not sure

[suresure]

i am getting a new computer, but not sure which processor is better. price probably wont matter. although i am a student so if i can save some money that will help. i will be using it for the net, school work and a few game (crysis, gears of war, halo, etc).also, this computer has to last me a few years.

1. pentium D 3.00GHz
2. AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 5200+ CPU 2.6GHz
3. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz

right now i am looking at number 3. what do you think.

 

[Atomic Rooster]

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz FTW!

 

[suresure]

ftw???

 

[worshipme]

For the win I think. Although it's employed in different ways. I would recommend the Core 2 Duo E8200.

 

[mayorredbeard]

Don't know why all you guys are recommending the intel.

The amd is around $160 cheaper, and chances are he won't be utilizing a quad core.

Sure it operates in 90nm but i think thats hardly reason enough to go out and buy the quad-core. Most programs, (especially ones he is going to be using) do not utilize quad core technology. In fact the vast majority don't. So all that money he invested into that CPU is going to go to waste.

No games currently make use of quad core technology, and it will probably be a while until we see one that effectively does. Your better off saving the money and going with the AMD, which will be more than suffice for what you described. Or go with an intel dual-core instead of the quad. Spend the $160+ you save on something else like more ram, a nicer motherboard, a better psu, or a better gfx card. Any of those is a better investment then that over the top CPU.

A nice dual-core like the one from AMD you listed or one from Intel will be fine for the next 5 years. I guarantee you that one of your other components in your system will bottleneck that processor even when programs with quad-core support comes out.

 

[worshipme]

Don't know why all you guys are recommending the intel.

The amd is around $160 cheaper, and chances are he won't be utilizing a quad core.

Sure it operates in 90nm but i think thats hardly reason enough to go out and buy the quad-core. Most programs, (especially ones he is going to be using) do not utilize quad core technology. In fact the vast majority don't. So all that money he invested into that CPU is going to go to waste.

No games currently make use of quad core technology, and it will probably be a while until we see one that effectively does. Your better off saving the money and going with the AMD, which will be more than suffice for what you described. Or go with an intel dual-core instead of the quad. Spend the $160+ you save on something else like more ram, a nicer motherboard, a better psu, or a better gfx card. Any of those is a better investment then that over the top CPU.

A nice dual-core like the one from AMD you listed or one from Intel will be fine for the next 5 years. I guarantee you that one of your other components in your system will bottleneck that processor even when programs with quad-core support comes out.

I totally agree with what you wrote about games and quad cores. I don't know if you've noticed but I try to tell people you are building new rigs for gaming and are chosing a quad. I just can't bear to see them make the same mistake I did. +1. BTW the AMD 64 X2 Brisbanes and the Phenoms are built using 64nm architecture. I also recommended a dual, albeit an Intel. But it is one of the new 45nms and I think it would improve gaming performance compared to a 64 X2. I think the E8200 is around $189 on Newegg but it isn't currently in stock.