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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-12-2008, 10:17 PM   #1
Beta Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Default not sure

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.
__________________

suresure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2008, 10:43 PM   #2
Omnipotent One
 
Atomic Rooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 11,161
Send a message via AIM to Atomic Rooster Send a message via Yahoo to Atomic Rooster
Default Re: not sure

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz FTW!
__________________

Atomic Rooster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2008, 10:53 PM   #3
Beta Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: not sure

ftw???
suresure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2008, 02:55 PM   #4
Golden Master
 
worshipme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,603
Default Re: not sure

For the win I think. Although it's employed in different ways. I would recommend the Core 2 Duo E8200.
__________________
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE @ 4.0GHz + TU120E lapped - MSI 770-CD45 AM3 - 2x2GB OCZ DDR3 1333MHz - Sapphire HD 4870 - Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 7200RPM 16MB cache HDD - Tagan TG600-BZ Piperock - (Currently open test bed) - Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit.
worshipme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 07:32 PM   #5
Daemon Poster
 
mayorredbeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,246
Default Re: not sure

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.
__________________
Karma/rep is always appreciated
01010010011001010110010001100010011001010110000101 11001001100100
010011110111010101110100

There are only 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who can read binary, and those who can't.
mayorredbeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 07:39 PM   #6
Golden Master
 
worshipme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,603
Default Re: not sure

Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorredbeard View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE @ 4.0GHz + TU120E lapped - MSI 770-CD45 AM3 - 2x2GB OCZ DDR3 1333MHz - Sapphire HD 4870 - Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 7200RPM 16MB cache HDD - Tagan TG600-BZ Piperock - (Currently open test bed) - Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit.
worshipme 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 10:58 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