltake, Xion, NZXT and Logisys. Also while some of these cases have power suplies they are cheap, unstable and untrusty.

Example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811146025

If you need any more help, simply ask.


----------



## The_PC_Gamer (Sep 20, 2004)

Your machine is very solid. The reason Company of Heroes lags is because its a very CPU and graphically demanding game. Just turn down the visual settings and it will play just fine. 

But If you ABSOLUTELY must upgrade - take my advice and DONT upgrade right now. DirectX10 Video cards and Windows Vista are just around the corner, along with some intense new games. If you upgrade now(or buy a new system), you will have to upgrade again before the end of 2007. So my advice is decide on something else for this christmas present, and wait until mid-2007 to get a new system or upgrade.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

A Sempron is not a solid gaming processor at all. Thats the reason she was looking for an upgrade because that system is not meant for gaming.

DirectX 10 and Vista are going to be unstable for a while before the vast new games. DirectX 9 is still going to be in charge for a while even after Vista comes out. And if u build your own system its much cheaper and will last far past 2007 for most games. I'm running Oblivion with the settings maxed on my system. And XP is going to remain in heavy use if the previews of Vista are what we can expect for their final product.

I stand by my position. There is no harm in upgrading now and I suggest having a local company build it for u, or order a custom built system from EBay. They are actually quite cheap there (probably about the same as a custom built machine from a local shop).


----------



## barrypatch (Sep 10, 2004)

My son has been researching DirectX10 and Vista. He is trying to learn as much as he can before we make this move. I think having one built is the best thing to do. I just want to make sure I get a machine built that will handle what he plays. He has Oblivion and has played it, I will find out how it runs. 

I am going to take the specs brought up here and talk to a local computer shop. I did some consulting work for one, so I will talk to them first.

Thanks for your help, I just don't want to buy the wrong thing.

Nancy


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

I have also been keeping up with the Vista project. I use XP solely for gaming, I use PCLinuxOS when I am actually working on the computer.

If you need any help, let me know.

Just so you know if they ask, you want a AM2 socket motherboard and processor. It's the newest thing from AMD replacing the Socket 939 style processor and board.

Good luck.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

titanania said:


> A Sempron is not a solid gaming processor at all.


I disagree, from personal experience over year. It is a budget chip, but performs well regardless. I wouldn't suggest buying one for a new machine at all, but the fact my machine is built around one and doesn't struggle with anything is a testament to its quality.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

titanania said:


> Just so you know if they ask, you want a AM2 socket motherboard and processor. It's the newest thing from AMD replacing the Socket 939 style processor and board.


And you want to buy an Intel LGA775 Core 2 Duo at the moment, when AMD release their 65nm chips they'll probably be a valid choice.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Both of your posts make it sound as though you did not read the rest of the thread.

Though a Sempron is a solid processor, it does not have nearly enough power to process high end games such as Oblivion. In your own computer you describe it as a "budget PC".

I also already said that you should stick with AMD, due to the fact that the new Pentium Dual Cores, though faster, are also far more expensive.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

I wasn't referring to the *Pentium* Dual Cores, I would not suggest buying them. And if you aren't building a budget PC, go for what I actually suggested, a Core 2 Duo...


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

I meant Intel not Pentium. Excuse me. Like I said huge price difference for little performance difference.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

AMD: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80725-9
2.2 GHz, 2 GHz FSB, ZZF Price : 179.00

Intel: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80860
2.4 Ghz, 1 GHz FSB , ZZF Price: 310.00

Almost double the price for 200 more MHz and a lower FSB


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

Except the Core 2 Duo would just decimate that AMD chip in performance :|

And the Conroe is the higher end of the spectrum, get an Allendale for the same price as that AMD chip probably.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

Example: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80858


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

If its I'm not mistaken 200 MHz isnt going to decimate anyone right now, if anything 1 GHz more of FSB would do a lot more damage

And its the higher end of Intel's spectrum that is supposedly beating AMD's right now so isnt that going back on what you just said? Plus why should you have to step down on Intel's scale when you can get higher level AMDs cheaper.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

So in your example, you lose 400 MHz to the AMD (1.8 vs 2.2)

Still 1 GHz behind on FSB and yet you still pay 40 dollars more

Hmmmmm oh yea not 64 bit.......


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

Any Core 2 Duo will out-benchmark an AMD of equilivant price, the fact of the matter is one is operating on 65nm process technology the other isn't, I don't see your argument tbh.

edit: they are 64 bit lol ><


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

How can you keep saying that while looking at the specs? Tbh I dont see how you can say a 64-bit processor thats cheaper, has a higher FSB, and can be overclocked isnt better than a kind-of 64 bit processor thats more expensive, has a lower FSB, and that cannot be overclocked.

EDIT: Its not true 64 bit, it will support 64 bit through extended memory
"Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology supporting 64-bit computing"


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

Could you please just investigate the Core 2 Duo benchmarks, witness for yourself it's the better CPU family at the moment and accept the fact AMD won't be as good a choice untill they release their 65nm CPU's...

Honestly, I strongly advise the purchase of a E6300, or a E6400. The price gap to a E6600 is large but that's only because you are getting double the onboard cache (4MB as opposed to 2MB) and a higher factory clocked chip...

...E6300, E6300, E6300... E6300!!!

...untill AMD release their 65nm chips.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Where would you suggest I find an unbiased benchmark? Oh that right they don't exist anymore

And you still havent said anything about HALF of the FSB (1 GHz vs. 2 GHz)

Or the OVERCLOCKING issue

OVERCLOCK, FSB, OVERCLOCK, FSB, OVERCLOCK, FSB, OVERCLOCK, FSB!


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

The C2D's are amazing overclocking chips, an E6300 can be clocked upwards of 3GHz on air with a decent heatsink and fan.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

In fact that's one of their main selling points, their overclocking ability. The fact you can pay just over £100 for a CPU and have it outperform one that costs over £300, is just brilliant. Bearing in mind that's only on air and you're not having to fork out money on water cooling, they're the best CPU's available even if you aren't going to overclock.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Whatever, Ive never heard of an Intel beating an AMD in overclocking ability.

In fact when I ran 3DMark06 on my machine yesterday I beat several Core 2 Duo systems with my score.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Also, I don't see how you can continue to say that the processor is better since it has only HALF of the FSB of the AMD.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

I concede in this debate, not because I think you are right, but I lack the effort to continue.

Cold hard evidence > your ramblings.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Ramblings huh? More like you can't ignore the FSB speeds anymore and neglect to mention the AMD is BUILT to over clock whereas there are error reports all over the place from people overclocking Intels.

Btw what make ur posts "cold hard eveidence" and mine "ramblings"? I see no difference in fact I see more facts in mine.

Here's some evidence you can't deny any longer: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36181 Have fun saying that only Intels are 65 nm


----------



## vhab (Jun 9, 2005)

If your budget is not much of an issue, I would suggest Intel processors only for the fact that their Core 2 Extreme Processors are great for overclocking and they perform a lot better than the highest AMD counterpart. AMD definitely has a better value, which is why I like them better, but at the moment Intel has more the more powerful processor. I would definitely get 2 gigs of RAM, no question. As for the video card, the 8800 GTX is the best on the market, and performs about equally to 2 of the highest ATi counterpart. Basically the 8800 GTX is compatible with DirectX10 so it will last for an extremely long time. 
My suggested specs:
Core 2 Extreme 2.9 Ghz
2 GB of good quality RAM
Ask your son about the size of the harddrive he wants. If he ever plans on installing Linux or on open-source OS he's probably going to want only a single hard drive, because GRUB is really incompatible with RAID configurations. 
8800 GTX, no question in my mind
A good power supply that could support 2 8800 GTX ( incase you want to upgrade the video card in a few years)
And of course peripherals and a mobo that has the correct socket type etc.

Van


----------



## vhab (Jun 9, 2005)

Oh BTW, titanania, don't prove your pont with points to a site like the Inquirer. Not much of a more inaccurate site than that. And that news was posted today. AMD hasn't made that switch already. There was an article on TomsHardware showing an Intel 2.6 Ghz beating the new AMD Quad-core, so don't think that AMD is made for gamers. In all honesty I like AMD better, but it's a fact that Intel has more powerful processors ATM.

Van


----------



## Nurdle (Nov 12, 2005)

> If your budget is not much of an issue, I would suggest Intel processors only for the fact that their Core 2 Extreme Processors are great for overclocking and they perform a lot better than the highest AMD counterpart. AMD definitely has a better value, which is why I like them better, but at the moment Intel has more the more powerful processor. I would definitely get 2 gigs of RAM, no question. As for the video card, the 8800 GTX is the best on the market, and performs about equally to 2 of the highest ATi counterpart. Basically the 8800 GTX is compatible with DirectX10 so it will last for an extremely long time.
> My suggested specs:
> Core 2 Extreme 2.9 Ghz
> 2 GB of good quality RAM
> ...


No offense but whats the point of 2 8800GTX's???
There isn't a CPU on the planet that can keep up with them. One will surfice in my opinion. Also no point in buying first generation DX10 cards. I'm waiting for 2nd generation cards to appear because they will cheaper and maybe faster? One things for sure is that they will be more stable and most hardware issues sorted out.

Also this business about INTEL vs AMD....
AMD have only just released thier 65nm tech. Give it some time! Also Core 2 Duo are only beating AMD chips by a few hundred points in 3dmark. This really is an insignificant score.
If you got the cash go INTEL if you want decent budget gaming go AMD. My honest opinion? Wait a while.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Actually the Inquirer is quite accurate and reliable. They are not the same people that make the fake magazine (like most people believe).

If you are willing to spend over 100 extra dollars for that small of a speed boost more power to you. Yet again, AMDs are built to overclock whereas Intels are not (producing a huge amount more heat and consuming far more power) Speaking of inaccurate sources, all those Tom's Hardware tests are biased, they sell Intels on their site, why give your own product bad press?

And yes AMD has made the switch to 65 nm.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041^14633,00.html

Hows that? Why don't you check your sources for validity?


----------



## cowcow20 (Dec 5, 2006)

ok i dont know much about comps... but if you are willing to spend 1000-2000 just a build a custom one yourself at www.ibuypower.com .... u can customize a crazy fast machine for 1000-2500... or check this comp out for 2225$$ believe me if you get this 1 he wont need a new computer for a while....
http://www.ibuypower.com/ibp/store/configurator.aspx?mid=97#header
I customized it myself... it has a 2.66ghz core 2 duo (5.32 ghz)...400 gb hardrive, 1024mb of memory x2(512mb) [Black] Logitech X-530 5.1 Surround Speakers + Subwoofer. Geforce 8800gts 640 mb.... if u are willing to pay an extra 150-200 dollars for for the geforce 8800gtx... those r the best two graphics cards out there. Or you could get TWO Geforce 7900gt for21 dollars cheaper.... the 7900 Gt is a great card...will be outdated in maybe two years... but two of them running at the same time would be amazing... i recomend the 8800 gts.... dont get ATI not as reliable, they are cheaper but their best graphcs card does not top geforces best graphics card..... the new line up of the 8000's is comin out... Dolby Digital Surround 7.1 Sound Card. and a good 50 dollar headset......
that is wut i think wud be a good system for you.... a little pricy but if u are willing to pay alot their are better computers than this... u can edit wut i hav customized for u so u may not want a headset or u want a better graphics card or something.... i am obviously new to tech support guys but i think i did ok at this post....


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

I dont suggest buying anything from Ipower, if you are going to pay for someone to build our system, there are so many places that are cheaper than that...

Overpriced and not even that good of a support plan.

I still stick with my advice of checking out local computer shops.

Cowcow20, if you want to understand why I'm saying this check out the parts you listed prices on Newegg or ZipZoomFly and see how much all of the parts actually cost, then look at what IPower charges


----------



## vhab (Jun 9, 2005)

Wow, TomsHardware just has those ads to make money...and you can't bias computer tests. There are also tests done by FiringSquad and [H]Enthusiast. Alright, alright, AMD just released the things today! Give me a link to their 65nm processors on newegg, not on their press release site (meaning availability). Intel still has more powerful processors. Look at the clock speeds, the L2 caches, and the FSB. I like AMD better, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Intel has more powerful processors! If an intel Core 2 Duo 2.6 Ghz can beat a Quad-Core AMD then Intel processors are obviously more powerful, no?

Oh BTW, ibuypower and cyberpower suck, there are so many stories out there of DoA (dead on arrival) products, crappy system building, and parts that are different from the ones requested. I definitely do NOT recommend cyberpower or anything with power in the name, lol. Building a PC is also much more fun, and cheaper.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

You can to bias computer tests

And there not just ads, there is a store for Intel parts that Tom's Hardware runs.

Did you even read the article, the processor SHIPPED today.

The FSB is double on the AMD than that of the Intel.
Did you read the thread before posting? Obviously not.

Yet again they neglect the overclock completely. AMD = built to overclock, Intel = way too much heat


----------



## cowcow20 (Dec 5, 2006)

oh i thought that site was pretty cheap..... thanks for the info man


----------



## cowcow20 (Dec 5, 2006)

intel=faster=make sure u have good cooling and fan=have a good power supply=great gaming

amd=fast not as fast as intel=built to reduce power=doesnt overheat=good gaming not great


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

AMD = better performance with less energy used and less heat produced + DOUBLE FSB speed + little ventilation required (built to overclock) = Better performance and stability (even when gaming)

Intel = "faster" (energy hog) (huge amount of heat produced) + HALF of AMD's FSB +more expensive chip that tends to overheat and requires massive ventilation (not built to overclock) = "Faster" gaming at the cost of high energy usage (if you consider 200 points on 3DMark06 for 300 dollars more) , high heat and less stability (In my opinion not worth it at all)


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

titanania said:


> You can to bias computer tests
> 
> And there not just ads, there is a store for Intel parts that Tom's Hardware runs.
> 
> ...


Man you're absolutely nuts, the E6300 C2D easily clocks in excess of 3GHz *on air* when its factory settings are 1.86GHz, how is that not built for overclocking? The Core 2 Duo's are operating on a COMPLETELY NEW ARCHITECTURE from their previous Pentium counterparts. They have shorter pipelines allowing them to process more information with a smaller clock speed.

Pentium 4 pipeline: 31
AMD A64: 18/22
Core 2 Duos: 12/14

The Core 2 Duo's architecture is just superior to the dated A64, WILL YOU NOT ACCEPT THIS?!!?!??!?!

Random benchmarks:


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

All these benchmarks are neglecting overclock and even then the AMDs are only 35 points behind or less when the Pentium costs 300-700 dollars more.

I dont know why you keep saying Intel processors are good for overclocking, they are not. They produce huge heat and consume vast amounts of power and require much more ventilation than AMD processors for less of a boost when overclocking.

And if Intels can overclock on air alone, how come every overclocked system I can find listed on Speedfan and most of the systems running 3DMark06 are all running liquid cooling systems?

Can you not accept that AMD now makes 65 nm and has double the FSB?


----------



## vhab (Jun 9, 2005)

Titanania, you just got owned.
Intel (which on the benchmarks has higher FPS's than AMD): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861
AMD: 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861

Now stop acting like you know everything. Face it, Intels are better for gaming! AMD's have better mid-range.

Oh BTW, that other guy was right, newer Intels, especially the Core 2 Extreme are meant for OCing too. So please, state you arguments with facts. And how am I supposed to buy a processor that shipped from AMDs warehouse today?


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Check your links next time, they both go to the same place.

And don't try to pit the most expensive AMD processor against a low level Intel. The most expensive Intel is still over 800 dollars more than the AMD.

Intel: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115011

AMD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861

I do have facts, check Speedfan for temps. Intels REQUIRE liquid cooling and even then are unstable from the heat. AMDs not Intels can be overclocked with air. And quit getting YOUR sources from people who melt AMDs by disabling motherboard safeguards (ie Toms hardware)

And catch up with the times it shipped yesterday.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

Guess it won't matter what evidence you show Titanania, he'll still be in his magical dream world where only he is right :up:


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

Here's some simple facts:

This peforms better than this at half the price.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Actually I researched all this when building my machine and I'm afraid yours is the dream world, the one where you are ignoring the FSB, the price, the efficency, and the overclocking ability of the AMD.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Yet again quit trying to show price difference by picking the one you want to bash (AMD's) most expensive processor and putting it against a mid level Intel. If you look at my links for only 100 points or so of performance on 3DMark06 the Intel is over 800 dollars more. And you continue to neglect OC.


----------



## tajaemax (Aug 26, 2004)

Well if the original poster is still reading this here are some tips that can help you with your purchase.

First off a gamer doesn't care half as much about performance as we do about immersion. Which is archived through a mixture of the hardware powering the computer and the input and output devices. The best performing computer in the world means next to nothing to us if you have a $2 set of speakers and a 15 CRT monitor. Sit down and set your budget for the entire system. Then split the budget with 1/3rd going to your monitor, speakers, mouse, keyboard, etc; and the other two thirds devoted to the system. (really flexible rule, but it gives you a starting place) 

As to the hardware itself, unless you plan on building it yourself, you are better off just sitting down with someone and explaining what your budget is and what you want the computer to be able to do. You are much more likely to get good advice in a one-on-one environment than on an international forum.


----------



## vhab (Jun 9, 2005)

Alright, alright, titanania. I back down, I understand that you are probably more knowledgeable than me in the field of processors, BUT, I have a question for you: could you please post a link proving all of the stuff you've been saying? Not the release date of AMD processors etc. but your idea that AMDs are better for gaming that Intels. Post a link please, I know your main points, its OCing, less heat, more efficient, and FSB. But why does all that stuff matter and what are your sources telling you that AMD is better than Intel for hardcore gamers. I ask this in all honesty too, I'm trying to be sarcastic or anything. I would trust you, but I don't see any benchmarks or stories of people OCing their processors.

Thanks,
Van


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

Is this July article about overclocking an E6300 and E6400 biased Titanania? Please explain how.

In the conclusion of the article, it is summarized that you will get a lot more for your money if you plan to overclock the E6300 and E6400. They outperform A64 X2's overclocked. Simple as really. FSB? Why is that even a factor when the C2D's just simply outperform them anyway.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

That article is about pricing not overclocking performance.

FSB is a factor because it the measure of RAM/CPU interaction. Therefore, the faster the FSB, the faster the process cycles between the RAM and the CPU are handled. AMD is TWICE as fast. Therefore, it is possible to get a boost both from overclocking the processor and overclocking your RAM. The FSB even allows for faster video card/CPU interaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_side_bus

I know that this is going to sound biased, but most software is biased for working with Intels, much like most programs are designed for Windows. Intels are actually supposed to be vastly better while in reality, they are usually less than 50 points in tests such as 3DMark06.


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

Right, after being shown this link from another forum I am shocked frankily at your appauling CPU knowledge.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 - $218.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115004

AMD Athlon X2 4600+ - $259.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103545

Right. The Core2Duo is cheaper and it kicks the backside of the AMD, IN EVERY WAY. Games, encoding, power usage, heat output, EVERYTHING!

*Proof:*
Fear: http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=433&model2=467&chart=169

Beaten by 6FPS

CoD2:
http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=433&model2=467&chart=165

24FPS!!!!

Multitasking:
http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=433&model2=467&chart=192

Ooh beaten, again!

Xvid encoding:
http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=433&model2=467&chart=176

Again beaten.

See a pattern here? Infact im willing to bet even the cheaper and slower E6300 will beat that X4600+. Overclocking is easy, get some PC6400, a Asus P5B or Gigabyte DS3, wack it up to 400x7 or 8 and you have a 2.8/3.2ghz C2D that will smash any AMD out there, even overclocked ones, and this is ALL on air. I haven't seen many, or even one! AMD get past 3.2ghz, and to beat it it needs to go to atleast 3.6ghz.

Core 2 Duo is the best chip out there, period. I have one, overclocked as every other ethusiast. Why? Because they are the best chips.

Thats it, C2D are the best at the moment, and if you can buy a E6300 and dont then you are silly!

End of.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Welcome to TSG, now check your sources next time before posting. Its already been established that Tom's Hardware is biased towards Intels. In fact there are multiple places that is shown. A) THE SITE SELLS INTEL PRODUCTS (Why would anyone in your right mind give your own product bad rep?) B) The guy melts AMDs by disabling motherboard safeguards to show Intels are "better" while in fact AMDs run colder and more efficiently.

And if you overclock your Intel, what type of cooling do you use?


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

DOESN'T MATTER!

Core 2 Duo is the best processor on this planet.

World Records have smashed anything AMD has ever done.

Just accept it before I die!, people are laughing at your AMD fanboyness!

Look at every review out there!

C2D >>>>> AMD.


THATS THE END OF IT.

AMD used to have an excellent set of chips, the XP-M then AMD64 but now Intel has gained the lead with its C2D chips. If you argue with me your argueing with every enthusiast out there, and we aint a bunch of silly fools with tooo much money.


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

You apparently are, since you haven't read the rules of posting at TSG yet and obviously haven't read the rest of this thread. If every review out there says it why does 3DMark06 tend to disagree with what you just said and why does AMD have a higher FSB?


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Concord, you have about 2 minutes to edit your post


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

titanania said:


> You apparently are, since you haven't read the rules of posting at TSG yet and obviously haven't read the rest of this thread. If every review out there says it why does 3DMark06 tend to disagree with what you just said and why does AMD have a higher FSB?


*urgh* One benchmark says AMD wins, yet Intel wins everywhere else? Oh dear me, one benchmark, when was that the lord of testing all of a sudden? What about the better flops scores? Better Super Pi times showing quicker calculations? Higher FPS in games? Quicker Encoding?

You go out with 2x1k and build yourself a AMD and Intel system I 100% gaurantee you Intel will win!

FSB, so what?

Intel is 266x4 (Quad pumped - marketing gimmick)
AMD is 266 aswell? Or has this changed to 400 now?

Either way, it doesn't matter. K8 does better with tighter timings than high FSBs, why do you think when AMD64 was the best people were trying to get 2-2-2-6 @ 250fsb to top their processor out instead of 300 3-3-3-10 for the same CPU clockspeed?

Intel its different, mhz > timings.

Just accept it! Core 2 Duo is BETTER THAN AMD!

Go and find someone who agrees with you, because I can't find anyone


----------



## z0mbi32 (Dec 7, 2006)

titanania said:


> You apparently are, since you haven't read the rules of posting at TSG yet and obviously haven't read the rest of this thread. If every review out there says it why does 3DMark06 tend to disagree with what you just said and why does AMD have a higher FSB?


Having had a look through this thread so far I felt compelled to post.

Titanania, while I respect your opinion, that's all I'm seeing here. No solid evidence just an opinion of someone I suspect owns an AMD processor.

Here's some comparison benchmarks for you to look at

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2015110,00.asp
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e6400/9.html
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6153900/p-2.html

Seems like the intel offering beats AMD from what I can read.

It's also worth noting that while heavier overclocks will require additional cooling, core 2 duo's are perfectly capable of overclocking as well as beating AMD at lower clocks. FSB is no longer the best way of measuring newer CPU's speed.

Now if I'm wrong please prove me so (but through recognised benchmarks if at all possible).

Sorry if I come across strong, but I would hate to think less informed people would read this thread and buy a pc based on incorrect knowledge.


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

AcaCandy said:


> Concord, you have about 2 minutes to edit your post


^^ I haven't had a chance to read the rules, it would be nice if I was told what to edit... 

Oh and please, look at this thread:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17662203


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Thank you. I think you figured it out............  But you missed one further down, another edit is in order....


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

AcaCandy said:


> Thank you. I think you figured it out............




I have nothing against posting within the rules, Its just I come from a UK forum and what I put would be allowed (well if im annoyed its usually what I post there anyway lol)


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Concorde Rules said:


> I have nothing against posting within the rules, Its just I come from a UK forum and what I put would be allowed (well if im annoyed its usually what I post there anyway lol)


Welcome to the U.S. where we don't have to use swear words to get our points across 

And just in case you missed my edit above, you need another edit  Thank you again.


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

AcaCandy said:


> Welcome to the U.S. where we don't have to use swear words to get our points across
> 
> And just in case you missed my edit above, you need another edit  Thank you again.


Ooh! lol! I would post a UK joke, but I think I'd better not


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Why is everyone so worked up about AMD vs. Intel? Just buy the one you favor and enjoy it! How can you get so worked up about a small chunk of sand?


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

JohnWill said:


> Why is everyone so worked up about AMD vs. Intel? Just buy the one you favor and enjoy it! How can you get so worked up about a small chunk of sand?


You are right, but when it comes down to which is better value, and whats better for your money and someone is misleading people then it has to be corrected


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Where are all these new members showing up from?

None of you have read any of the rest of the thread as far as I can tell.

I will say this one more time, Intels overheat (even when not overclocked), AMDs do not. AMDs are more efficient and consume less power. AMDs are much cheaper. You can buy two FX-62 and be dual dual core and still spend less than one Intel Core 2 Extreme.

If one more person says that FSB doesn't matter, you will be proving that you either havent read anything or don't know what u are talking about. That is the interaction speed between the processor and the rest of the components (GPU and RAM mostly) Therefore anything with DOUBLE the FSB is going to interact with the other components twice as fast. Hence when you overclock all your components, AMD is going to win hands down. When I bench my system with 3DMark06 it beats several C2D systems. 

The only problem with all those benchmarks you just posted is non of them take into account the overclock of the AMD (one says it does but saying that running a FX-60 at 2.8 is overclocking is laughable, they can overclock far past that) And even then with the benchmarks like that, the best Intel has to offer is only 30 points ahead of AMD in most of the tests. Intel's processor costs over 800 dollars more.

Quit saying I don't have evidence or trying to discount my posts. Nothing makes the links I post any less valid than yours unless you WANT mine to be less valid. First it was saying that AMD does not use 65 nm tech, which I linked to an article proving otherwise, then someone said my article isn't valid so I linked directly to the AMD website. So please stop with the comments about my stuff not being valid. I have evidence that the major source people have been using to say Intel is better (Tom's Hardware) is biased. A) The site SELLS Intels B) The site melts AMDs by disabling safeguards then tries to say its the processor's fault.

Im not the one linking to biased site, Concorde. If anything you are misleading.


----------



## james.miller (Dec 7, 2006)

a few lessons about cpus, fsb's and such. It would seem its needed.

#1 - fsb.

a64's dont have a 2ghz fsb, that is factually incorrect. '2ghz' is a number conjured up by adding _real_ numbers together. a64's run their memory at 200mhz, just like intel conroes do. they both have different ways of achieving their 'fsb', but listen real hard, it makes no difference.

when it comes to memory, they are BOTH limited in bandwidth by the memory that they are running, and when using 200mhz modules that limit kicks in far before their jargon max fsb's would imply.

Amd's reach their "2ghz fsb" by the old trick of multiplying numbers together. a64's have what we call a "Hyper transport Bus", or HT bus for short. this bus is theoretically running at 2ghz and thats what people are calling the fsb, but its not as straight forward as that.......You say you built an a64 rig, so you should KNOW this but here it is anyway:

The HT bus speed can be worked out from the memory speed. every a64 currently uses a default ram speed of 200mhz. the ht bus on a s939/am2 board runs with a 5x multiplier (default, it can be lowered and indeed it's beneficial to do so when overclocking. as a side, the s754's used to use a x4 multiplier), meaning you effectively have a 2ghz ht bus. Now, that bus can send bits both ways at the same time so amd just said "ok, we'll double that mythical number then".... bingo "2ghz fsb". does it _really_ run at 2 ghz? no, it doesn't.

let's recap : *memory speed *X* ht multiplier *X* two = so called "fsb"* - factually incorrect as i said. it's all just numbers to appeal to people who think big numbers = better

Intel do exactly the same btw - they too run their ram at a default of 200mhz (though they have recently released cpu's that run at 233mhz stock i do believe). the ONLY difference is that they dont double their equivalent to the ht bus's figure to get 2ghz.... the lesson here is that it's all irrelavant. but you built an a64 pc, you know this right?

#2 - cooling. short lesson this, but basically what you have said here is nothing like the truth. you are totally and utterly wrong. intels do not "require" liquid cooling. i have something called a scythe ninja cooling my s939 AMD opteron running at 3ghz.



















the same heatsink (the VERY same heatsink) will cool an overclocking conroe running well above 3ghz. all on air, silently - no water involved. Considering the fastest conroe the sell runs at 2.93ghz and ships with an air cooler, how can you calim such false statements? in fact the hottest conroe-based cpu they sell, the quad-core 'kentsfield' (2 conroes on a single chip) also ships with an air-cooler. That says something about how cool they run doesnt it?

#3 - performance. You are, again, misguided here. Amd are putting up a good fight, but only in the budget sector. here, the e6300 allendale/conroe can be had for ~£110. the x2 x3800+ is £103. Thats extremely close price-wise AND performance wise. however, what is attainable with a conroe far outstrips that of any a64 to date. make no mistake, i own one of the fastest single core a64's in the world, but next to an overclocked conroe....it's left looking rather slow. There is one very simple reason for this - conroes do more work per clock than an a64. I will keep this very simple for you, but bascially its down to how many instructions the cpu can exucute in one cycle. coroes do more than a64's. as a result, at 3ghz for example, a conroe would be faster. as clock rates increase, the gap gets wider. they same was true when a64's were release to rival the pentium 4's - the a64's did more work per cycle and the result was that a 2.4ghz a64 trounced a 2.4ghz p4. simple as that.

I would suggest that you research the subject again, very carefully. because i've yet to see you post anything that is remotely correct except for the fact that cheap a64's make good systems. as far as performance/cost goes, they arent even in the running. now to pick apart your post:


----------



## titanania (Feb 10, 2005)

Where all the new members coming from? I give up, you are all a bunch of idiots. I'm tired of everything I say being ignored as you continue to spew out false tests and information. Wikipedia disagrees with just about everything you just said about FSB. Now your saying AMD makes up their numbers? I have also shown where Intels in fact do run much hotter and less efficiently. (Speedfan) Yet again an example of me being ignored. Its not simply the processor that drives a machine, Intels may be a little more powerful, but as far as system interaction, AMDs tear up Intels.

I will say one last thing nothing I have posted is a lie and thats more than I can say for anyone that was here or that has suddenly shown up and could very well be the same person.

By the way dont try and "teach" me anything by lying. Its not a good habit to get in to.


----------



## james.miller (Dec 7, 2006)

i would like you to respond to specific points i made in my post please. with evidence proving otherwise, because im about to do it to you. it's up to you wether yo do reply, but i can tell you know there will be only one outcome. you'll prove yourself wrong, with or without my help



titanania said:


> Where are all these new members showing up from?
> 
> None of you have read any of the rest of the thread as far as I can tell.
> 
> I will say this one more time, Intels overheat (even when not overclocked), AMDs do not. AMDs are more efficient and consume less power. AMDs are much cheaper. You can buy two FX-62 and be dual dual core and still spend less than one Intel Core 2 Extreme.


intels do not overheat. i've already shown you that. AMd's are no longer more efficient and do not consume less power. here's an article on amd's up-comming quad-fx system:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=1

i would suggesting reading it in depth, but for highlights here are the parts most relavent to this thread:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=8 <-- benchmarks from here onwards
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=12 <-- multi tasking benchamrks

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=13 << POWER CONSUMPTION



> CPU Idle Power Load Power Performance per Watt (fps/watt)
> AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 (3.0GHz x 4) idle - 217W, load - 456W Performance per Watt (fps/watt) - 17.7
> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66GHz x 4) idle - 213W, load - 263W Performance per Watt (fps/watt) - 32.9





> Power consumption of a Quad FX system is simply unreal for a desktop, as it should be because this is effectively a workstation platform with un-buffered memory. At idle our Quad FX test bed consumed nearly 400W, partially because we couldn't get Cool 'n Quiet running on the system, but also because the CPUs and motherboard simply draw an incredible amount of power. Update: We got Cool 'n Quiet working on the motherboard which reduced idle power significantly, down to within a few watts of the Kentsfield system. Load power was unchanged.
> 
> Looking at power consumption under full load, Cool 'n Quiet would have no chance to even make an impact as all cores are being utilized at full speed. Under load the Quad FX system pulled 456W on average, a full 73% more than our Kentsfield testbed.
> 
> If we look at performance per watt, the Quad FX loses big time. We specifically chose to look at our WME encoding test because the performance of the FX-74 and QX6700 is pretty close. What you're looking at here is the best case scenario for the Quad FX's performance per watt; in applications where it's significantly slower than Kentsfield the performance per watt will be even worse.


thats a single quad core 2.66ghz intel kentsfield destroying what equates to *4x 3ghz fx-74's* in both performance and power consumption - its over half the amd's! thats a single quad-core intel cpu beating 2 dual core amd's. in every single way.



> If one more person says that FSB doesn't matter, you will be proving that you either havent read anything or don't know what u are talking about. That is the interaction speed between the processor and the rest of the components (GPU and RAM mostly) Therefore anything with DOUBLE the FSB is going to interact with the other components twice as fast. Hence when you overclock all your components, AMD is going to win hands down. When I bench my system with 3DMark06 it beats several C2D systems.


i've explained, in detail, what fsb really means to a64's. wiki is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge, considering it can be re-written by people who know absolutely nothing about anything, it is to be taken with a pinch of salt and nothing more.

as for 3dmark 2006, it is almost ENTIRELY down to the gpu as '06 is the most gpu-bound benchmark futuremark have release so far.



> The only problem with all those benchmarks you just posted is non of them take into account the overclock of the AMD (one says it does but saying that running a FX-60 at 2.8 is overclocking is laughable, they can overclock far past that) And even then with the benchmarks like that, the best Intel has to offer is only 30 points ahead of AMD in most of the tests. Intel's processor costs over 800 dollars more.


points? that was frames a second. 30 frames a second is a BIG difference. Also to make it clear, the comparison should be made between the overclocked conroe and the a64, not the top of the line conroe.



> Quit saying I don't have evidence or trying to discount my posts. Nothing makes the links I post any less valid than yours unless you WANT mine to be less valid. First it was saying that AMD does not use 65 nm tech, which I linked to an article proving otherwise, then someone said my article isn't valid so I linked directly to the AMD website. So please stop with the comments about my stuff not being valid. I have evidence that the major source people have been using to say Intel is better (Tom's Hardware) is biased. A) The site SELLS Intels B) The site melts AMDs by disabling safeguards then tries to say its the processor's fault.


Amd have only just started make 65nm cpu's, so anything you bought before today is 99% guaranteed NOT to be a 65nm cpu. Dont try to convince people you are correct on a technicality because what they are saying is true. everything from amd so far has been 90nm or larger.

Do you need me to go on?

off topic//


AcaCandy said:


> Welcome to the U.S. where we don't have to use swear words to get our points across
> 
> And just in case you missed my edit above, you need another edit  Thank you again.


just to make things clear, they aren't concidered swear words in the uk. that's why he didnt know


----------



## z0mbi32 (Dec 7, 2006)

What he said


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

JohnWill said:


> Why is everyone so worked up about AMD vs. Intel? Just buy the one you favor and enjoy it! How can you get so worked up about a small chunk of sand?


Such wisdom JW ..... :up: 
lets hope this doesn't devolve into ATI vs nVidia next


----------



## james.miller (Dec 7, 2006)

i dont get worked up about 'fanboy' arguments, but i have absolutely no problem with driving somebody in to the ground with nothing but pure fact. In fact, titanania is a prime example of somebody who has formed an opinion on old informantion and things he/she has obviously misread or refuses to accept. I'm not going to be rude, but ill keep posting more and more untill he/she realises they're wrong.

with such goldmines as "For video editing, you will want as fast as a video card as you can get." that may take a while


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

you missed the whole point of this thread



barrypatch said:


> My son is on his third computer in the past few years and he says this one isn't good enough for new games. I want to get him a computer that will last and will work for his games. His current machine is a Compaq, which we have added a graphics card and he is up to 1 GB RAM.
> 
> I have no clue where to begin. His gaming friends say his power supply isn't big enough, but I think I should just get a new machine that is made for gaming and not try to buy a standard machine and upgrade what I can.
> 
> ...


Arguing AMD vs Intel is not helping Nancy with her question at all. She posted here looking for some advice on whether she would be better off having a gaming rig built from scratch or buying a prebuilt rig and upgrading it where needed to get it into gaming shape. There are plenty of very knowledgeable people in here who could have offered pertinent advice but if they walked into your argument with titania they most likely left without reading much .... regardless of which of you two is "right" or "wrong" the person who ultimately looses out here is Nancy as the help she came here seeking has most likely been chased away.


----------



## james.miller (Dec 7, 2006)

I understood the point what doesnt help is somebody turning this into an amd vs intel thread with an opinion that is based on fictional knowledge.

to answer the first question: you need a budget. Look around and see what you can get pre-built for that budget. Also if you told us what that budget is, we can advise you on how to best spend that money if you are building it yourself. make no mistake, if you are building, conroe is the only recommendation that anybody in the know will make unless your budget is very tight if it's tight, then your best choice *may* be an a64 but even on a budget you can do so much more with conroe. remember i am no fanboy, currently owning an a64-based pc the only reason i still do is that the cost to move to conroe/ddr-II - right now i cant justify it in my case


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

Hey James, nice posting 



titanania said:


> Where are all these new members showing up from?
> 
> None of you have read any of the rest of the thread as far as I can tell.
> 
> I will say this one more time, Intels overheat (even when not overclocked), AMDs do not. AMDs are more efficient and consume less power. AMDs are much cheaper. You can buy two FX-62 and be dual dual core and still spend less than one Intel Core 2 Extreme.


LOL! Sorry, but thats ****. C2D thermal envelope is less than AMDs and half of what pentium 4 is. Core 2 or Conroe is a COMPLETELY new design. AMD/P4 is over 80/100W, Conroe? 65.



titanania said:


> If one more person says that FSB doesn't matter, you will be proving that you either havent read anything or don't know what u are talking about. That is the interaction speed between the processor and the rest of the components (GPU and RAM mostly) Therefore anything with DOUBLE the FSB is going to interact with the other components twice as fast. Hence when you overclock all your components, AMD is going to win hands down. When I bench my system with 3DMark06 it beats several C2D systems.


Yes, it does affect system speed, but you cannot say because AMD has a higher FSB means its quicker, it just doesn't work like that. Its like your saying a Pentium 4 is quicker than a AMD64 because its clocked at 3.6ghz compared to 2.4!



titanania said:


> The only problem with all those benchmarks you just posted is non of them take into account the overclock of the AMD (one says it does but saying that running a FX-60 at 2.8 is overclocking is laughable, they can overclock far past that) And even then with the benchmarks like that, the best Intel has to offer is only 30 points ahead of AMD in most of the tests. Intel's processor costs over 800 dollars more.


A E6600 beats a FX-60, it has been prooved many times, even I think E6300s/E6400s beat it in some cases, why cant you accept that Core 2 Duo is quicker?



titanania said:


> Quit saying I don't have evidence or trying to discount my posts. Nothing makes the links I post any less valid than yours unless you WANT mine to be less valid. First it was saying that AMD does not use 65 nm tech, which I linked to an article proving otherwise, then someone said my article isn't valid so I linked directly to the AMD website. So please stop with the comments about my stuff not being valid. I have evidence that the major source people have been using to say Intel is better (Tom's Hardware) is biased. A) The site SELLS Intels B) The site melts AMDs by disabling safeguards then tries to say its the processor's fault.


Eh what? FX-60 @ 2.8ghz = FX-62.... Not difficult is it? And it doesn't sell processors, it advertises them for other online retailers... Also, did you see the test THG did? Dual Core Pent 4 vs> some X2, the way they made the Intel fail was critized on alot of forums, every site is biased, im biased you evidently biased, but they aint saying something that isn't true, because Conroe IS THAT GOOD! 

PLEASE just ACCEPT that Core 2 Duo is the better processor.

Because for the last time:

1. Uses less power, 65W instead of the 80+ of most 90NM AMD64s and 130W+ Of Pentium 4s.
2. Because of this, less heat is produced thus quieter PCs.
3. Quicker, the shorter pipelines make it a very efficient processor, and when given the memory bandwidth it FLIES. Even at stock it flies.

Now, I changed from a 2.5ghz X2 to a E6600, at stock this is a good 20-40% quicker than the AMD (MY FPS doubled in BF2 at 1600x1200 using the same graphics card and settings), and now im sitting at 441x8, 3.535ghz. You would need a 4Ghz AMD to keep up with that, not one does that or anywhere near it, 3.1ghz is the max stable on air i've seen. IM STABLE at 3.535ghz, I've been running folding at home and gaming 24/7.

I want this to end, please please please please please please accept Conroe is the better processor now, like AMD was 12 months ago


----------



## Doppleganger77 (Dec 7, 2006)

titanania.

I'm afraid to say that you need to review your stance and your opinion on what cpus make the best gaming choice. Your information is seriously misleading and I would go as far to say that you are performing a major disservice to anyone seeking genuine help on this thread.

There is substantial evidence on the net that confirms that Core Duo 2 cpus are now the most efficient processers available, both in terms of IPC and performance per watt. This is hard testing done by reputable enthusiast sites and what's more, their results all confirm the same thing - that Intel's Core Duo 2 processors are now the cpu of choice for every segment of the market except for the lowest budget end.


----------



## Dangerous Dave (Dec 7, 2006)

I don't normaly post in these threads however as James Miller kindly put an example of his temps on his AMD CPU with a Ninja heatsink, I thought as I cool my Core 2 Duo E6600 with the same heatsink and fan it would make a good comparison.

My E6600 is overclocked to 3.2Ghz on standard volts (1.325v therefore using less power than the AMD also) and as you can see from the screen shot below I did no more than 20 mins ago that not only is it running cooler on the same heatsink than the AMD it also did the calculation over 2 minutes quicker. I may add this is no test rig with a clean install of windows etc this pc is on 24 by 7 and the case (Antec P180) is closed and sits under my desk.

I am no Intel fanboy this is the first Intel I have owned since my p133, I simply buy the quickest CPU available at the time I require to build a new pc I was going to go for the X2 however the Core 2 Duo is simply the better CPU at this present time. If AMD make the quickest CPU the next time I upgrade I will buy it.

To titanania all I ask is that you run the 8MB super PI test on your rig and post a screen shot with your system temps and time it took to do it and I would be very surprised if yours does it in a quicker time and at a lower temp.


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

Dangerous Dave said:


> I don't normaly post in these threads however as James Miller kindly put an example of his temps on his AMD CPU with a Ninja heatsink, I thought as I cool my Core 2 Duo E6600 with the same heatsink and fan it would make a good comparison.
> 
> My E6600 is overclocked to 3.2Ghz on standard volts (1.325v therefore using less power than the AMD also) and as you can see from the screen shot below I did no more than 20 mins ago that not only is it running cooler on the same heatsink than the AMD it also did the calculation over 2 minutes quicker. I may add this is no test rig with a clean install of windows etc this pc is on 24 by 7 and the case (Antec P180) is closed and sits under my desk.
> 
> ...


Nice clocks for the voltage, if thats 1.325V BIOS then the real Vcore must be around 1.26/1.27 

My E6600 needs 1.3V actual (I've done the Vdroop mod) to get to 400x7


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

titanania said:


> Where all the new members coming from? I give up, you are all a bunch of idiots.


Well, isn't this special...........the person complaining about the forum rules breaks a forum rule as well


----------



## Dangerous Dave (Dec 7, 2006)

Concorde Rules said:


> Nice clocks for the voltage, if thats 1.325V BIOS then the real Vcore must be around 1.26/1.27
> 
> My E6600 needs 1.3V actual (I've done the Vdroop mod) to get to 400x7


Its a OK clocker not great compared to other ones I have seen, it will do 3555 (9x395) stable at a BIOS setting of 1.525v, I suspect it would do 3.6ghz with another couple of nudges in voltage it booted into XP at 3.6ghz but failed after a couple of hours of prime on the next step up in voltage think it was 1.5375v but I didn't want to push it with any more volts. I wanted a sensible level for 24 by 7 use on air so stick to 3.2ghz.

(Should have really added to the first post that the temps core temp and Intels TAT report are the same as Everest, I just used Everest to show the CPU fan was spinning at give or take the same speed as the other post.)


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage (Oct 21, 2004)

I had to get in some guys who were actually experienced in the field of computer hardware, and had used both manufacturers (AMD and Intel) CPU's, myself only having used an Intel Celeron III 633MHz on my first PB machine and a 3100+ 754 Sempron on my current machine overclocking neither.

I think you may step down now Titanania if you haven't already, and I hope the OP has had some fun reading this...

To the original poster, I hope you make the correct decision in your PC purchase  .


----------



## VeNT (Dec 7, 2006)

I'm an AMD user
I have been since the K6. 
I've still got my lovely little K6-2 with 3D NOW! its chugging away nicely 
I upgraded to the Athlon 1.2GHz after that, quite a performance increase! then after that I got myself a Barton core Athlon XP 2500, and overclocked it to the same speed as a 3200. 
that PC served me well until about 3 months ago. when it blew up (lightning meh).
the insurance co happily paid out my set value for the PC (I had it named) so off I went to look at the new AMD AM2 socket processors. thinking that I'd go for one of these, a nice PCI-e graphics card etc as I'd never been a fan of Intel. then I saw the results from the Core 2 Duo systems and I was wowed! 
so off I went, got myself a e6300, DS4, 1Gb of ram etc etc, didn't think I'd get much of an overclock out of it, its Intel after all! 
how wrong was I?


thats with a ninja cooler. 120mm fan (on about 75% max speed, nice and quiet). doesn't go above 45C under 100% load. its running [email protected] atm, (off during the test of course) and is stable at over 3.2GHz even if my ram isn't.

I used to be an AMD fanboy, then I moved on and became a performance fanboy. If Intel are willing to sell a chip for around £100 that does 3.2 on air, and will out perform any AMD chip of the same price then thats what I go for.
if you're looking for the best performance per £ right now, you can't go wrong with the core 2 duo.



titanania said:


> I'm tired of everything I say being ignored as you continue to spew out false tests and information.


give me any test to do and I will do it to prove to you the facts.


titanania said:


> I will say one last thing nothing I have posted is a lie and thats more than I can say for anyone that was here or that has suddenly shown up and could very well be the same person.


doesn't have to be a lie for you to be wrong and I don't think that anyone here wants you accusing them of posting misleading information. isn't that called defamation of character?


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

This thread is almost amusing .... so many new members making their first posts in the same thread. It's got to be a first









maybe


----------



## VeNT (Dec 7, 2006)

DarqueMist said:


> This thread is almost amusing .... so many new members making their first posts in the same thread. It's got to be a first
> 
> 
> 
> ...


got pointed here by concord. if my posting helps dispel a false myth then all the better.

my advice to the OP is this
wait it out.
we've DX10 arriving soon, and vista is around somewhere.
we've just seen the first salvo of DX10 capable cards arrive from Nvidia, with ATI (or is it AMD now?) offering arriving in the new year somtime.
while prices are low right now, buying anything may be a false economy with things about to change so much.
if you where to buy now you could still upgrade to a DX10 card later on as well as vista but you may not want to.

I recently built a new PC for myself and it is what I would recommend anyone building for now getting with maybe a few alterations to suit.

Intel E6300
Gygabit DS3/DS4 (depending on if you want the extra features) 
1/2Gb DDR2 PC6200 ( 800MHz ) or faster. Size depends on wallet
320Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.10
Seasonic S12 500W

graphics card. 
you could go for the Nvidia 8800 range, these cost quite a bit but have the best performance of all the cards currently available.
I'd reccomend either going for a ATI x1900XT 256 (what I have) or the x1950Pro or XT. either of these cards will run the next generation of games and beyond. 
case etc is down to you. I personaly went for the Alsaska Eclipse and Mirage for the systems I built, good quality sturdy cases.

if you want to overclock your processor, like meny in this thread have done, then I'd advice getting an after market cooler, like the Scythe Ninja. 
this lot and the bits that you need aswell (DVD RW, floppy etc) should come to around the £800 mark and will see you right for a few years to go.


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

DarqueMist said:


> This thread is almost amusing .... so many new members making their first posts in the same thread. It's got to be a first
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, see the Geek Squad thread...that has the record, I believe


----------



## james.miller (Dec 7, 2006)

Dangerous Dave said:


> I don't normaly post in these threads however as James Miller kindly put an example of his temps on his AMD CPU with a Ninja heatsink, I thought as I cool my Core 2 Duo E6600 with the same heatsink and fan it would make a good comparison.





VeNT said:


> .....
> thats with a ninja cooler. 120mm fan (on about 75% max speed, nice and quiet). doesn't go above 45C under 100% load. its running [email protected] atm, (off during the test of course) and is stable at over 3.2GHz even if my ram isn't.


well you dont get much more conclusive than that same heatsink, conroes clocked faster, doing more work per cycle, and running cooler.


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

AcaCandy said:


> Nope, see the Geek Squad thread...that has the record, I believe


The Geek Squad scares me so I've never wandered that thread, I just got the feeling when I looked into this one that a bunch of classmates have banded together to get their point across.... seeing as you and JW have already been in here a few times I doubt that its just a single user trying to start a flame war. Although that would be an easy assumption to make


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

I'm only here because of a bad language report  I would guess JW as well..........


----------



## Lolcb (Dec 7, 2006)

Omg?? I am here pointed by the peeps over at OcUK. I think titiannia just refuses to accept the fact that he bought an amd 3800+ instead of a c2d. So he chose to be stubborn despite the large amount of cold hard facts thrown at him. Titannia, I hope you do refrain from posting in such thread for good, you are giving someone the wrong info and it might very well cause them not only loss of money but loss of performance which they are entitled to if given the right info. 

So titannia, do yourself a favour and stop arguing against solid facts. Thanks


----------



## Subterranean (Dec 8, 2006)

Wow, at least we know who to never listen to on these forums; Titanania. The newest C2D's are by far faster, price for price than anything AMD has to offer. Admittedly, once AMD comes back they may be better once again, but AMD has been hit in the face with a wet kipper they weren't expecting thanks to intel, and it can only mean they come back harder and stronger. Hopefully anyway.

If you are building a system from scratch right about now, the intel core 2 duos are the only logical choice. If you can wait a few months, see how the new intel chips cope against the new AMD and decide from there.


----------



## Lolcb (Dec 7, 2006)

If I am not wrong, there are already benchmarks out for AMD's so called quad core series which consists of FX-70,72,74. And as far as I know, all three series are beaten by Intel's C2D. It will take at least all the way till Q3 of 2007 for AMD to have a chance of beating Intel's present form. 

And to be honest, I almost bought FX-62 thinking AMD is the way to go but sadly I was ill informed regarding the performance difference between Intel and AMD. So to the original poster of this thread, first of all stat a budget. And from your budget, then can the members here try to spec a nice PC for you which should ( hopefully ) be adequate for games like COH.


----------



## PinkFloyd_uk (Dec 8, 2006)

Just someone else who has seen this thread from elsewere.

Titania you've made my day, haven't laughed this much for ages.
Rather than slating everyones sources why don't you come up with some yourself, its quite clear to see you have no idea just how good the Intel Core2Duos are.

it seems from reading the whole thread (yes I've read every page) that you seem to think the AMD's bus is quicker. thats just its hypertransport bus, The actualy fsb is a lot lower. The Ram on the AMD system is connected via this hypertransport bus so thats why programs relying strongly on RAM bandwidth perform very well.
However the main fsb of the Intels is higher (ie the connection from the cpu to the graphics etc....)

SO there counts fsb out as an advantage, its a boost in some thins, but not half as important as the sheer grunt that the Core2Duos have. 

They are far more effiecient, hence being faster despite having much lower clockspeeds.
The sheer notion that they are Rubbish at overclocking and run too hot is a memory of the Pentium 4 days, there long gone now, the Core2Duo is an entirely new core built from the ground up with pulverising the AMD64s. 

Myself I'm an AMD fan, I love to see the underdog at the top, but even when very very drunk, and with a very unclear mind I can still clearly see which is the better processer.
The Core2Duo.

Looking forward to a reply


----------



## Raikiri (Dec 8, 2006)

Ah, what an entertaining thread 

Titanania, as most people have said the core 2 duo is faster than the AMD equivilent by quite a way in fact. I am running quite a cheap motherboard with 667mhz ddr2 RAM and an e6300, guess what...? It overclocks like a dream, from 1.86ghz stock all the way up to 2.8ghz on air cooling, in a tiny case and it only hits 45c under 100% load using coretemp to measure temps.

This £100 CPU with a £15 air cooler is out performing an AMD CPU which costs around 5x as much (the FX-62), even with the FX-62 overclocked you would be quite lucky to get 3.2ghz on air and the £100 cpu would still outperform. Why? Because the new core 2 architecture is much more efficient than AMDs current set of CPUs, uses less power, runs cooler and actually offers better value for money - possibly a first for Intel 

Loads of benchmarks have been posted from multiple sources and you keep saying 'omg biased' or 'it is only 30 points'... it is not 30 points, it is 30 FPS which can be the difference betweena lovely smooth playable game and a slideshow. Now, go get your x2-3800+ which costs the same as my CPU and get a 20 second super pi... go on, I'm waiting.

The mods here are obviously quite active, maybe you can set titanania straight on this?

Sorry for being an Atheist.


----------



## Concorde Rules (Dec 7, 2006)

It seems she has lost interest, maybe she knows she lost


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Raikiri 

You want to edit or do I JUST OUT AND OUT BAN YOUR ARSE!


----------



## Raikiri (Dec 8, 2006)

Ok, edited.



AcaCandy said:


> Raikiri
> 
> You want to edit or do I JUST OUT AND OUT BAN YOUR ARSE!


Thought you couldn't say arse?


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I'm going to simply close this thread, since you appear to have chased the original poster totally out of the picture. Try to remember we have rules against hijacking a person's thread here. If you want to "discuss" rationally the merits of AMD vs. Intel, please start your own thread in the future.

I also suggest in those future threads you try to maintain a bit more civility, or we'll be breaking out the heavy artillery.


----------

