so i have an amd 5200 windsor right now OC to 3.0 and i think i might get the new 45 nm intel qud core the cheapest one and possibly OC that to more than my current amd plus 2 more cores whats your oppinions on this ??
AMD or INTEL
- Thread starter computerguy1337
- Start date
umm you should kinda decide if your current processor feels slow or not 
I'm saying buy based on your need.
I'm saying buy based on your need.
DSF
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2007
- 4,902
- 0
- 71
Intel's processor are higher performance right now, but the question is not really which processor is better. The question is what you need the power for.
It's impossible for us to tell you whether it makes sense to change platforms unless you tell us what the computer is used for. If it's already handling everything you do on a day-to-day basis, why spend the money?
It's impossible for us to tell you whether it makes sense to change platforms unless you tell us what the computer is used for. If it's already handling everything you do on a day-to-day basis, why spend the money?
It really depends on what you are doing with your system. If you mostly game, you'd be better saving your money until you can upgrade that 8800GTS to a faster card.
Were I buying one of Intel's 45nm CPUs, I would go for the dual-core E8400 before any of the quad-core models. The cheapest quad, the Q9300, has a 7.5x multiplier - considering the FSB wall on these chips of around ~465MHz, that means a max overclock of just under 3.5GHz - and it also only has 6MB of L2 for 4 cores, meanwhile the E8400 has 6MB for 2 cores. The E8400 is almost guaranteed to hit 4GHz with low voltages and be stable on decent air cooling. In the apps that take advantage of Quad-core, the Q9300 OC'd would still be faster, but a lot of the time, that E8400 would end up being faster and cooler than the Q9300.
Right not it is pretty hard to recommend AMD to an enthusiast. Well, let's hope B3 clocks well.
Were I buying one of Intel's 45nm CPUs, I would go for the dual-core E8400 before any of the quad-core models. The cheapest quad, the Q9300, has a 7.5x multiplier - considering the FSB wall on these chips of around ~465MHz, that means a max overclock of just under 3.5GHz - and it also only has 6MB of L2 for 4 cores, meanwhile the E8400 has 6MB for 2 cores. The E8400 is almost guaranteed to hit 4GHz with low voltages and be stable on decent air cooling. In the apps that take advantage of Quad-core, the Q9300 OC'd would still be faster, but a lot of the time, that E8400 would end up being faster and cooler than the Q9300.
Right not it is pretty hard to recommend AMD to an enthusiast
. Well, let's hope B3 clocks well. upgrade my 8800 ?? why its fats enough i think its OC to GPU 614 memory 1034 and shader 1404 that seems good enough for world of warcraft and ghuitar hero 3 i just want to get a better processor becouse the one i got now overall is real low for my computer and i dont think i will get a 8800 ultra becouse by the time i get that the 9800 will be out which is rediculous IMO but i think i might get now from what i have read on the forum the new intel core duo there gona be not to bad in price qwith this cheap but good mobo i found
If you get the quad the simple fact of the matter is that your overall system-level experience will improve so dramatically that you will not likely ever doubt your decision to upgrade.
Whether that quad is a Phenom, Yorkfield, or a Kentsfield is likely to not matter.
New system with all the latest gadgets that hang off the new system (chipset, ram, etc) always makes the whole experience of upgrading every year or so an enjoyable endeavor if the $$$ is not a stress adder to your life.
Edit: Yeesh, reading some of these other "impassioned" posts makes you wonder if these folks think you are spending their money or yours on the upgrade...lighten up people, you are sapping any would-be joy the OP is entitled to have should they be looking for good excuses to upgrade!
Whether that quad is a Phenom, Yorkfield, or a Kentsfield is likely to not matter.
New system with all the latest gadgets that hang off the new system (chipset, ram, etc) always makes the whole experience of upgrading every year or so an enjoyable endeavor if the $$$ is not a stress adder to your life.
Edit: Yeesh, reading some of these other "impassioned" posts makes you wonder if these folks think you are spending their money or yours on the upgrade...lighten up people, you are sapping any would-be joy the OP is entitled to have should they be looking for good excuses to upgrade!
I think you will see a video card/RAM bottleneck before you see a CPU bottleneck. If you have your 5200X2 3Ghz then you are at the speed if a 6000+. At that point I wouldn't consider a new CPU/Mobo because the price performance is not there. Wait for Intel Nehalem and Nvidia 9xxx.
Not really, would it? Each person has a complete different experience regarding their setup. It would be much wiser for the OP to look at a slew of reviews and make a conclusion if OP finds its worthy enough to upgrade his system.
i.e. I might perceive the step up to a quad a waste of money and effort, but someone else thinks it is the best thing that has happened to him.
I personally would not care if I am spending the $$$ for a quad. I just want the fastest, baddest and most overclockable piece of junk I can get my hands on with the budget I have and overclock it to the wall =)
How many programs/games have you seen that make use of 2 or more cores? As a consolidation, maybe not alot at this moment, but programmers are getting there and multi cpu support embedded in their programs/games are getting better and better. If you would say that we do not need quadcore, why would we even need dualcores then?
*read Futureproof*
But here is some advice for the OP. Just hang on to your AMD setup for now, untill the quadcore penryns (the more affordable ones such as the Q9300 or Q9450) and the E8xxx series are more readily available, and reviews about the experiences and overclockability of the new chips.
Why am I leaving AMD out of the picture? That's rather easy, I don't trust them anymore than I would trust some mafia trying to cheat their way into making you believe they have the best/fastest solution. New Phenom stepping or not, AMD got its ass handed over on a silver platter by Intel.
QFT!
I don't see an AX2 with 6000+ performance slowing down your system in any way. Realistically, your bottlenecks are your vid card for games, and HDD for general windows usage.
However, if you plan on DCing, more cores always help the most!
nerp
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,865
- 105
- 106
Upgrading now would be a waste. You'd me mighty dissapointed to spend all that money on a new mobo and CPU only to find out Windows is exactly the same and your games aren't any faster.
Unless you're doing serious -- and I mean serious -- work, there's absolutley no point in replacing your CPU right now.
Unless you're doing serious -- and I mean serious -- work, there's absolutley no point in replacing your CPU right now.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter