My Build So far..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there really a point in getting a C2D and not overclocking it really? Just get an X2 because that will perform nearly as good at STOCK wont it?
 
Is there really a point in getting a C2D and not overclocking it really? Just get an X2 because that will perform nearly as good at STOCK wont it?

Depends on what your doing but I think a x2 3800 or 4200 is around a e6300 in performance.
But I do believe not overclocking a c2d is the 11th sin. Not overclocking a x2 is almost a sin too though. It goes something like

"Thou shalt not put a c2d in thy's rig unless thou plans to overclock said rig to uber 1337 speeds".
 
Depends on what your doing but I think a x2 3800 or 4200 is around a e6300 in performance.
But I do believe not overclocking a c2d is the 11th sin. Not overclocking a x2 is almost a sin too though. It goes something like

"Thou shalt not put a c2d in thy's rig unless thou plans to overclock said rig to uber 1337 speeds".


LMFAO
yepper, the 4200 at stock will rival an e6300 stock in most applications. a 3800 will be pretty close in some as well.
and i belive dario that not overclocking an x2 is a sin for sure. not ocing a c2d is just retarded...and sinful eesh :)
 
Somebody needs to make 9 more commandments. We should have a sticky for the ten commandments of the computer religion.
 
Depends on what your doing but I think a x2 3800 or 4200 is around a e6300 in performance.

yeah it's just a bit short of it i think...looking at the tomshardware charts comparing the e6400 vs AMD x2....the AMD doesn't match up to the e6400 until around the 4800x2 actually in most of the games.

So it looks like C2D performs as well as the AMD chips in games running at about 87% of the clockspeed the AMD chips.

However...looking at higher clockspeeds the C2D just destroys the AMD. An ex6800 at 2.93 ghz gets over 20fps more than a AMD 6000+ @ 3.0ghz in UT2004....over 20fps in Quake4, about 12fps more in Fear...and about 27fps more in COD2.

And lets not even compare video encoding :p

If you have the money then DEFINITELY go for the C2D. It really is leaps and bounds forward of AMD....and I speak from experience..I had a 4400x2 @ 3.03ghz for a long time which served me well...but is nothing compared to my current e6300
 
an e6400 also costs 60.00 more than a 4800. it costs 120 dollars more than a 3600...which performs not quite as good as the 4800 (less cahce) in games, plus you have to overclock it (the 3600) to get the same performance as a 4800. but i can garauntee my 3600 running at 2.6ish will go toe to toe with a stock e6300 in most applications. maybe an e6300 that has a wee overclock. but you're right...the c2ds are fantastic when overclocked. as far as being "leaps and bounds" ahead of amd, well i disagree. maybe a leap ahead, or one good bound. :)
in addition:
an x6800 costs SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY dollars more than an x2 6000.
thats 32.50 a frame based on a 20 fps increase. um, no thanks. that really isnt a fair comparison at all. unless you make it from the amd camp lol.
so really...for that small of an increase for that much more money...i just dont see the "destroy" in that. JMO.
 
C2D are not better than AMD until you overclock them. Until then AMD beats them bang for buck up till the E6600.

So if you are choosing to get a C2D that is worse than an E6600 and not going to ever ever overclock just get it's AMd equivalent for less.
 
i was comparing clock speed vs clock speed, oc potential vs oc potential, performance vs performance, and price vs price.

And my final statement implied that the AMD is indeed cheaper, but that if someone can afford it then the C2D is much, much better.

If not overclocking then yeah, AMD is a better choice...but we all know that only ignorant people with lots of money don't overclock. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom