Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-05-2006, 03:59 PM   #1
Golden Master
 
freestyler105's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,883
Default CPU's

I'm planning on building a PC in the upcoming months, and I have some kind of idea of what I want, but I am totally lost when it comes the the CPU. I know only some basic things about processors, so my question is :

Which CPU is going to perform better in gaming - the Core 2 Duo E6600 or an AMD Athlon 64 X2 of a similar price, say the 4800 or 5000+?

My purposes for the computer will primarily gaming, with a little iTunes, internet browsing, and AIM mixed in there.

I've heard only good things about the E6600 so far, and that's what I'm leaning towards right now.
Also, overclocking will be a factor, as I am planning on installing some kind of cooling into this system, but I won't be spending more than around $100 on that. This site says that they got the E6600 to 4 GHz. Is that really possible? As the article says, that's a 67% overclock, which is pretty amazing.
__________________

__________________
C2D E6600 | 4GB DDR2-800 | 9800GTX+ | Asus P5B-E | 150GB Raptor | 320GB 7200.10 | 750W Xigmatek PSU
freestyler105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:04 PM   #2
Fully Optimized
 
D-Lew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,793
Send a message via AIM to D-Lew
Default Re: CPU's

The intel is a better bet for the price. AMD's are good but the Core 2 Duos seem to do better. Also, the C2D's overclock like beasts. I can get a 13% overclock on mine, aftermarket air cooling because of stability issues, I'm sure it could go higher, so the Intels could probably do 20% easy with a hood heatsink and fan combo.
__________________

D-Lew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:17 PM   #3
Golden Master
 
mammikoura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,459
Send a message via MSN to mammikoura
Default Re: CPU's

the E6600 owns ANY amd currently on the market.
mammikoura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:18 PM   #4
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 272
Default Re: CPU's

personally i'd go with the AMD, because i like AMD better despite that intel's being a little better or faster needless to say... i just have a feeling the intel's aren't going to last as long as the AMD's because they are way overclocked.. thats just my two cents
__________________
Eagles may soar, but Weasles don't get sucked into jet engines.

Words of Wisdom:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01001010 View Post
You really have no idea what you're talking about, don't you?
dorfman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:22 PM   #5
Golden Master
 
mammikoura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,459
Send a message via MSN to mammikoura
Default Re: CPU's

Quote:
Originally Posted by dorfman
i just have a feeling the intel's aren't going to last as long as the AMD's because they are way overclocked.. thats just my two cents
what do u mean by that?
mammikoura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:23 PM   #6
In Runtime
 
Reiyoku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 435
Send a message via AIM to Reiyoku Send a message via MSN to Reiyoku
Default Re: CPU's

Quote:
Originally Posted by dorfman
personally i'd go with the AMD, because i like AMD better despite that intel's being a little better or faster needless to say... i just have a feeling the intel's aren't going to last as long as the AMD's because they are way overclocked.. thats just my two cents

I don't know, as much as I'm with AMD than intell, I actually think the intels have been made for exsessive overclocking or to overclock it without reducing it's life expectency much....well I don't know haha, AMD'S have always been my favourite.
__________________
(CPU)AMD64 X 4200+ Dual Core
(Memory) OCZ 3200 DDR 400 x2 512 Duel Channel
ASUS Motherboard A8N-VM 939
8500 GT Nvidia GeForce 512 PCI-E
Reiyoku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:35 PM   #7
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 272
Default Re: CPU's

what i mean is that when you overclock your processor its creates more stress on it.. and sure it may be fast as balls, but you all know computers, the more stress on it, the short the life span.... thats just what i am thinking, then again i could be completely wrong...

but something worth noticing: how it took them forever to get to the 1 GHZ processor, and how come they haven't gotten over like 3GHZ unless its really overclocked...i think there is something to be said about that.
__________________
Eagles may soar, but Weasles don't get sucked into jet engines.

Words of Wisdom:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01001010 View Post
You really have no idea what you're talking about, don't you?
dorfman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:39 PM   #8
Golden Master
 
mammikoura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,459
Send a message via MSN to mammikoura
Default Re: CPU's

Quote:
Originally Posted by dorfman
what i mean is that when you overclock your processor its creates more stress on it.. and sure it may be fast as balls, but you all know computers, the more stress on it, the short the life span.... thats just what i am thinking, then again i could be completely wrong...

but something worth noticing: how it took them forever to get to the 1 GHZ processor, and how come they haven't gotten over like 3GHZ unless its really overclocked...i think there is something to be said about that.
yes overclocking does create more stress to the cpu. But u don't have to overclock. And if u are talking about the stock core clock speeds, the Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.6Ghz) has a lower clock speed than the amd FX-62 (2.8Ghz?) which is it's closest competitor.

edit: and to answer about the increase in clock speeds, 1st intel was trying just to increase and increase the clock speed to make faster processors. But it generated way too much heat so now they understood that and the core 2 duo's architecture does more calculations per clock cycle which results in better performance with lower clock speed. So as long as the architecture keeps getting better there really is no need to get gigantic clock speeds.
mammikoura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 04:44 PM   #9
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 272
Default Re: CPU's

which is my point precisely...

the Intel can be slower stock clock, so by overclocking it to be fast as balls would put more stress, and less stable
the AMD has a higher stock clock, you could overclock it less, which would be less stress, and more stable...

thus why i chose AMD...but i think over-clocking is going to catch up to us, from what i said b4 The more you over-clock the more stress= less life. Its kinda like running a motor on a car at 7900rpm (red lining it) all the time...sure it may not blow up right away, but give it time.

edit: to go along to what your edit was, i agree...for more pracitcal use, a gigiantic clock speed isn't needed... which controdicts what i just said... unless you want to overclock.
EDIT EDIT: aslo with the x2 processors, i think you can have a better system at a lower clock speed, because instead all of the load going to one processor its going to two, creating less stress because its evenly distributied between the processors... possibly you can over-clock more because you are creating more stress, but that stress its equally divided between two processors...

i've never been big on over-clocking though.
__________________
Eagles may soar, but Weasles don't get sucked into jet engines.

Words of Wisdom:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01001010 View Post
You really have no idea what you're talking about, don't you?
dorfman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 05:14 PM   #10
Golden Master
 
mammikoura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,459
Send a message via MSN to mammikoura
Default Re: CPU's

Quote:
Originally Posted by dorfman
which is my point precisely...

the Intel can be slower stock clock, so by overclocking it to be fast as balls would put more stress, and less stable
the AMD has a higher stock clock, you could overclock it less, which would be less stress, and more stable...
Well true, but then again now we are talking about oc'ing the intel alot, and oc'ing the amd only a little. Now that would also mean that the increase in performance for the intel would be alot higher. What I'm trying to say is that the overclockability is only a good thing, u don't have to oc any more than u want to. But as long as the clock speeds are going to be the same the intel is going to be way faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dorfman
also with the x2 processors, i think you can have a better system at a lower clock speed, because instead all of the load going to one processor its going to two, creating less stress because its evenly distributied between the processors... possibly you can over-clock more because you are creating more stress, but that stress its equally divided between two processors...

i've never been big on over-clocking though.
no. As I said the core 2 duo core is more effective, the E6600 quite clearly beating amd fx-62 which has 400mhz higher clock speed. So when the clock speeds are the same the intel is going to perform alot better. And the x2 is 1 processor. It just has 2 cores (aka dual core cpu). And also the core 2 duo cpu's are dual cores.
__________________

mammikoura is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0