Gaming system under $550.00?

[SDtielvdeo]

Well thats why I picked some low priced equipment, but w/e. At least get the processor I picked out :/

[£cho]

That processor is terrible for a dual-core. Why the hell would he want that? It's about 2/3 the speed of the AMD he had originally.

[Jager]

er ok first why is anyone commenting on a pentium d processor, its by nature slower then a C2D because its intels older technology called "netburst" its a power hog, its a heat blasting chip, and it sucks compared to amd chips.

 

something you must note this is VERY important. the speed in ghz between one chip versus another means NOTHING these days and it has not for YEARS. the pentium 4 chips at 3.2 ghz were slower in gaming then the amd chips at 2.2ghz. stock for stock. huh you say, its all about instructions per second. thats the bottom line. how fast the chip can work a set group of task instructions. former amd chips were the fastest. intel went and redesigned teh pentium 3 chip and the pentium M. the core 2 duo processors are based entirely on the pentium M's style of high use for low power and high speed and good instructions per second. the pentium M chips BTW on desktop boards with a retrofit kit was the FASTEST and BEST gaming chip until AMD ran out the opteron 939 chips. and still it was neck and neck. it was and is a killer chip.

 

 

AMD however is NOT the gamers chip either, sorry to those of you who believe so. but unless your only doing high memory bandwidth testing the intel C2d and Qx (dual core and quad core) beat the amd competitor (meaning same or cheaper price range heck even go up one level half the time) EVERY time. its simply the fact that intel has faster instructions per second times.

 

now for those screaming NUH HUH AMD FTW ....

 

well fanboi ? but seriously, the best amd systems are the am2 74 series and thats uber pricey. (processors are over 1k) intels quad cores are cheaper and preform as well and the qx6600 has been known to overclock and beat most am2 systems its price 266 bucks.... ill let you do the math.

 

when amd gets their 8 core chip out we will likely see this reverse, as amd has their memory controller on the chip and intels is on the northbridge, so AMD wont have a memory bottleneck to overcome with 8 processors trying to work in tandem.(hyper transport technology)

 

but bang for buck the intel core duo processors are fast, affordable and for those that overclock almost all of them easily have another 1000mhz in them on air cooling alone.

[Haggard]

Well thats why I picked some low priced equipment, but w/e. At least get the processor I picked out :/

 

I already own a better one then you suggested. I might put it into the new system and the 2.0 into my old system. The one I own now: Intel Pentium D 3.2GHz / 2MB Cache / 800 FSB / Socket 775 / Dual-Core.

 

That processor is terrible for a dual-core. Why the hell would he want that? It's about 2/3 the speed of the AMD he had originally.

 

According to Jager I am better of with a 2.0 dual core intel then a 2.6 dual core from amd. These days I really dont know the diff anymore other then written specs but Jager is a hardware reviewer so if he says a little less from Intel is still better then AMD I will beleive him.

[£cho]

While I disagree with the claims about AMD processors, it is your decision, Haggard. I know that the speed of the processor means little these days, and that in most cases Intel is the way to go, but the point is there's plenty of reviews out there about the Intel processor you picked out and it comparison to the AMD model you chose originally; it doesn't compare.

 

Once again, you're decision entirely, and who you decide to trust is up to you. All I'm saying is that the model you have now isn't going to be as fast as the model you picked originally, period - in my opinion.

 

And by the way, check your PMs when you have the chance. ^_^

[Jager]

youll be fine haggard, this isnt like horsepower, and i can squeeze more outa your chip over vent then youll feel the need for anyway. your 8600gt will bottleneck before the chip will in gaming.

 

echo, if you disagree im happy to show you oodles of graphs and review charts showing the setups running as well as repeatable benchmark numbers to back them up. not just from myself, but from every major review site. am2 is slower. even amd admits that.

[£cho]

edit: See Next Post...

[Haggard]

Jager, Echo, SD. Do you think I would be better off putting my 3.2 D processor in place of the 2.0 I just bought. Spec wise it should preform better right? I know it will produce alot more heat then the newer version 2.0 but what do you think?

 

No changes can be made now, like I said I purchased it last night.

[£cho]

He'll be fine, I didn't say he wouldn't be, but it won't be as fast. lol

 

Yes, generally Intel is faster...

Mid-End Intel Processor vs. Mid-End AMD Processor = Intel Wins.

Low-End Intel Processor vs. Mid/High-End AMD Processor = AMD Wins.

 

This is pretty general knowledge.

I don't want to get into an argument, so I'm done.

Just trying to help, although you've already bought the machine.

 

EDIT:

I'm unsure if a 3.2 D will run faster than a 2.0 C2D. It should, I suppose.

[Jager]

no. leave what you have haggard.

 

get it wsetup and ill get bios screenshots, for your mobo.

 

few tweaks and youll be easily running about 2.5-2.8ghz on stock cooler and you will decimate your older dual core.