feedback on this gaming rig plz

Status
Not open for further replies.
NosBoost300 said:
what the **** is up with this 4600 bull crap?? 1mb cache compaired to 4400 and 4800's 2mb cache!! please for god sakes! request a 4400 or 4800!!! but yes..

anyway, whiteflame.. i know what you mean wanting performance out of the box.. and you guys swear the fx 62 is just horrible.. its not, its probably better than what any of you have.. and you know what, in real life situation you won't notice or care about the difference anyway.. because it is still fast!!!

and you about the bmw thing... i'd rather drive a brand new corvette zo6 than i would a lamborghini murcielago... people just prefer different things

between the 1mb cache models and 2mb cache models there has been 1 to 3% performance increase on the 2mb cache models side, but is that worth throwing another 100$ for? Naaaaah.

Just thought I'd point that out :) .

-Jo.
 
well he's spending a butt load of money on an fx62... so i would say 600 dollars off is a big save for a processor almost as good as it anyway.. and he wants best performance.. and every ounce could make a difference later on... so if anything i say 4400 4800 or fx60 or 62
 
Being a fanboy when it comes to computers is dumb. Its like saying lets get a 7900gt and a x2 4400 when you could get a x1800xt and a e6300 conroe or something (equal/better performance for the same/cheaper price). I just find you should go with whats has the best performance for your price range and what seems PRACTICAL. People recommend a e6600 conroe over a fx-62 because it is better and cheaper. If it wasnt people still wouldnt recommend a fx-62 because its almost never good to go full blown out top of the line and waste 1k on a **** cpu!
 
i wanted to buy amd because ive always heard good things about there processors and ive heard alot of bad things about intel... of course, i have heard good and bad things about both aswell. i never understand why people rip on the fx processors, i mean they are really good processors no matter what you say. there has to be some kind of advantage with their architecture or whatever because they would not be so expensive for no reason. if the new intel processors are really better, than of course i will consider one but i dont want somebody telling me theyre better just because they are new. honestly what grounds do you have that say that they are better anyway? you dont have one, nobody does. They could end up total flukes or they could be great. im just saying dont think something is amazing before youve even seen it in action. also, nobody ever answered my question of when the new amd 65nm processors are coming out or when the nvidia 8 series gpus are coming out.
 
as far as i know, the only advantage an fx processor has on a regular amd processor is the unlocked multiplier.. only an advantage if you overclock...(and of course the fx is usually fastest in the line).

most people here are AMD fans, but they recommend intel anyways because the new benchmarks that came out for the new intel processors are astounding... much faster than AMD. AMD retaliated with cutting their chip prices... i think AMD played it very well, because most people are going for hte low priced dual cores rather than the conroes...

as for 65nm amd chips.. i heard later this year or early next year... heck.. it could even be later next year.. get a 4600+ processor for now, and upgrade it later with the money that you'll save... you'll probably get a better AMD processor thats a lot cheaper than the fx62

oh, and as far as i know, the 4400+ and the 4800+ are not available for socket AM2... only chip with the bigger cache is the 4000+ which, as it seems, hasn't been affected by the price cuts..

4600+ is great value now i reckon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom