what is the best cpu for playing games?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sur+ said:
spfd: The Athlon 64 doesn't really support many applications or even an operating system, but people still buy it :).
Not true. the Athlon 64 supports 32-bit mode on the side of 64, compared to the rumoured Intel 64. This makes it possible for the Athlon 64 to run 32-bit and 64-bit programs at the same time, and gives an edge against Intel competing chip in the soon to be times of revolution.
BUT, the info on Intel, even though, reliable, is not officially annouced, if I recall correctly.
 
Ken Masters said:
What Intel chip has a 800 Mhz FSB? Itanium?

P4's have 3 types of PF4'S!
400FSB, 533FSB, and 800FSB

Highly Expensive, not needed.

Oh yea, dont evern buy a celeron or a duron for gaming!
 
sur+ said:
The only Pentium 4's with a 800mhz frontbus have hyper-threading.

The type of chip to buy depends on the type of gamer you are...

If your looking for the best performance out there then I'd go with the p4 3.2 ghz special edition or the Athlon 64 FX-51.

If your looking for something that's maybe a less inexpensive but still runs extremely well, go with either the Pentium 4 3.0 ghz or the Athlon 3200+ XP.

Ok, this list could go on for a while so I'll break it down for you...Unless you are looking to speed up your computer to speeds you can't even notice the difference with, go with something around a 2.0ghz +. I personally recommend Intel.

Trebor: Not all above 2.66 ghz have a 800mhz FSB. Like I said above, only those with hyper-threading have a 800mhz FSB.

spfd: The Athlon 64 doesn't really support many applications or even an operating system, but people still buy it :).

Anyways, hope this helps you out :).

your following numbers, you dont need that crap.

Not yet at least,
the software cant keep up with the hardware.
Anyways, i heard the FX was 1000 fsb?
 
Bleep said:
2.4C Ghz and above.


Actually he was right, cause the 'C' denotes that its the 3rd generation p4s, with ht and 800 fsb. But might need to clarify it still. :D
 
I just went amd, heard it was just ranking better than intell. Went here, and check along the side of all the profiles most people here had in gaming posts, and AmD seemed to over take. Sooo....I dunno, up to you kid.
 
Intel has trouble with their architecture believe it or not, and I see it as a bad thing when they have to come out with a separate line of chips just to handle multi-tasks better, oh so catchingly called Hyper-Threading; what crap as they STILL dunnot perform multi-tasking as well as an AMD. AMDs are more smoothly running, last longer, don't fnck up on multi-tasks and they dont have that up and down rollercoster ride of slow times and fast times.

AMD is the way to be...preferebly an Athlon 2600+ or right around the 2500+ to the 2800+ unless you're willing to spend more/less money.
 
2800+ is probably the best price, anything higher then 2800, the price takes a pretty big leap..
well thats in CAD
 
As for compatibility for the atlon64, it will run 90% of all software created in the last 10 years.
One of the things that makes the athlon64 such a fast processor is that it it's own memory controller build in, it can access memory without the chipset. You can also see this on the MOBO's as the processor is between the chipset and memory instead of the chipset.
Most bandwith for data between processor and chipset used to be for memory but now amd took that out this can be used for a whole bunch of other stuff.
difference between the athlon64 and the athlon64 FX is that the FX is Dual Channel like his big brother Opteron. Like the Opteron the FX will be more expansive.
But even the Atlon64 single channel performce better than the p4 3,2 32bit mode. Let alone a true 64 bit OS.
For now, athlon64 kicks ass. But intels answer is right around the corner.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom