Thread: New Computer

AMD processors are made for overlocking. Unless you have expertise in hardware and such, I'd stick with Pentium. P4 3.0 GHz is more than enough for any games as long as you get a quality video card and enough RAM.

The clock speed only measures how many instruction cycles are performed per second, so a high clock speed indicates a fast processor. However, many instructions take several cycles to perform, so judging speed by clock frequency alone is not accurate. I don't know AMD processors very well, but it's not improbable that they give more 'juice per tick' than Intel.

Hmmm... actually, I just similarly bought a whole new computer, component by component, a few days ago. From what I'VE gatyhered, at the higher end of the market, Intel dual-core processors simply outperform the AMD equivalents. I'm not sure about overclocking inm general, but my shiny new Core 2 Duo 6600 (2.4Ghz) runs very cool, and there seems to be a whole load of overclocking potential. I might look into that later.

This is my two cents, but, I'd go with Intel, even if you ARE looking to overclock. ALSO you have to consider that AMD is a bad long-term choice - I understand AMD is about to change the sockets of a whole load of their processors, 939 to AM2 to AM3. From what I understand, they're playing catch-up. Go with Intel, if I were you. Get a dual-core intel. You can always upgrade later using the same socket to a nicer dual-core intel. You may not be able to have that with AMD depending on what thewy do with their sockets and whatnot.

go with the Intel
definately

mmmkaaay thanks everyone. more input is always appreciated. ill take it all into consideration guys

Originally Posted by Merlock

AMD processors are made for overlocking. Unless you have expertise in hardware and such, I'd stick with Pentium. P4 3.0 GHz is more than enough for any games as long as you get a quality video card and enough RAM.
[/b]

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

I almost fell off my chair laughing. Nononononono, no processors are made for overclocking, this is against design and if you do it and fry the chip, good luck having it replaced.

Down to next order of business. Pentium 4 was an utter failure, a TOTAL piece of shit. So, time to enlighten you guys since I've been doing this as my main profession for over a decade now. The Pentium 4 was based on something called the NetBurst architecture. Basically what it means is that the processor was designed not to be efficient, but to be faster as you ramped the clock frequency up. Here lies the problem. Just like with overclocking, there is only so much one can push out of a processor. These 3.0ghz Pentium 4's are junk, they require massive heatsyncs and fans to stay cool and power usage is through the roof. Additionally the whole architecture it flawed to a point where it's safe to say that NetBurst was a total failure.

So lemme offer some more enlightenment into Intel.. did you know that a 2.4ghz Pentium 4 loses to a 1.4ghz Pentium 3? *gasp* in power efficiency AND in processing power? Hrm, so you say, why? From Pentium Pro on up to the Pentium III, Intel based everything on what was called the P6 core, it was a core that could dominate AMD for many years. Then came NetBurst and Intel went to crap, or so it seems. But no, the P6 lived on, in the Pentium M. The Pentium M was a re-engineered version of the beloved Pentium 3 used in laptops because *gasp*, it could run VERY efficiently at low clock speeds and match Pentium 4's. This core lasted all the way up to the Core Duo, before finally a new architecture was released as the intel Core 2 Duo.

So, if you ask me: "which would be better for gaming: the AMD Athlon™64 X2 3800+ Dual-Core CPU, or the Intel® Pentium-4 Processor 630 3.0GHz model" I will tell you, the AMD is better, because the Pentium 4 is a hunk of shit.

However, right now, Intel has the Core 2 Duo which is recognizes as being superior to the AMD processors in EVERYTHING but memory speeds. So, go with the Intel Core 2 Duo.

For the overclockers, I will recommend two processors, from AMD.. the Opteron 165 is cheap, real cheap.. and can be overclocked to hell. However, the base model of the Intel Core 2 Duo can be overclocked even more, but you're going to spend a little more. REMEMBER, OVERCLOCKING IS NOT A SUPPORTED FEATURE, AND IF YOU PUSH THE LIMITS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES!

arh would be right about AMD when comparing to the Pentium 4, they provide more juice per tick there. However, the Core 2 Duos are the champion in juice per tick right now in the dual core market.

IF I TAUGHT ONE THING IN THIS POST, DO NOT BUY PENTIUM 4, PENTIUM D, OR ANY OTHER NETBURST-BASED PROCESSOR, THEY ARE JUNK!!!!

Also, AMD manages 2000MHZ bus which is way over intel's. I think the P4 only manages 400MHZ.

I'd go with AMD.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

I almost fell off my chair laughing.[/b]

Agreed. Processors + Overclocking = okay if you know what you're doing. Processors overclocked at all ineptly lead to problems, and, heck even if you do (or think you) know what you're doing it can cause trouble. I would just stamp on the inside of your computer and hope it gets faster.

Originally Posted by arby

Also, AMD manages 2000MHZ bus which is way over intel's. I think the P4 only manages 400MHZ.

I'd go with AMD.
[/b]

FYI, Depends on P4, some handle 800mhz, some handle 1066mhz, BUT ALL ARE SHIT. Apparently you cannot read my post.

Additionally the Core 2 Duo runs at 1066mhz FSB, while the Socket AM2 for AMD runs at 1000mhz. The Core 2 Duo is expected to have a 1333mhz FSB release in early 2007.

No, you have no idea what you're talking about. I have not been up to date in the news myself, it seems the Kentsfield Core 2 Duo got released, which means now a quad-core processor is on the market.

Right now, AMD is lagging behind Intel in just about every field except for 4x4 and above servers. Since OBVIOUSLY none of you are interested in servers, there is really no reason right now to stick with AMD.


AGAIN HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY, THE PENTIUM 4 IS NOT A CORE PROCESSOR, IT IS A HUNK OF SHIT THAT INTEL IS OBVIOUSLY DISCONTINUING.

Maybe that will clear your misconceptions up.

yo unknown you sound like you know what you're talking about so um which exact processor do you recommend. also, i currently have a 6600Gt as my gfx card, and im looking to upgrade. i was gonna get a 7300gt, but someone told me my 660gt is actually BETTER than the 7300gt. so like could you help me out there as well? thanks a lotl.

I would like to repeat, I'm not a heavy gamer. So I won't tell you what video card to buy. However, I've looked at the differences between the 6600GT (of which i've used and known many people who own them) and the 7300gt. The 7300gt is an oddball video card in that they used the more advanced processor that the 7600 cards use.

HOWEVER, unlike the 6600 series, the 7300 series is an entry-level series, it wasn't designed for gaming, but more for home theatre stuff. On that note, stick with the 6600GT OR go for the 7600 series, which is the direct replacement to the 6600GT.

So there's my view on what to do with the video card, the 6600GT should be better then the 7300, and the 7600 should be better then the 6600GT.

As for processor, go for the Core 2 Duo, if you overclock, buy the cheapest, if not, go for a faster one.

That should be all you need to know.

alright thanks i 'ppreciate it dudes.

i decided on the dual core 3800+ with a 7600gt instead

Just out of curiosity, why were your choices limited to only Pentium 4 as your Intel choice?

Originally Posted by Alucinor

i decided on the dual core 3800+ with a 7600gt instead
[/b]

That's great, much better choice over a Pentium 4. The only Intel processor anyone should think about buying now is the Core 2 Duo, and ironically, if you are looking to build a high end a computer, it is the only processor you should think about buying.

And also a good choice on the graphics card. A 7300GT is crap for today's games. A 7600GT is a powerful card that will handle games fine.

So you made the right decision both ways considering what you had to pick.

But I'm also curious, why not a Core 2 Duo E6300? It's only slightly more expensive. Was it the DDR2 RAM (which is expensive right now)? New motherboard? And Etc.

hey, i think you have already picked but i thought i would comment anyway, i built my own computer over the summer (ill put the specs at the bottom) i have had an Intel but i am more found of my new amd processor, first off my motherboard kicks ass, with sli ready graphics cards ect, but with amd i got cool&quite technology which is great, basically means your computer go's as fast as it needs to so if im just on msn and the Internet it wont need to work very hard so says a cool as possible. I have build another pc very recently as well with an Intel processor but i find amd to be alot more quite and haven't really seems massive differences between them. If i were you i would go for amd

Heres my specs:

motherboard - ASUS M2n32 SLI deluxe - wifi
power unit - Hiper type r 580w modular
processor - AMD 64 x2 dual core 4600
memory - 2gb corsair pc6700 800mhz
hard disk - 2 x seagate barracuda 250gb 7200.10 in a RAID configuration
dvd drives - 1 x LG 16x dvd rw cd rw
- 1 x Sony dvd/cd rom
Floppy drive- 1.44mb
card reader - 9 in 1
Graphics - ge force 7600gt (sli ready)
sound - 8 channel on board sound
usb/firewire- 3 usb front, 4 usb rear
- 1 firewire front, 1 firewire rear
ethernet - 2 x 100mb
optical in and out connectors