CPU

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: batmanuel
Huh? Your subjective options about how your rig "feels" aren't the least bit scientific when judging the price/performance ratio of a processor or video card. Benchmarks are.

"Huh?" It surprises you that I make upgrade decisions based on how my rig "feels?" Lousy, contrived "benchmarks" may get YOU all wet and salty, but not me. Besides that, who are you to tell me how I should spend MY money, under what circumstances and using what frame of reference?

In fact, when it comes to high end hardware, usually the performance differences are so minute that you can't realistically tell which is faster without benchmark tests.

That's what poor people tell themselves.

When it comes to performance, a balanced set of real-world benchmark tests are usually the beginning, middle and end of the story.

Not for a person with some brains and experience.

Any seat-o-the-pants feelings that you have about your rig are likely just the hardware equivalent of the placebo effect.

You really need to get your head out of your ass. You don't know me or anything about me. Find someone else to spam your BS at. I couldn't care less what you think, about anything. How's that for "seat of the pants?"

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jack bauer
What is a faster, more efficent CPU? I hear the 170, but why is it like 80 cheaper than the 4400?

170 runs at 2000Mhz and 4400 runs at 2200Mhz.

Obviously the 4400 is better since it's 200Mhz faster.

Other than that they are identical. Same Cache (2mb) and same architecture.

If overclocking the 170 is a better deal since they should hit around same frequency when maxed out and the 170 is cheaper.

If you rally want to save, and plan to overclock - just get the 3800. Same 10x multiplier as 170, has a little less cache but it has almost no effect on performance. Great thing is low price of $295 in addition it runs much cooler because it has less transistors. I have found the fan never even ramps up with 1MB cache chips like 3800 - while 2MB chache chips run hot nessesitating higher, thus louder, rpm fan.

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

You really need to get your head out of your ass. You don't know me or anything about me. Find someone else to spam your BS at. I couldn't care less what you think, about anything. How's that for "seat of the pants?"

Why are you getting so hostile about me suggesting that benchmarks have a lot of value when done right? You sound like someone who spent too much money on your rig and are desperately trying to make yourself feel better about your purchase by relying on the subjective "feel" of the machine. Are a bit threatened by possibility that there could be people that have spent half of what you have on their systems, yet are getting performance that is within 90% of what you are achieving?

I apologize my suggestion that it was possible to measure your ePenis. It apparently is so mighty and godlike that mere science cannot comprehend it, but rather one must turn to faith in order to ascertain its true dimensions.

 

[RussianSensation]

If 2 computers were side by side a user would be hard pressed to tell the difference between x2 4200+ and X2 4400+. For overclocking, I'd get Opteron 165 or X2 3800+. Otherwise, I'd just get 4200+. 4400+ is not worth the price premium. You would be paying 27% more for 5% performance increase at best. To tell the difference in the real world, the difference in speed should be 10% or greater. Without overclocking, going with a faster mhz speed is better than Opteron.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: batmanuel
Huh? Your subjective options about how your rig "feels" aren't the least bit scientific when judging the price/performance ratio of a processor or video card. Benchmarks are.

"Huh?" It surprises you that I make upgrade decisions based on how my rig "feels?" Lousy, contrived "benchmarks" may get YOU all wet and salty, but not me.

Well, some people care about how their system actually performs, not how it arbitrarily 'feels'.

Besides that, who are you to tell me how I should spend MY money, under what circumstances and using what frame of reference?

Um, he didn't. He just suggested that benchmarks are a more useful measurement tool than some arbitrary 'feeling' about how fast something runs. I would agree.

That's what poor people tell themselves.

:disgust:

Any seat-o-the-pants feelings that you have about your rig are likely just the hardware equivalent of the placebo effect.

You really need to get your head out of your ass. You don't know me or anything about me. Find someone else to spam your BS at. I couldn't care less what you think, about anything. How's that for "seat of the pants?"

Dunno, but it's a pretty good step towards a vacation for you.