| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 74604 | 2006-11-28 22:18:00 | Building a new PC - some questions. | Miami Steve (2128) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 502854 | 2006-12-01 07:22:00 | If you are planning on running fs9 go for the 7950GT. I have one and it does an excellent job. If you run fsx then I would suggest the fastes vid card availabe. It needs it. I am very dubious about a dual core cpu with FS. I had one and got dumped regularly. Neither versions will use half of your cpu. I now use an Athlon 4000+ and it is excellent lol um thats crap advice. I suggest you keep up with benchmarks and pricing before posting recommendations. C2D is destroying the AMD X2's in all benchmarks (including real world gaming) little own that puney 4000+ you are recommending at the same prince as a e6300. One of 100,000 review below, start your googleing (note most review put the X2's up against C2D) the single core AMD64 are not even in the same league. www.anandtech.com |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502855 | 2006-12-01 07:34:00 | lol um thats crap advice. I suggest you keep up with benchmarks and pricing before posting recommendations. C2D is destroying the AMD X2's in all benchmarks (including real world gaming) little own that puney 4000+ you are recommending at the same prince as a e6300. One of 100,000 review below, start your googleing (note most review put the X2's up against C2D) the single core AMD64 are not even in the same league. www.anandtech.com Dual core of course are faster, but only if you run programs that can use dual core. AND FS will not. I don't care about makers. Take your pick. The 4000+ does the job. A dual core 4400 would not. And if you believe all you read in reviews you're sillier than you sound. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 502856 | 2006-12-01 07:50:00 | Dual core of course are faster, but only if you run programs that can use dual core . AND FS will not . I don't care about makers . Take your pick . The 4000+ does the job . A dual core 4400 would not . And if you believe all you read in reviews you're sillier than you sound . CD2 is a more efficient processor architecture's than AMD64 (and recent) . That fact that flight sim 9 is only single thread is a mute point . What "matters" is both processor are about the same price, and the e6300 will offer better performance in dam near everything including "probably" flight sim 9, why the fruit would you buy a 4000+ ? Don't recommend product just because you personally own it . BTW . My last 4-5 platforms were AMD, the only reason I changed to Intel C2D is because of the performance especially if you are comparing processor in the same price range . |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502857 | 2006-12-01 08:13:00 | Most current games are not made for dual core CPUs, so yes, you will notice lower preformance than what you will get with a single core CPU that costs the same... because of the varying clock speeds, I recently got BF2142 and that uses 75% of my X2 4400+ meaning it is using OVER 1 CORE. I would have to say (as much as I hate to :p) it looks like you will be best going with Intel and their Core 2 Duo, that offers more than AMD at the moment... |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 502858 | 2006-12-01 08:24:00 | Most current games are not made for dual core CPUs, so yes, you will notice lower preformance than what you will get with a single core CPU that costs the same... because of the varying clock speeds, I recently got BF2142 and that uses 75% of my X2 4400+ meaning it is using OVER 1 CORE. I would have to say (as much as I hate to :p) it looks like you will be best going with Intel and their Core 2 Duo, that offers more than AMD at the moment... I agree most "recent" games seem to use both core's if you monitor "task manager" activity even though the game itself is only single thread (add to this the dual core are out performing the single cores in games AMD and Intel) except Pentium D which is a bit of a joke. AMD will be back (I hope) and certainly nothing wrong with the X2. But adding to the Intel performance advantage, socket changes for AMD look almost definite rendering 939 and AM2 boards useless for AMD quad core, where Intel quad core works on most 775 Core 2 Duo boards now. The AMD 4x4 platform released yeterday will do nothing for AMD, and it is not looking likely they will catch up until at least the third quarter next year :( |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502859 | 2006-12-01 08:37:00 | Yes, I just tested NFS Carbon, and that was using 80% and up... looks like the DC CPU IS performing better in games than a single core... They will be back, I also agree that there is nothing wrong with the X2s, but at this time Intels Core 2 Duos have the performance advantage. Yes, I also agree, AMD have done a very stupid thing there... |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 502860 | 2006-12-01 17:40:00 | Please note that my comment was made about one specific game.The original poster is building a box to play this game. I have tested both types several times. The performance graph showed the dual core bombing out at 100% cpu useage when running Fs9. This makes me think that perhaps the XP tester does not recognise dual core either With single core useage averages about 40% with bursts to over 50% In the PC pitstop tests my dual core was getting about 3000 points. The single core gets about 2400 points. While this test is only useful for comparing computers it doesn't mean much. But because the DC is constantly higher it does not take specific programs into account. For the benefit of those who may not have tried fs9. With addons it is easy to get a program of 25/30 gigabytes. Add to this the high useage of multiplayer connections and voice contact and you need plenty of resources. My 4000+ cpu handles it with ease My 4400 dual core did not So my advice to anyone who wants to play FS stick with single core. If you don't play fs9 then go dual core. For the benefit of those who's bible is the reviews. I have a review here that claims the Athlon 64 4000+ is the greatest and fastest pcu ever. Admittedly it was written 12 months ago. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 502861 | 2006-12-01 19:28:00 | Please note that my comment was made about one specific game.The original poster is building a box to play this game. I have tested both types several times. The performance graph showed the dual core bombing out at 100% cpu useage when running Fs9. This makes me think that perhaps the XP tester does not recognise dual core either With single core useage averages about 40% with bursts to over 50% In the PC pitstop tests my dual core was getting about 3000 points. The single core gets about 2400 points. While this test is only useful for comparing computers it doesn't mean much. But because the DC is constantly higher it does not take specific programs into account. For the benefit of those who may not have tried fs9. With addons it is easy to get a program of 25/30 gigabytes. Add to this the high useage of multiplayer connections and voice contact and you need plenty of resources. My 4000+ cpu handles it with ease My 4400 dual core did not So my advice to anyone who wants to play FS stick with single core. If you don't play fs9 then go dual core. For the benefit of those who's bible is the reviews. I have a review here that claims the Athlon 64 4000+ is the greatest and fastest pcu ever. Admittedly it was written 12 months ago. Yes, one specific game, it is highly unlikely that the system will only be used to play that one game, do I recall right in saying that in one of your threads pctek said she had a friend who ran FS9 and or FSX and he had a 4400+? and that ran fine? (could be wrong) You are forgetting that the single core 4000+ has a higher clock speed than the 4400+. And also that was 12 months ago as you said, ANY Intel Core 2 Duo would wipe the meaning out of that phrase these days... |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 502862 | 2006-12-01 19:58:00 | Yes, one specific game, it is highly unlikely that the system will only be used to play that one game, do I recall right in saying that in one of your threads pctek said she had a friend who ran FS9 and or FSX and he had a 4400+? and that ran fine? (could be wrong) He had a 4200+ . And he has noticed some things (although he didn't have a problem with FS9) are worse on single-core, there isn't much that takes advantage of dual yet . Still I would recommend dual now - because it will be the future . But telling JJJJ not to recommend something because he owns it is silly . Owning something and having given it real world testing as opposed to a review where they used it for only a short time, is a good thing . As for the new Intel, so far its only one CPU thats winning, it remains to be seen if they can continue their run . . . . . or whether AMD overtakes them again with their next lot . Its just like Nvidia and ATI . . . . the race is not yet over . . . . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 502863 | 2006-12-01 20:24:00 | Exactly, I think it might have been just that chip the Jack got... So do I, there are games that are starting to take advantage of more than 1 core now. Well that is his experience, I have had little problems with my X2 (nothing that the DC patch couldn't fix though) and none of myt friends have problems with theirs, also one of them plays FS9 and has had no trouble that I know of... Yes, at THIS time Intel is leading, AMD are fairly far behind though... I hope that they can make up for it... |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||