AMD Vs. Intel VS. AMD - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > System Upgrades
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-31-2006, 12:22 AM   #11 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 180
Default

yea, today im getting a AMD 3700+ san diego, does the 1mb of cache really make the dif instead of 512kb? also getting a 939 mobo with Nforce 4 ultra how is the 6100 chipset on mobos:S whats that all about then? then today ill buy a X700 se and later on upgrade to a 7900GT OC.
__________________

__________________
Furby:
2500k @ 4.5Ghz max: 81C idle 33C
8 gigs ddr 3 Kingston Hyper x T1 @ 1600mhz
Asus P8P67Pro b3.1
Evga GeForce gtx 560 at 940mhz 1gbddr5
western digital black 1tb sata3
Viewsonic 22"
Windows 7 home premium 64bit
beluga is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 12:24 AM   #12 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 180
Default

the FX60 is doing worse than the FX57 when it comes to gaming, since 57 is still single core and games make us of it better
__________________

__________________
Furby:
2500k @ 4.5Ghz max: 81C idle 33C
8 gigs ddr 3 Kingston Hyper x T1 @ 1600mhz
Asus P8P67Pro b3.1
Evga GeForce gtx 560 at 940mhz 1gbddr5
western digital black 1tb sata3
Viewsonic 22"
Windows 7 home premium 64bit
beluga is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 01:50 AM   #13 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,010
Default

^^ No, the FX60 is at a slower clock speed, and it is far ahead of the 57 on quake 4 (with the dual core patch.)

There is no need to buy the X700, as the motherboard will come with a Nvidia 6150 which will play games at low settings nicely, probally only be slightly less powerful then the X700.
__________________

Cisco CCNA, Comptia A+, 1/3 through CCNP
Trifid is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 02:53 AM   #14 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

people really do not understand dual cores. the only reason the FX-60 is currently doing slightly worse than the FX-57 in games is because each of the cores on the FX-60 is identical to the ONE on the FX-57 except at 100mhz less i.e. 2.6ghz instead of 2.7ghz. as most games basically only operate off one core of course it will be slightly worse. overclock by 100mhz and you have 2 FX-57 cores. now which do you think is better?

Quote:
yea u dont get the point... I could squeeze more from my card, but pros is a bit weak.
trust me that is not so much the problem unless you have things like physics at max.
Nitestick is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 06:04 AM   #15 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 180
Default

no getting nforve 4 ultra.. should be good
__________________
Furby:
2500k @ 4.5Ghz max: 81C idle 33C
8 gigs ddr 3 Kingston Hyper x T1 @ 1600mhz
Asus P8P67Pro b3.1
Evga GeForce gtx 560 at 940mhz 1gbddr5
western digital black 1tb sata3
Viewsonic 22"
Windows 7 home premium 64bit
beluga is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 07:13 AM   #16 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
aliasaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by nitestick
people really do not understand dual cores. the only reason the FX-60 is currently doing slightly worse than the FX-57 in games is because each of the cores on the FX-60 is identical to the ONE on the FX-57 except at 100mhz less i.e. 2.6ghz instead of 2.7ghz. as most games basically only operate off one core of course it will be slightly worse. overclock by 100mhz and you have 2 FX-57 cores. now which do you think is better?



trust me that is not so much the problem unless you have things like physics at max.
sorry bro, but the fx-57 runs at 2.8ghz. its ok, its an honest mistake. don't worry. lotta ppl make mistakes around here. no big deal. really! i'm sure most ppl will forget about it in a day or two.
__________________
"Is virtue a thing remote? I wish to be virtuous, and lo! Virtue is at hand." -Confucius
aliasaid is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 08:17 AM   #17 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

my apologies, you're right. when i typed that i'd been looking at an online retailer that is based near here, they had it at 2.7ghz and it was stuck in the back of my head . they've changed it to 2.8ghz now. in any case with an unlocked multiplier 200mhz is child's play to overclock
Nitestick is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 04:05 PM   #18 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

Trifid is right a new graphics card would set you right up. Unless you play alot on CPU intensive games which AMD seem to surpass in.

I overclocked my 3200+ s.939 Venice to 2.65Ghz (Stock cooling holding back)

Thats around a 33% increase (i thought was pritty good)

And my old Winchester (same as Trifids) 2.5Ghz Stock cooling

But you should really look at the graphics aswell because as soon as you want to play any kind of graphics intenisve game (F.E.A.R.) your new CPU will do Squat for ya.

Prefeably get the Opt 144 as that is a beasty overclocker some managed 3GHz :P
Laser402 is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 05:36 PM   #19 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,130
Default

guys i think it was Nubius or Gaara who made a post on this. PROCESSORS DO NOT BOTTLENECK VIDEO CARDS, from waht i read. so if you do get a 7900GT and OC ur 3200+ u can run games pretty well, and considering that for now games do not use dual core, u'll be fine with a single core.
__________________

john3 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.