Doomulation said:Pffft, I shall not argue, but the Athlon64 X2 3800+ is highly overclockable to my knowledge, so it might still have a huge gain over Intel.
EDIT: The 3800+ overclocked from its 2.1 GHz store clock to a whopping 2.9 GHz! Beat that!
Don't get me wrong. I am calling the pentium 4 architecture pathetic. But the new, coming, is nowhere near pathetic--a worthy chip of honor! Pentium M isn't pathetic; only Pentium 4 is. They performed less, drew more power, ran hotter, etc, than athlon.vtnwesley said:I wouldn't call Intel chips pathetic. It kind of overstating the issue.
Doomulation said:Don't get me wrong. I am calling the pentium 4 architecture pathetic. But the new, coming, is nowhere near pathetic--a worthy chip of honor! Pentium M isn't pathetic; only Pentium 4 is. They performed less, drew more power, ran hotter, etc, than athlon.
@kallileo:
There are many factors in overclocking. You need a good motherboard, first of all, and you also need to make sure memory or other things aren't holding you back. This is a number that the processor CAN reach, if done right. Yes, there was benchmarks showing this!
vtnwesley said:All new CPUs are a little over priced (although those prices posted don't look bad at all). Thats what happens when you buy new technology of any kind from any company. I wouldn't call Intel chips pathetic. It kind of overstating the issue. Intel chips do seem to run a bit (not a lot) hotter, and the highest AMD chips out there do technically run faster than Intel CPUs. That is a good thing for AMD and something to concider. AMD also does have the northbridge integrated into their CPUs, which isn't terrible either (promises some level of performance, but dictates the feature set of every mobo). Mind you, a bad mobo can still effect performance, but not as much.
While every AMD fanboy loves spouting off about how great it is to have 64-bit support, and how Intel isn't ready for the future. Intel is on all the new standards, and AMD isn't AMD has 64-bit support first (which is going to be all but useless for the next 4-10 yrs in my opinion). Intel got into it quickly because the industry followed. Since both have the EXACT same 64-bit extensions, the same way both offer SSE1, 2, and 3 (AMD took years to support SSE3!). Both sets of CPUs have minor pluses and minuses. Don't let a polarized opinions fool you. Basically, 64-bit hardware is pedestrian at this point. It's not a selling point, especially since it won't do anything for you.
To check for sure which Intel CPUs support 64-bit, check out intel.com or newegg.com. Almost all of them do at this point, including the latest Celeron D chips. If you need that 10 frames per second higher in a theoretical number you can't see with the naked eye, then go for that Athlon whatever definitely. Otherwise concider both options, and make your own choice. As long as you get a nice solid mobo by a trusted company (i.e. NOT ECS/PC Chips, MSI, ASRock, etc), you will probably be happy on either CPU. I know I am happy with my Celeron D 2.66Ghz, and my friends Pentium 4 3.2Ghz.
kallileo said:I have the best mobo, very good memory and watercooling but you can nothing if your CPU is like shit.:bouncy:
That can be argued. It is really hard to say what is "best."kallileo said:I have the best mobo, very good memory and watercooling but you can nothing if your CPU is like shit.:bouncy:
bcrew1375 said:Wow, I think it's been too long since I've built a computer. My current desktop has an AMD Thunderbird @ 1.33 GHz. I got it plus a DFI mobo for around $200. The chip was around $99 and the mobo around $89. I think $500 would be the absolute maximum budget for both the chip and the mobo. Any suggestions in this price range? Also, how much would decent cooling cost? I don't like the idea of buying a chip for several hundred dollars to have it fry in a few seconds.