help! which is superior?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nagasama

disgruntled ex-moderator
Messages
6,956
Location
probably on the lake
hi all.
looking at two systems from dell...cannot decide which is better help me please...

1) xps 400
INTEL core 2 duo 6300
2 gb ddr2 ram
160 gb hard drive
7900 gto

2) dimension c521
AMD athlon 64 x2 4600+
everything else the same.

i have read that the amd is the way to go if you plan on doing any real gaming.
i know the intel is 1.8 ghz and the amd is 2.4 ghz...

can anyone gimme some advice, here?
thanks in advance
 
The xps 410 would be better because of the Core 2 Duo. Core 2 Duo is Intel's new line of chips and it blows AMD out of the water.
 
ok, i have read that also....
but my real question is, does the lowest-end intel cpu actually outperform the 4600+ or the 5000+?
i could see if we were comparing a 6600 or higher to the amd, but we're talking about the weakest intel c2d.
my concern is quality, you know? the 4600 or 5000 will still be the upper end of amd, while a 6300 will still be the lower end of intel.
and the price difference is negligible.
so my question isn't really, "which is better?"...it's more, "which of THESE is better?"
thanks!
but still need help!
 
How about you dont buy a dell and build your own computer. You will save some money and learn alot.
 
lol, so pretty much you want us to tell you whether Intel is better than AMD? Obviously, it all comes down to personal prefference, but I would suggest core 2 duo since it slightly outperforms the amd. If it came down to price, I would go with the AMD though...
 
I bet dell is charging more for the AMD becuase to the clueless people it sounds like a faster proccesser . "hey look amd is 2.4 ghz and the intel is 1.8. lets get the amd" LOL :D
 
actually, the amd4600 is the less expensive of the three i mentioned...the 5000+ costs a whopping 20 bucks more than the intel 6300. so, bmitchell thanks for the advice, delivered in a non-condescending manner. i think i prefer the amd in any event...because the (clueless) benchmark tests and online articles that i have (so cluelessly) investigated for the last two weeks seem to indicate that the 6300 will be slightly superior to the 4600+, and slightly inferior to the 5000+(depending on application, other components, etc). that's not taking into account overclocking and all that jazz because i would probably burn my house down or something. And by inferior/ superior i mean differences that are essentially unnoticable. Unless, that is, you tend to sit in the dark in your room playing computer games 24/7. Which, might I add, I do not. Not that there is anything wrong with that...but some people come to these forums for advice and with valid questions (gasp) for people who may have more in depth knowledge of the subject. Not to be ridiculed as a "clueless" retard or someone too dumb to build their own computer.
So, if you have something to say that may actually help me (and judging by some of the other posts and replies on this site i have read, i am not the only one) thanks...i appreciate it. If you want to make fun of someone and have an intellectual ****in contest (which trust me, i could hold my own, but i prefer physics, anthropology, biology, or modern literature), go reply to another thread. There is probably someone who doesn't mind it.
e.g. lancec2c30( in the reply above me)...if you can direct me to some sort of comparison between these specific cpu's that would be a better, not to mention more helpful, reply than "you're stupid".
peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom