Please delete

[Greenman]

I keep trying to talk myself into buying an X2, and I keep seeing those darn intel dual cores for $250. I really like AMD cpu's, and I don't like intels method of keeping market share.
I'd need a new motherboard anyway, wouldn't an intel give me more bang for the buck? $300 less than amd is a lot, I could get a very nice motherboard for 3 bills. Isn't it a better deal? It's not about the lowest price, it's all about the best value. Am I not seeing the whole picture?
Any advice?

Edit: Please no flames or fanboy posts, I'm looking for real information, i.e. which is the best buy.

 

[imported_LoKe]

If intels method of keeping market share is the only thing holding you back, I'm sorry, but you're a moron.

Why should their reputation in that department affect the performance of their CPU? -,-

 

[fatty4ksu]

The Pentium 820 is a great buy.

Anything greater than that is NOT a good buy IMO.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Its a "great buy" if and ONLY if you require multi-threaded performance and simply cannot for the life of you afford X2. The single threaded performance is a pretty big turn off with the PD, especially the 820.

You need to evaluate what you need dualcore for. Perhaps its more of a convenience than a requirement as you might be thinking. Going single core would save you even more money.

If you could really make use of dualcore then the 820 could be a good buy for you, however there is a reason it is priced deceptively low, it does have weaknesses the X2s tend to lack.

 

[Lithan]

The intel dual cores are trash. They cant win anything. The ~5% of tests that X2 or single core A64's don't beat them in, single core prescotts do. Many testers have found that they pull down 200+ watt @ the wall for cpu alone, and naturally everyone's also seen the heat issues that go along with that much usage. If I take a crap in a box and call it a diamond ring, will you be able to get your girlfriend to like it because it "only" cost you $300?

Best buy is A64 for maybe 90% of us. FX and/or X2 for maybe 3% and prescott single core for 5%. Real dual/quad opterons for the other 2%. Of course if you plan to keep the rig more than 3 years without a platform upgrade, I'd give x2 a much bigger share, since at that point investing in a performing dual core now might wind up a good investment. But any way you slice it Dual core p4's aren't worth the money. If you want intel, get a prescott (really only if you want to do lots of media work and plan to upgrade in ~1.5year or less) or just wait for intel to get out it's dual cores that aren't just two prescotts duct-taped together and clocked down.

 

[imported_Frallan]

Well depends on... What are U using it for?

If Ure gaming its not good bang for the buck then a 3500 Venice is a good buy. If U need the multithreading then yes depending on how much ure gonne have to pay for the MoBo/Ram combos.

And if Ure into gaming AND Multithreading then Im sorry the X2 is the better way to go weven at a 3-400$ premium.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: LoKe
If intels method of keeping market share is the only thing holding you back, I'm sorry, but you're a moron.

Why should their reputation in that department affect the performance of their CPU? -,-

It doesn't affect performance, but if it's true, the only controll I have over intel is not buying their products. I'm sure you don't understand that concept, but it's something us morons think about. I might also ask if you can read at anything beyond a third grade level, I asked for information, and no flames, I even said please, yet your post was nothing but an insult. Why did you bother? Do you think anyone else was interested in your crass stupidity, did you bring any insight to this thread? You simply assume that any concept you can't grasp is stupid, and feel the need to voice that opinion.
Please don't respond to this, I assure you I will not read it. And please, don't ever respond to anything I ever post on this forum, I will do you the same courtesy.


To the others who responded, thank you for you're time and thoughts.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: LoKe
If intels method of keeping market share is the only thing holding you back, I'm sorry, but you're a moron.

Why should their reputation in that department affect the performance of their CPU? -,-

It doesn't affect performance, but if it's true, the only controll I have over intel is not buying their products.

I dislike last 3 years Intel desktop CPUs for three reasons: 1. they seem to lagg behind AMD CPUs regarding technical improvements and features as well as power consumption. 2. Pricing. And 3. Intels "Behaviour" on the market. lawsuit after Lawsuit i feel better to not have bought an Intel. Call it stupid but these are my motifs when i buy stuff and unless next gen Intel products wont be convincing in these points ill stay with AMD. I just feel better with one But who knows...