CPU Charts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Owell. As i posted before ^ ^ i only want it to play them two games. It can suck at everything else for all i care.

have a look at my system above and see what you think.

*DREWL* Crysis and UT2007.



Thanks
 
I see a lot of Intel fanboyism here.

A Core 2 Duo E6300 ($187) at stock speed ranks between an AthlonX2 4200+ ($170) and an AthlonX2 4400+ ($186), performance-wise. It's only when you overclock the Conroe that its true potential emerges.
 
Meithan said:
I see a lot of Intel fanboyism here.


And the AMD fanboyism here is unbelievable.

When I posted things mentioning the conroe a while back people shot me down saying it was going to suck and AMD would counter it.... And when the CPU was released people shut their mouths... The mods were even banning people who were talking about the conroes right after they were released.

And just recently all of the AMD fanboys were saying AMD is building processing plants doing this and doing that they are going to crush everything... And we had a so called "computer whiz" talking about how REVERSE HYPERTHREADING was going to put intel into the ground....


Well.... Reverse Hyperthreading is a myth.... AMD has another chance maybe 2-3 years from now to be the predominate company.
 
So what do you reccomend i overclock my E6300 to with the stock retail cooler baring in mind my case has two 12Cm Fans Front and Rear and IceQ3 His X1950Pro which suposedly reduces the case temperature because it doesnt keep blowing the warm air back onto the chip but recirculates it through the side of the chip.

Something like that anyway.


Thanks
 
uzi9mm said:
And the AMD fanboyism here is unbelievable.

You're wrong, I'm far from being an AMD fanboy. Heck, look at my sig and tell me what processor I have!

It's just that Conroes are a bit overrated when you leave overclocking out of the picture. The E6300 at stock speeds is not much more powerful than an AthlonX2 4400+, and both CPUs cost around $180. It really depends on the benchmark you're looking at. Sometimes the E6300 will outperform a 4600+; other times you'll see it struggling with the 4200+.

The bottom line is that at stock speeds, Conroes are only slightly more powerful than their equivalently-priced AMD counterparts.

If you disagree, show me the benchmarks. You'll probably find one where the E6300 crushes the opposition, and I'll immediately reply with another benchmark where it barely sticks its head out in the crowd. And don't get me wrong: I love my E6300. It's just that I'm realistic concerning its performance level.

Here's a CPU list based on current Newegg prices, with increasing order. I included the Athlon X2s, the Athlon FXs and the Core 2 Duo / Extreme.

X2 3800+ Windsor ($135)
E6300 Conroe ($187)
X2 4200+ Windsor ($169)
X2 4400+ Toledo ($186; $205 for 65nm Brisbane)
X2 4600+ Windsor ($216)
E6400 Conroe ($222)
FX-55 San Diego ($239)
X2 4800+ Brisbane ($248)
X2 5000+ Windsor ($279)
X2 5200+ Windsor ($310)
E6600 Conroe ($316)
FX-57 San Diego ($319)
FX-62 San Diego ($495)
E6700 Conroe ($519)
X2 5600+ Windsor ($535)
X6800 Conroe ($970)

If that list was ordered by performance instead of price, very few modifications would have to be made. The processors would rank more or less as I've listed them here. You get what you pay for.
 
Yeh your correct there meithan however i do kind of disagree on some of the arangements in performance order in the last few. I would say the E6600 would be infront of the FX-62 and FX-57 remaining less powerfull than the X2 5600 but the E6700 more powerfull.

But you did say a few arrangements so no doubt your not wrong :p.


Thanks
 
Your reply quoted my statement regarding Intel fanboyism, so I assumed it was aimed at my previous post. I went back and re-read your post, and I understand now the intention behind your words.

For the confusion and my admitedly misplaced reply, I apologize sincerely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom