TheEnd187
Banned
- Messages
- 1,732
i bought from alienware before, big mistake, i was young and foolish lol, build my new pc myself and saved a lot of cash
Add me to that list.
i bought from alienware before, big mistake, i was young and foolish lol, build my new pc myself and saved a lot of cash
do you even kno what you are talking about? the 6000+ has trouble keeping up with a e6400 let alone a e6600, you do not add up the cpu speed, ghz does not matter as much as your thinking it does, the 2.4ghz e6600 will complete more tasks per clock then the 6000+ will, and even if the e6600 will oc past 3ghz anyway and be even faster, your a noob to our forums its ok, but dont go shooting at the top dogs in our forum when you clearly kno nothing about cpu's.
proof CPU Charts | Tom's Hardware
now oc the e6600 to 3ghz then rebenchmar, then oc the 36600 to the max wich is probably 3.6, and then the 600+ to the max which is like 3.4 and bench, either way the e6600 will beat the 6000+.
actually I do know what im talkin about, and yes i know you cant add the two cores up to make 6 ghz total power, its 6 ghz of processing power not the actual speed, it is still 6 ghz of effective processing power. and by the way your the noob if you think that it will only oc to 3.4 my friend has the same processor oced it to 3.7. eat that toms hardware. you can sit here and diss me all you want i know what my processor can do and i know it can outperform core2duo. you just assume that since i just started on this board i know nothing-i never came in here and said core2 duos suck-i just said the 6000+can outperform a lower end one. whoopdeedo if you take that as an insult then you need a life, and if you really think your lowend duo will outperform my high end athlon then well, fine think what you want but sitting here insulting me like a kindergardner just proves your inferiority.
actually I do know what im talkin about, and yes i know you cant add the two cores up to make 6 ghz total power, its 6 ghz of processing power not the actual speed, it is still 6 ghz of effective processing power. and by the way your the noob if you think that it will only oc to 3.4 my friend has the same processor oced it to 3.7. eat that toms hardware. you can sit here and diss me all you want i know what my processor can do and i know it can outperform core2duo. you just assume that since i just started on this board i know nothing-i never came in here and said core2 duos suck-i just said the 6000+can outperform a lower end one. whoopdeedo if you take that as an insult then you need a life, and if you really think your lowend duo will outperform my high end athlon then well, fine think what you want but sitting here insulting me like a kindergardner just proves your inferiority.
i'm sorry your absolutely wrong, it will not act as 6ghz in any kind of way
if its not multi-threaded its going to work as a single 2.4 ghz core.. so get it right, hardly any apps are multi-threaded.. its barely getting dual core ready, so quad is far out of the question
the only thing your getting w/ more cores is the ability of doing more things at one time
i will quote someone else
"it's like taking 6 cars, just because there's more doesnt mean your going to get there faster, just means you can get more people there at the same time"
the rate of speed does not change, your still limited to only being able to process at 2.4 ghz
i'm sorry your absolutely wrong, it will not act as 6ghz in any kind of way
if its not multi-threaded its going to work as a single 2.4 ghz core.. so get it right, hardly any apps are multi-threaded.. its barely getting dual core ready, so quad is far out of the question
the only thing your getting w/ more cores is the ability of doing more things at one time
i will quote someone else
"it's like taking 6 cars, just because there's more doesnt mean your going to get there faster, just means you can get more people there at the same time"
the rate of speed does not change, your still limited to only being able to process at 2.4 ghz
your much better with words thjen i am lol, im a mathematical kinda guy, anyway , the patriot you said a q6600 is faster then the 6000+ which therefore means the e6600 is also faster, as tehre the same proc the q6600 is just two glued together e6600, and the e6600 and q6600 will perform the same when gaming, and other 1-2 threaded apps, the q6600 will just alow you to do more. you yourself have said the q6600 is faster then the 6000+ which means you said the e6600 is faster aswell.
i'm sorry your absolutely wrong, it will not act as 6ghz in any kind of way
if its not multi-threaded its going to work as a single 2.4 ghz core.. so get it right, hardly any apps are multi-threaded.. its barely getting dual core ready, so quad is far out of the question
the only thing your getting w/ more cores is the ability of doing more things at one time
i will quote someone else
"it's like taking 6 cars, just because there's more doesnt mean your going to get there faster, just means you can get more people there at the same time"
the rate of speed does not change, your still limited to only being able to process at 2.4 ghz
first off the 6000+ is rated at 3 ghz a core not 2.4 if your going to diss AMD at least get their specs right. and the software to run that much power is irrelavant. and like I said-yes i know it doesnt run at 6 ghz, its just performs like a 6 ghz processor. hence the 6000+ I cant believe I am arguing with you, its really not worth arguing with someone who is so biased intel, has no clue what their talkin about, and cant even quote the competitions processor specs right, and is rude on top of that. you could have easily just let me be, thought me an idiot or whatever, or simply tried to correct me without sounding like a stuck up moron. you may not be, you may be a decent guy in real life, but your sure comin off like one, hence im not wasting any more of my breath repeating to you this statement: I DO know what im talking about, whether your understanding what im saying is beyond the point, my processor is rated at 3 ghz and will perform like a 6 ghz processor should perform in theory. and yes your right, the software to use all that has not caught up yet so i am nowhere near using all that, but it will someday and id just as soon have the power when it gets here. have a good day, im moving on to some other threads and hopefully more respectful people.
oh and ps, taking more cars and getting more people there on time is still an upgrade. i mean if you need to get 8 people somewhere but your car can only fit four, well guess what your makin 2 trips and takin twice the time, so takin 2 cars is faster and more efficient. sounds logical dont it?
your much better with words thjen i am lol, im a mathematical kinda guy, anyway , the patriot you said a q6600 is faster then the 6000+ which therefore means the e6600 is also faster, as tehre the same proc the q6600 is just two glued together e6600, and the e6600 and q6600 will perform the same when gaming, and other 1-2 threaded apps, the q6600 will just alow you to do more. you yourself have said the q6600 is faster then the 6000+ which means you said the e6600 is faster aswell.
um no i said nothing of the kind your quote was nosboost. im saying a 6000+ will outperform a 2.4 ghz core 2 duo, the dual core. the 2.4 ghz quad by all means has the 6000+ beat, especially at multitasking, i mean its 2 more cores and what was it, a 8 mb cache size, thats pretty impressive. but as far as dual cores are concerned, your going to have to do better then a 2.4 ghz dual core to beat the 6000+ not to say that that processor is bad, and in modern games no one will probably know the difference unless your running a game like medal of honor airborne that requires a 3 ghz processor to run. you will probably notice no difference in games like crysis however as long as you got a good vid card. I am not anti intel, or pro AMD I actually like both brands, ive used intel in the past, have just recently started with AMD and im liking AMD a lot, but Im not going to diss a core 2 either, in fact i wouldnt mind havin one if they wernt so darn expensive, im just pointing out a few things this guys overlooking.
um no i said nothing of the kind your quote was nosboost. im saying a 6000+ will outperform a 2.4 ghz core 2 duo, the dual core. the 2.4 ghz quad by all means has the 6000+ beat, especially at multitasking, i mean its 2 more cores and what was it, a 8 mb cache size, thats pretty impressive. but as far as dual cores are concerned, your going to have to do better then a 2.4 ghz dual core to beat the 6000+ not to say that that processor is bad, and in modern games no one will probably know the difference unless your running a game like medal of honor airborne that requires a 3 ghz processor to run. you will probably notice no difference in games like crysis however as long as you got a good vid card. I am not anti intel, or pro AMD I actually like both brands, ive used intel in the past, have just recently started with AMD and im liking AMD a lot, but Im not going to diss a core 2 either, in fact i wouldnt mind havin one if they wernt so darn expensive, im just pointing out a few things this guys overlooking.
THERE ARE NO AMD CPU'S THAT CAN BEAT AN E6600.. NONE
i will bring you results, tests, anything the e6600 beats even the 6400+
show me some graphs tha show the 6400+ beat the e6600