| 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 | ||
| 502864 | 2006-12-01 20:49:00 | 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) 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... For a Start this little argument started when a AMD 64 4000+ was recommended over a Intel e6300, and the original post mentions FS9,COD,AOE, of course gaming is not the only thing he will do. ****A AMD 3800+ single core "can" outperform a dual core X2 3800+, but we are not talking about AMD vs AMD are we?**** Question "will a Intel e6300 outperform a single core AMD 64 4000+". Answer is YES in nearly everything including most GAMES at 1280x1024 ish where the GPU is not the bottleneck for example. Third please don't talk about clock rates when comparing different architectures. A Intel Pentium D running at 2.8gig will get destroyed by a Intel C2D running at 1.8gig (both dual core processors). And if you decide to even do a simple mild overclock of a e6300 it will destroy a MAXIMUM overclocked AMD64 4000+ no question. By Overclocking a $300 e6300 to 3.3gig (fairly easy and very common) you can surpass a $1800 e6800 extreme in real performance. Everything changed with C2D 7 odd months ago, you guys really need to play catch up (don't look up the quad core's you may go into shock). www.anandtech.com www.xbitlabs.com hardwarezone.com reviews.cnet.com www.anandtech.com |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502865 | 2006-12-01 21:51:00 | Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. FS9 will run quite well with almost any cpu, as people keep telling me. But once you start loading addons watch your performance deteriorate. Then take it on line with half a dozen other players and see what happens. My exact experience was: With dual core 4400 (or was it 4200, can't remember now) I could fly normally with no problems. But when I logged into the server, I was gone within five minutes. This went on for about six weeks. All sorts of experts made all sorts of suggestions. Absolutely nothing made any difference. It was desperation more than anything that made me try single core. Since the day I put it in I have not had a single dumping or freeze up. So don't blame me for being a SC fan. One other thing. Someone mentioned that the computer will not be used just to play one game, so he should get a DC. Surely you should choose all bits that will let all programs run properly. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 502866 | 2006-12-01 22:58:00 | Jack The Intel Core 2 duo's are significantly out performing the AMD X2's, so your comments are not really relevant although understood. He is looking at C2D not X2's!! There is nothing wrong with a 4000+ or the X2's, however things have changed recently with Intel Core 2 duo. The C2D are significantly out performing all single core and AMD X2 dual core when comparing in the same price range, in nearly all applications and games. My main beef was suggesting buying a single core 4000+ for close to the same price as the e6300. This is simply bad advice no matter what spin you put on it. If you are buying a ALL new rig, its all C2D at the moment, nearly anything else is a mis-informed purchase (or certainly not maximiseing your $ vs performance ratio). A $300 e6300 is not exspensive. BTW my last rig "which I still have" is a AMD 64 3000 Venice overclocked to 2.8gig which would have a very similar performance to that 4000 of yours. I can promise even the "stock" speed e6300 beats it and I am talking in every day use not just the benchmarks. Once you do even a easy mild overclock, well read for yourself.... |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502867 | 2006-12-01 23:59:00 | For a Start this little argument started when a AMD 64 4000+ was recommended over a Intel e6300, and the original post mentions FS9,COD,AOE, of course gaming is not the only thing he will do. ****A AMD 3800+ single core "can" outperform a dual core X2 3800+, but we are not talking about AMD vs AMD are we?**** Question "will a Intel e6300 outperform a single core AMD 64 4000+". Answer is YES in nearly everything including most GAMES at 1280x1024 ish where the GPU is not the bottleneck for example. Third please don't talk about clock rates when comparing different architectures. A Intel Pentium D running at 2.8gig will get destroyed by a Intel C2D running at 1.8gig (both dual core processors). And if you decide to even do a simple mild overclock of a e6300 it will destroy a MAXIMUM overclocked AMD64 4000+ no question. By Overclocking a $300 e6300 to 3.3gig (fairly easy and very common) you can surpass a $1800 e6800 extreme in real performance. You don't actually know what I am talking about with the 4000+ and the 4400+, I AM comparing AMD with AMD (little to do with the OP though...) The E6300 is better than the 4000+ Funny, I didn't know that there was a E6800 :illogical I am sure you mean the X6800... get the models right before lecturing me :groan: Well the 4000+ and X2 4400+ are the same architecture, just with a core added on, so I don't see what you are on about with comparing two different architectures |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 502868 | 2006-12-02 02:25:00 | You don't actually know what I am talking about with the 4000+ and the 4400+, I AM comparing AMD with AMD (little to do with the OP though...) The E6300 is better than the 4000+ Funny, I didn't know that there was a E6800 :illogical I am sure you mean the X6800... get the models right before lecturing me :groan: Well the 4000+ and X2 4400+ are the same architecture, just with a core added on, so I don't see what you are on about with comparing two different architectures The argument started when a 4000+ was recommended over a e6300 by Jack. The e6300 and 4000+ are not the same architecture and clock rate comparisons are not applicable. You said said "Most current games are not made for dual core CPUs, so yes, you will notice lower performance than what you will get with a single core CPU that costs the same".....WRONG!!! concerning performance. You could just say admit you were generally wrong and apologise opposed to picking on a minor mistake. Apology accepted in advance. |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502869 | 2006-12-02 03:45:00 | For a Start this little argument started when a AMD 64 4000+ was recommended over a Intel e6300, and the original post mentions FS9,COD,AOE, of course gaming is not the only thing he will do. Actually the original post mentioned FSX not FS9 which is an entirely different kettle of fish. I have an E6700 with 2GB DDR2 ram and 8800GTX Gfx card and can play FSX and encode videos at full speed on both with no worries at all. No slow down noted in FSX at all even with things turned way up. Also running addins at the same time. Core temps running around 53 degrees at full load. This is core temp and not CPU temp. I am considering putting FS9 back on with all its add-on's but I am sure it will preform even better. The two chips simply don't compare with each other and it has been shown in numerous reviews the Core 2 Duos out-perform the AMD chips by far. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 502870 | 2006-12-02 04:24:00 | pctek Owning something for a year and then recommending it over something that is more recent and superior is "silly". I used to own a 386DX40 it was GREAT should I be recommending that? Or maybe my VZ200 that was pretty good :) |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502871 | 2006-12-02 06:18:00 | And if you decide to even do a simple mild overclock of a e6300 it will destroy a MAXIMUM overclocked AMD64 4000+ no question. By Overclocking a $300 e6300 to 3.3gig (fairly easy and very common) you can surpass a $1800 e6800 extreme in real performance. Overclocking is something that I would be keen to try - your comments sound quite promising with the E6300. I might just do some background on this - presumably OCNZ is the place to look? To clarify, I currently have FS9 - doesn't run great on my P4 2.8 with an FX5900 card. I would like to add FSX to my collection, but I am not willing to break the bank to do it - I will try the demo version once I'm ready and make a decision then. |
Miami Steve (2128) | ||
| 502872 | 2006-12-03 00:24:00 | Overclocking is something that I would be keen to try - your comments sound quite promising with the E6300. I might just do some background on this - presumably OCNZ is the place to look? To clarify, I currently have FS9 - doesn't run great on my P4 2.8 with an FX5900 card. I would like to add FSX to my collection, but I am not willing to break the bank to do it - I will try the demo version once I'm ready and make a decision then. Well if you are interested this thread contains a conroe overclocking database and can be used as a bible for buying parts (and what not to buy). www.hardforum.com Whole forum in general is better for power users and overclocking CPU/GPU ram etc info. |
Master_Frost (9951) | ||
| 502873 | 2006-12-05 09:07:00 | I am grateful for all suggestions but the 7950GT will be pushing the budget as it is. If somebody convinced me that I shouldn't touch the 7950 but get the 8800 instead, I would do it, but other than that I couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a video card.Yo, I forgot something here, you need a really fast CPU to have 8800GTX. Like the Core 2 Extreme Quad Core CPU. www.tomshardware.com |
PedalSlammer (8511) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||