AMD Vs. Intel VS. AMD

[beluga]

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.

 

[beluga]

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

 

[Trifid]

^^ 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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[beluga]

no getting nforve 4 ultra.. should be good

 

[aliasaid]

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.

 

[Nitestick]

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

 

[Laser402]

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

 

[john3]

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.