AMD 64 gaming?

[emeraldice]

well i'm kinda a noob too to these things, but i do know one thing and thats even though the AMD's don't have as high of Ghz ratings as Intels they still go much faster. for instance if you go around looking at forums and such you'll hardly ever hear an AMD guy going to Intel or an Intel guy trying AMD and going back...basically once people try AMD's they seldom want to mess around with Intels anymore unless they're only doing it for extreme multi-tasking business computers.

AMD's hardware is more efficient than Intel's. People use the analogy of the big guy and the small guy carrying the same amount of bricks over a distance. The big guy (AMD) can make fewer trips (clock cycles, in GHZ) and he will transport his bricks in the same amount of time as the small guy (intel making smaller, but quicker trips.

AMD made improvements to intel's equivalent of the frontside bus (AMD calls it the HTT) by making it more efficient or something. Intel has hypertheading, which is virtual dual processors.

Yea, as long as the operton CPU shares the same socket, it'll fit. Last time I was around, operton's were server exclusive, but seems someone has figured out that they overclock pretty nicely.

Dual processors are for those who feel like...future proofing. Personally, I'd go skt 939 now and wait until games start to use dual cores. By then you can keep your graphics card (PCIe) and upgrade mobo and CPU to whatever the new socket is, or just buy a new CPU.

 

[Callan]

Thanks for all the help guys and ive decided to go with the 4000+ San Diego.

Cdiablo

 

[NathanM]

Cool. The dual core would've probably paid off more in the long run, but that's a nice CPU anyway.

 

[Nitestick]

Why i dont see the point? And there so slow.

LIES!!! my athlon x2 is more than twice as powerful as the processor you have chosen granted that is overclocked though. the opteron 150 is basically the same as the 4000+ performance wise, but i actually saw it for cheaper than the 4000+ on an australian site recently. the opteron is better in most regards.

 

[Callan]

Nooooooooo! I was settled on a cpu and you had to go and wreck it Noooooooo! Why me lord, oh and btw nice banner/ultra sweet avatar nightstick, me like.

Cdiablo

 

[Nitestick]

thanks . have you bought the 4000+ yet or were you just planning on it?

 

[[SF]MKM]

can't see why people go with X2 this early, do you build a new computer once a 5 years or what? i go with single for this years build and maybe get a dual for the build when vista gets released

 

[Nitestick]

can't see why people go with X2 this early, do you build a new computer once a 5 years or what? i go with single for this years build and maybe get a dual for the build when vista gets released

because they are effective and in the right hand very powerful. in certain circumstances an x2 3800+ at stock speeds can perform about 8-10x better than an FX-57. of course i am comparing its multi-tasking ability but who cares. the fact is with a single core if you want to play a game you can't have much else running that takes cpu cycles. with a dual core you can even encode a video at full speed in the background while playing a game and not even notice a difference in gameplay.

 

[curtcheese64]

because they are effective and in the right hand very powerful. in certain circumstances an x2 3800+ at stock speeds can perform about 8-10x better than an FX-57. of course i am comparing its multi-tasking ability but who cares. the fact is with a single core if you want to play a game you can't have much else running that takes cpu cycles. with a dual core you can even encode a video at full speed in the background while playing a game and not even notice a difference in gameplay.

That is true, but why would you want to do that?

 

[Nitestick]

why not? i encode and game all the time. beats doing one or the other. id rather do them both at the same time.