WORD TO THE SO CALLED "GAMERS"

Status
Not open for further replies.

palladin the II

Baseband Member
Messages
53
First, AMD dual core is not really relevant in today's market. It was developed b/c they hit a wall and couldnt go to penitum 5 speed because of heating issues. Second, if you want BLAZING speed, go with a Pentium 4..around 3.4/3.6 ghz...trust me, it blazes.....dual core is good if you have like 5 things opened at once. the second core is idle most of the time....

second, as far as LCD monitors, not even an LG 20 inch has as much color and brightness as a proprietary crt, it just looks better.....if you go LCD, the only way to go would be a SONY XBRITE or NEC....have you all not noticed how dark lcd screen's are compared to crt's....i feel like most of you, although you THINK you know what your doing have all fallen into the MOTO Razor trap...figure it out. im out.
 
Good point. Fortunately for me, I'm not a hard core gamer, haha. I multitask a lot which is why the X2 would work very well for me, plus the added advantage of playing game well too.

That is why raw gaming power still comes from single threaded CPUs like the Athlon 64s and FX series.
 
i agree with the processor thing, there is a reason why the Fx-57 is more expensive than the top dual core amd cpu, and its because having dual core for games is pointless at moment, and thus the single core is more practical. although if you want to be future oriented i disagree that the single core is the way to go, even for gamers, because game developers ARE working to use the two processors, no gurantee on how that will work out but if you want to be safe, and save a little money, id still go for the amd x2 4800+ which is like $200 less than the Fx-57. and i think the fx-57 is the top gamer cpu from the stats that i have read, even the top intel cpus like 3.8 ghz didnt perform as well as the fx-57. so there is a piece of what i have learned.
 
I do agree. I've seen my P4 3GHZ perform better than an actual AMD Athlon XP 3000+...and as far for LCDs, Acer is good for gaming. It all depends on the ms and all that. I am playing games, but I don't play a lot
 
trust me...when your at a computer store look at the differnce between an LCD and a crt screen. get it out of your head that its a big lunk and wasted space and ancient. youll agree the screen looks sharper and brighter and just overall better....the XBRITES have that crt quality too...LCD technology is just not there yet....the only reason to get an lcd besides for saving space is if you can afford the absolute top of the line or if you buy a MAC screen. otherwise, welcome to the world of suckers...
 
All, I know is, this build, with half new parts, half old parts, blazes for me. It has handled everything I have thrown at it with no overclocking. I almost made an Intel build, but I saved money by usin AMD.As for gaming, this does great, HL2 and CS:S at 1280x1024, maxixmum graphics, and 4xaa and 4xaf, liquid smooth. Multitasking is great too. And I like AMD because of the heat issue, this has never even reached 40 degrees Celsius even after hours of intense gaming. Overall, because I kept my old DDR-333 ram and 2mb cache hard drive, I only spent $530. That, is some serious performance for cheap.
 
This is my reply from your SECOND thread about the same topic in the Processor section.

alvino said:
Pentium 5 speeds?! What the heck? Intel even never made a Pentium 5 because they themselves hit a wall in clock speeds. They realized that speed IS NOT everything. AMD's architecture is more efficient and has less latency than the Pentium 4 (thanks to the Integrated Memory Controller). Hah! Pentium 4 3.4/3.6ghz...if you're referring to the Prescrap core, then forget about it. Prescotts may overclock well, but they're inefficient, have lots of latency and give off TONS of heat (compared to the uber cool Northwood cores). Dual-core doesn't need to be fast. The reason why there's two cores is that they can supplement each other when they need to (becides, F.E.A.R. supports multi-core, so why not?). At least AMD didn't do what Intel did; like fuse two Prescott cores together and slave them with a logics controller. :rolleyes:

If you want blazing speed from a single core processor, get a AMD Opteron 146. Socket 939, 2.0ghz and 1mb of L2 Cache. This baby can overclock to 3.0ghz with AIR COOLING. :D Also, for you AMD nay-sayers, this baby doesn't suck at gaming. It uses the same San Diego core as the FX-57 and 4000+, but the cores are from the very center of the silicon wafer (which means that it's of the best quality). Also, it has a improved Integrated Memory Controller for reduced latency (something that Intel has failed to include to this day). The most glorious thing about this processor is it's price. You would think it's El Expensivo, but this baby costs about the same price as the 3500+ or 3700+ (depending where you buy it from). That's right folks! It's about $220-$250. It's VERY cheap considering what it has. A definate bargain. And it'll own almost any Pentium 4 anyday (unless spend thousands overclocking it to 4.0ghz+ with EXPENSIVE phase change cooling :rolleyes: ).
 
palladin the II said:
trust me...when your at a computer store look at the differnce between an LCD and a crt screen. get it out of your head that its a big lunk and wasted space and ancient. youll agree the screen looks sharper and brighter and just overall better....the XBRITES have that crt quality too...LCD technology is just not there yet....the only reason to get an lcd besides for saving space is if you can afford the absolute top of the line or if you buy a MAC screen. otherwise, welcome to the world of suckers...

Mac Cinema Display 30"

Oh baby...$2,599 of pure happiness and joy. :D

http://www.apple.com/displays/

appledisplay30_big.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom