PDA

View Full Version : Building a new PC - some questions.



Miami Steve
29-11-2006, 10:18 AM
Hi all,

I am preparing to build another computer (built one about 2-3 years ago). I have been doing some searching, getting prices and trying to pick the components I feel will be the best for me. I want a computer that can be used for games as well as business apps - games like AOE3, COD2 and Flight Sim X for example.

So far I have a list of options as follows:


Mobo : Either ASUS P5B Deluxe or P5B-E
CPU : Either Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz (E6300) or 2.13GHz (E6400)
RAM : 1Gb DDR2 800
Graphics : ASUS 7950GT 512MB or ASUS 7900GT Extreme or ASUS 7600GT Extreme
HDD : 320GB SATA2
Monitor : Philips 190B7CS 19" LCD
What I would like advice/opinions on is:

1. Is it worth paying extra for the E6400 CPU over the E6300?
2. Why is a 7950GT 512MB virtually the same price as a 7900GT Extreme 256MB? And which is better value for money?
3. Is it worth saving some money and putting in the 7600GT Extreme?
4. Does anybody use the listed monitor for gaming and is it suitable?
5. I am looking for recommendations for a case and PSU to complete the system.

Thanks in advance

mejobloggs
29-11-2006, 10:38 AM
1. Imo, not really. If you are bothered about extra performance, just overclock
2. Unsure, but get the 7950GT
3. 7600GT is no way as good as 7950GT
4. I wouldn't reccomend that for gaming... but I don't know much about LCD's
5. Enermax.. I have heard they have really good quality PSU's. Make sure you do get a good quality one. I would reccomend about 600w so your psu can handle any future upgrades (such as dx10 graphics card)

Case... Depends what you like really. Lan-li are apparantly excellent cases, and look nice, but are rather... expensive.

I quite like the look of this one: http://www.ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=338792

Here is a good place to compare graphics cards:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

They also have a cpu chart if you are interested to see the difference between E6300 and E6400

pctek
29-11-2006, 01:54 PM
The GeForce 7950GT has 24 pixel pipelines.
The Radeon X1900XT has 16 pixel pipelines or technically 48.
Both graphics cards feature a single texture mapping unit and 8 vertex mapping units.

The GDDR3 memory of the Radeon X1900XT is also clocked 50MHz higher while the G71 core of the 7950GT operates 75MHz slower than the R580 of the X1900XT.

The end result is a 1.6GB/s memory bandwidth advantage for the Radeon X1900XT.

In essence the 7950GT is just an overclocked 7900GT but it does come with 512MB of onboard memory.

Benchmarks for the 3 here:
http://xtreview.com/review136.htm

Case doesn't matter - its personal taste, just make sure it has a decent power supply such as Enermax.

Big John
29-11-2006, 01:59 PM
Hi all,

I am preparing to build another computer (built one about 2-3 years ago). I have been doing some searching, getting prices and trying to pick the components I feel will be the best for me. I want a computer that can be used for games as well as business apps - games like AOE3, COD2 and Flight Sim X for example.

So far I have a list of options as follows:


Mobo : Either ASUS P5B Deluxe or P5B-E
CPU : Either Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz (E6300) or 2.13GHz (E6400)
RAM : 1Gb DDR2 800
Graphics : ASUS 7950GT 512MB or ASUS 7900GT Extreme or ASUS 7600GT Extreme
HDD : 320GB SATA2
Monitor : Philips 190B7CS 19" LCD
What I would like advice/opinions on is:

1. Is it worth paying extra for the E6400 CPU over the E6300?
2. Why is a 7950GT 512MB virtually the same price as a 7900GT Extreme 256MB? And which is better value for money?
3. Is it worth saving some money and putting in the 7600GT Extreme?
4. Does anybody use the listed monitor for gaming and is it suitable?
5. I am looking for recommendations for a case and PSU to complete the system.

Thanks in advance

Humm, Well I just built me a new one. It uses a E6700 Duo, 2GB Dual Channel Ram @ 800Mhz, 2x320GB SATA2 setup as RAID0, Leadtek 8800GTX video card that requires 2 power connections. Total cost for my PC without monitor/keyboard/mouse was just on $4000.

Very nice. Can play Oblivion with everything turned on full and encode videos for my PSP at the same time with no lag at all.

However FSX is another kettle of fish. The best I have managed to get out of this is 20fps with it at 1600x1200x32. Eye candy and such does not matter much to frame rates with FSX. Autogen does and you need a lot of tweaks to get good frame rates. My machine with only 1GB Dual Channel ram was simply awful but the extra 1 GB made it. You certainly need 2GB ram if you wish to play this one.

My suggestion. Build as big as you can afford because it will be out of date a week after you build it and the games are always taking more and more resources to run.

Miami Steve
29-11-2006, 02:52 PM
Thanks for the replies so far. I've taken a look at the various reviews of the video cards and it seems that the 7950GT (512MB) is ever so slightly faster than the 7900GTX (256MB), so I will probably go with the 7950 as they are much the same price.

I'm still keen to get feedback on the suitability of the monitor for gaming, or alternatives if it is not the best (price up to $450).

As far as cases are concerned, I'm not interested in side-windows and flashing lights etc, but I do want a reasonably inexpensive case that is easy to work with and has good accessibility and cooling.

Sounds like Enermax is the way to go for a PSU.

Big John
29-11-2006, 03:24 PM
As far as cases are concerned, I'm not interested in side-windows and flashing lights etc, but I do want a reasonably inexpensive case that is easy to work with and has good accessibility and cooling.

I just brought a Generic Overclockers Brand from Ascent Technology with a 450W PSU. Has a back fan and a side fan the cools the CPU nicely. Cost $96

jesse_jax
29-11-2006, 03:40 PM
for about 250$ more you can get a Leadtek PX 8800GTS 640MB DDR3.

and it would be worth it, if thats what your wondering, as the 7 series cards will be much of what the 6 series is now within the next 6 months.

pctek
29-11-2006, 03:50 PM
Thanks for the replies so far. I've taken a look at the various reviews of the video cards and it seems that the 7950GT (512MB) is ever so slightly faster than the 7900GTX (256MB), so I will probably go with the 7950 as they are much the same price.

I'm still keen to get feedback on the suitability of the monitor for gaming, or alternatives if it is not the best (price up to $450).

As far as cases are concerned, I'm not interested in side-windows and flashing lights etc, but I do want a reasonably inexpensive case that is easy to work with and has good accessibility and cooling.

Sounds like Enermax is the way to go for a PSU.

Ignore the made of money people telling you to buy a 8800GTX.
Some people don't take budget into account.
Yes its a nice card but you asked about 2 in particular.

Can't help you with the monitor, looks OK to me but you could askk here:

http://www.gpforums.co.nz/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=1032

Big John
29-11-2006, 04:26 PM
Ignore the made of money people telling you to buy a 8800GTX.
Some people don't take budget into account.
Yes its a nice card but you asked about 2 in particular.

Can't help you with the monitor, looks OK to me but you could askk here:



It's more than a nice card. It is the next generation of the NVidia and outshines the 7 series by far. If you can afford it then get it. If not then simply don't. He was asking about resources to play games and one he mentioned was FSX which is known to need this sort of thing to get the best out of it. Sure it will work with eveything turned down but it looks a whole lot better with it turned up.

It all comes down to what your budet can afford. He asked so that he could get options. Thats what we are here for.

Miami Steve
29-11-2006, 04:34 PM
It's more than a nice card. It is the next generation of the NVidia and outshines the 7 series by far. If you can afford it then get it. If not then simply don't. He was asking about resources to play games and one he mentioned was FSX which is known to need this sort of thing to get the best out of it. Sure it will work with eveything turned down but it looks a whole lot better with it turned up.

It all comes down to what your budet can afford. He asked so that he could get options. Thats what we are here for.

I am grateful for all suggestions but the 7950GT will be pushing the budget as it is. If somebody convinced me that I shouldn't touch the 7950 but get the 8800 instead, I would do it, but other than that I couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a video card.

Shortcircuit
29-11-2006, 07:11 PM
Why skimp on a monitor if you're gonna play games?

You could look at the Samsung 931C 19"/2ms for just over $600. It was the monitor used for the 'World video game' thingy this year :confused:

I've had a Samsung 193P monitor for a few years and they are brilliant... a monitor is the thing you look at all day by the way, for an extra $150 over the Philips I reckon well woth it :D

mejobloggs
30-11-2006, 08:45 AM
Here is a good review article on LCD monitors:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/643-15/19-lcd-survey-of-inexpensive-and-quality-screens.html

PedalSlammer
30-11-2006, 02:40 PM
Mobo : Either ASUS P5B Deluxe or P5B-E
CPU : Either Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz (E6300) or 2.13GHz (E6400)
RAM : 1Gb DDR2 800
Graphics : ASUS 7950GT 512MB or ASUS 7900GT Extreme or ASUS 7600GT Is there any problem with these 7 series card? I heard that they have boom effect errorExtreme
HDD : 320GB SATA2
Monitor : Philips 190B7CS 19" LCD

I suggest using 8 series(because the boom effect have been fixed by Nvidia), I'm also looking to build a PC like yours but a way higher specs. :cool: Very nice PC indeed and great for gaming. Is 320GB too small if you have lots of games in one HDD?

mejobloggs
30-11-2006, 03:15 PM
I wouldn't buy any of the 8 series now. Im waiting for the next revision or something. DX10.1 cards is what I want. Give them time to sort out any problems.

pctek
30-11-2006, 03:17 PM
I wouldn't buy any of the 8 series now. Im waiting for the next revision or something. DX10.1 cards is what I want.

The 8800GTX is DX10.

mejobloggs
30-11-2006, 06:06 PM
Yes... I want 10.1. But only cause I read somewhere that there needs to be hardware changes for dx10.1

Big John
01-12-2006, 01:52 PM
Yes... I want 10.1. But only cause I read somewhere that there needs to be hardware changes for dx10.1

Then why not wait for the 9 series as there will be hardware changes required for that as wll. Changs are always happening and you can always be waiting if you want the next generation that is just about to come out.

(Boy I had IE7's missing of typed characters in forums all the time. Time to go back to V6 I think.)

Master_Frost
01-12-2006, 04:59 PM
If you want to overclock past 3.0 gig get the e6400 as the 7 multiplier on the e6300 means your ram "may" top out (the e6400 is 8x). If you are happy with a 3gig overclock then the e6300 with get the job done on that board NP.

As for the 7950GT is the better choice, avoid the Asus like the plague (I have one) it is cheap and widely sold in NZ, you will be forced to replace the COMPLETELY useless reference cooler. It hits 80C at STOCK speeds, and is as loud as hell. Try and get a eVGA, XFS another brand with a non reference cooler, keep in mind a after market cooler will cost you $70 on top of that Asus price.

Greven
01-12-2006, 06:39 PM
As far as cases go, there's not much wrong with the cheap ones if you are buying an enermax PSU. A lot of them do tend to be a little over the top though.

The LanLi case that was linked to earlier in this thread is nice, but going with an aluminium case is unnecessarily expensive. There is nothing wrong with a steel case.

Cooler Master cases are always nice & easy to work with, but they are a bit more expensive than the OCNZ cases. I recently built a budget PC for my sister using this (http://ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=344619) case & it was easy to work with & looks good without being over the top.

JJJJJ
01-12-2006, 06:57 PM
If you are planning on running fs9 go for the 7950GT. I have one and it does an excellent job. If you run fsx then I would suggest the fastes vid card availabe. It needs it.
I am very dubious about a dual core cpu with FS. I had one and got dumped regularly. Neither versions will use half of your cpu.
I now use an Athlon 4000+ and it is excellent

Master_Frost
01-12-2006, 07:22 PM
If you are planning on running fs9 go for the 7950GT. I have one and it does an excellent job. If you run fsx then I would suggest the fastes vid card availabe. It needs it.
I am very dubious about a dual core cpu with FS. I had one and got dumped regularly. Neither versions will use half of your cpu.
I now use an Athlon 4000+ and it is excellent


lol um thats crap advice. I suggest you keep up with benchmarks and pricing before posting recommendations. C2D is destroying the AMD X2's in all benchmarks (including real world gaming) little own that puney 4000+ you are recommending at the same prince as a e6300.

One of 100,000 review below, start your googleing (note most review put the X2's up against C2D) the single core AMD64 are not even in the same league.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=10

JJJJJ
01-12-2006, 07:34 PM
lol um thats crap advice. I suggest you keep up with benchmarks and pricing before posting recommendations. C2D is destroying the AMD X2's in all benchmarks (including real world gaming) little own that puney 4000+ you are recommending at the same prince as a e6300.

One of 100,000 review below, start your googleing (note most review put the X2's up against C2D) the single core AMD64 are not even in the same league.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=10
Dual core of course are faster, but only if you run programs that can use dual core. AND FS will not.

I don't care about makers. Take your pick. The 4000+ does the job.
A dual core 4400 would not.

And if you believe all you read in reviews you're sillier than you sound.

Master_Frost
01-12-2006, 07:50 PM
Dual core of course are faster, but only if you run programs that can use dual core. AND FS will not.

I don't care about makers. Take your pick. The 4000+ does the job.
A dual core 4400 would not.

And if you believe all you read in reviews you're sillier than you sound.

CD2 is a more efficient processor architecture's than AMD64 (and recent). That fact that flight sim 9 is only single thread is a mute point.

What "matters" is both processor are about the same price, and the e6300 will offer better performance in dam near everything including "probably" flight sim 9, why the fruit would you buy a 4000+ ?

Don't recommend product just because you personally own it.

BTW. My last 4-5 platforms were AMD, the only reason I changed to Intel C2D is because of the performance especially if you are comparing processor in the same price range.

The_End_Of_Reality
01-12-2006, 08:13 PM
Most current games are not made for dual core CPUs, so yes, you will notice lower preformance than what you will get with a single core CPU that costs the same... because of the varying clock speeds, I recently got BF2142 and that uses 75% of my X2 4400+ meaning it is using OVER 1 CORE.

I would have to say (as much as I hate to :p) it looks like you will be best going with Intel and their Core 2 Duo, that offers more than AMD at the moment...

Master_Frost
01-12-2006, 08:24 PM
Most current games are not made for dual core CPUs, so yes, you will notice lower preformance than what you will get with a single core CPU that costs the same... because of the varying clock speeds, I recently got BF2142 and that uses 75% of my X2 4400+ meaning it is using OVER 1 CORE.

I would have to say (as much as I hate to :p) it looks like you will be best going with Intel and their Core 2 Duo, that offers more than AMD at the moment...


I agree most "recent" games seem to use both core's if you monitor "task manager" activity even though the game itself is only single thread (add to this the dual core are out performing the single cores in games AMD and Intel) except Pentium D which is a bit of a joke.

AMD will be back (I hope) and certainly nothing wrong with the X2. But adding to the Intel performance advantage, socket changes for AMD look almost definite rendering 939 and AM2 boards useless for AMD quad core, where Intel quad core works on most 775 Core 2 Duo boards now.

The AMD 4x4 platform released yeterday will do nothing for AMD, and it is not looking likely they will catch up until at least the third quarter next year :(

The_End_Of_Reality
01-12-2006, 08:37 PM
Yes, I just tested NFS Carbon, and that was using 80% and up... looks like the DC CPU IS performing better in games than a single core...

They will be back, I also agree that there is nothing wrong with the X2s, but at this time Intels Core 2 Duos have the performance advantage.

Yes, I also agree, AMD have done a very stupid thing there...

JJJJJ
02-12-2006, 05:40 AM
Please note that my comment was made about one specific game.The original poster is building a box to play this game.
I have tested both types several times. The performance graph showed the dual core bombing out at 100% cpu useage when running Fs9.
This makes me think that perhaps the XP tester does not recognise dual core either
With single core useage averages about 40% with bursts to over 50%

In the PC pitstop tests my dual core was getting about 3000 points. The single core gets about 2400 points. While this test is only useful for comparing computers it doesn't mean much. But because the DC is constantly higher it does not take specific programs into account.

For the benefit of those who may not have tried fs9. With addons it is easy to get a program of 25/30 gigabytes. Add to this the high useage of multiplayer connections and voice contact and you need plenty of resources.
My 4000+ cpu handles it with ease
My 4400 dual core did not
So my advice to anyone who wants to play FS stick with single core.
If you don't play fs9 then go dual core.

For the benefit of those who's bible is the reviews. I have a review here that claims the Athlon 64 4000+ is the greatest and fastest pcu ever.
Admittedly it was written 12 months ago.

The_End_Of_Reality
02-12-2006, 07:28 AM
Please note that my comment was made about one specific game.The original poster is building a box to play this game.
I have tested both types several times. The performance graph showed the dual core bombing out at 100% cpu useage when running Fs9.
This makes me think that perhaps the XP tester does not recognise dual core either
With single core useage averages about 40% with bursts to over 50%

In the PC pitstop tests my dual core was getting about 3000 points. The single core gets about 2400 points. While this test is only useful for comparing computers it doesn't mean much. But because the DC is constantly higher it does not take specific programs into account.

For the benefit of those who may not have tried fs9. With addons it is easy to get a program of 25/30 gigabytes. Add to this the high useage of multiplayer connections and voice contact and you need plenty of resources.
My 4000+ cpu handles it with ease
My 4400 dual core did not
So my advice to anyone who wants to play FS stick with single core.
If you don't play fs9 then go dual core.

For the benefit of those who's bible is the reviews. I have a review here that claims the Athlon 64 4000+ is the greatest and fastest pcu ever.
Admittedly it was written 12 months ago. Yes, one specific game, it is highly unlikely that the system will only be used to play that one game, do I recall right in saying that in one of your threads pctek said she had a friend who ran FS9 and or FSX and he had a 4400+? and that ran fine? (could be wrong)

You are forgetting that the single core 4000+ has a higher clock speed than the 4400+.

And also that was 12 months ago as you said, ANY Intel Core 2 Duo would wipe the meaning out of that phrase these days...

pctek
02-12-2006, 07:58 AM
Yes, one specific game, it is highly unlikely that the system will only be used to play that one game, do I recall right in saying that in one of your threads pctek said she had a friend who ran FS9 and or FSX and he had a 4400+? and that ran fine? (could be wrong)



He had a 4200+. And he has noticed some things (although he didn't have a problem with FS9) are worse on single-core, there isn't much that takes advantage of dual yet.

Still I would recommend dual now - because it will be the future.

But telling JJJJ not to recommend something because he owns it is silly.
Owning something and having given it real world testing as opposed to a review where they used it for only a short time, is a good thing.

As for the new Intel, so far its only one CPU thats winning, it remains to be seen if they can continue their run.....or whether AMD overtakes them again with their next lot.

Its just like Nvidia and ATI....the race is not yet over....

The_End_Of_Reality
02-12-2006, 08:24 AM
Exactly, I think it might have been just that chip the Jack got...

So do I, there are games that are starting to take advantage of more than 1 core now.

Well that is his experience, I have had little problems with my X2 (nothing that the DC patch couldn't fix though) and none of myt friends have problems with theirs, also one of them plays FS9 and has had no trouble that I know of...

Yes, at THIS time Intel is leading, AMD are fairly far behind though... I hope that they can make up for it...

Master_Frost
02-12-2006, 08:49 AM
Yes, one specific game, it is highly unlikely that the system will only be used to play that one game, do I recall right in saying that in one of your threads pctek said she had a friend who ran FS9 and or FSX and he had a 4400+? and that ran fine? (could be wrong)

You are forgetting that the single core 4000+ has a higher clock speed than the 4400+.

And also that was 12 months ago as you said, ANY Intel Core 2 Duo would wipe the meaning out of that phrase these days...




For a Start this little argument started when a AMD 64 4000+ was recommended over a Intel e6300, and the original post mentions FS9,COD,AOE, of course gaming is not the only thing he will do.

****A AMD 3800+ single core "can" outperform a dual core X2 3800+, but we are not talking about AMD vs AMD are we?****

Question "will a Intel e6300 outperform a single core AMD 64 4000+".
Answer is YES in nearly everything including most GAMES at 1280x1024 ish where the GPU is not the bottleneck for example.

Third please don't talk about clock rates when comparing different architectures. A Intel Pentium D running at 2.8gig will get destroyed by a Intel C2D running at 1.8gig (both dual core processors).

And if you decide to even do a simple mild overclock of a e6300 it will destroy a MAXIMUM overclocked AMD64 4000+ no question. By Overclocking a $300 e6300 to 3.3gig (fairly easy and very common) you can surpass a $1800 e6800 extreme in real performance.

Everything changed with C2D 7 odd months ago, you guys really need to play catch up (don't look up the quad core's you may go into shock).

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html
http://hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=1&id=2014
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Duo_E6300/4505-3086_7-31973859-2.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802

JJJJJ
02-12-2006, 09:51 AM
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
FS9 will run quite well with almost any cpu, as people keep telling me.
But once you start loading addons watch your performance deteriorate.
Then take it on line with half a dozen other players and see what happens.
My exact experience was: With dual core 4400 (or was it 4200, can't remember now) I could fly normally with no problems. But when I logged into the server, I was gone within five minutes. This went on for about six weeks. All sorts of experts made all sorts of suggestions. Absolutely nothing made any difference. It was desperation more than anything that made me try single core.
Since the day I put it in I have not had a single dumping or freeze up.
So don't blame me for being a SC fan.


One other thing. Someone mentioned that the computer will not be used just to play one game, so he should get a DC. Surely you should choose all bits that will let all programs run properly.

Master_Frost
02-12-2006, 10:58 AM
Jack

The Intel Core 2 duo's are significantly out performing the AMD X2's, so your comments are not really relevant although understood. He is looking at C2D not X2's!!

There is nothing wrong with a 4000+ or the X2's, however things have changed recently with Intel Core 2 duo. The C2D are significantly out performing all single core and AMD X2 dual core when comparing in the same price range, in nearly all applications and games.

My main beef was suggesting buying a single core 4000+ for close to the same price as the e6300.

This is simply bad advice no matter what spin you put on it. If you are buying a ALL new rig, its all C2D at the moment, nearly anything else is a mis-informed purchase (or certainly not maximiseing your $ vs performance ratio). A $300 e6300 is not exspensive.

BTW my last rig "which I still have" is a AMD 64 3000 Venice overclocked to 2.8gig which would have a very similar performance to that 4000 of yours. I can promise even the "stock" speed e6300 beats it and I am talking in every day use not just the benchmarks. Once you do even a easy mild overclock, well read for yourself....

The_End_Of_Reality
02-12-2006, 11:59 AM
For a Start this little argument started when a AMD 64 4000+ was recommended over a Intel e6300, and the original post mentions FS9,COD,AOE, of course gaming is not the only thing he will do.

****A AMD 3800+ single core "can" outperform a dual core X2 3800+, but we are not talking about AMD vs AMD are we?****

Question "will a Intel e6300 outperform a single core AMD 64 4000+".
Answer is YES in nearly everything including most GAMES at 1280x1024 ish where the GPU is not the bottleneck for example.

Third please don't talk about clock rates when comparing different architectures. A Intel Pentium D running at 2.8gig will get destroyed by a Intel C2D running at 1.8gig (both dual core processors).

And if you decide to even do a simple mild overclock of a e6300 it will destroy a MAXIMUM overclocked AMD64 4000+ no question. By Overclocking a $300 e6300 to 3.3gig (fairly easy and very common) you can surpass a $1800 e6800 extreme in real performance. You don't actually know what I am talking about with the 4000+ and the 4400+, I AM comparing AMD with AMD (little to do with the OP though...)

The E6300 is better than the 4000+

Funny, I didn't know that there was a E6800 :illogical I am sure you mean the X6800... get the models right before lecturing me :groan:

Well the 4000+ and X2 4400+ are the same architecture, just with a core added on, so I don't see what you are on about with comparing two different architectures

Master_Frost
02-12-2006, 02:25 PM
You don't actually know what I am talking about with the 4000+ and the 4400+, I AM comparing AMD with AMD (little to do with the OP though...)

The E6300 is better than the 4000+

Funny, I didn't know that there was a E6800 :illogical I am sure you mean the X6800... get the models right before lecturing me :groan:

Well the 4000+ and X2 4400+ are the same architecture, just with a core added on, so I don't see what you are on about with comparing two different architectures


The argument started when a 4000+ was recommended over a e6300 by Jack. The e6300 and 4000+ are not the same architecture and clock rate comparisons are not applicable.

You said said "Most current games are not made for dual core CPUs, so yes, you will notice lower performance than what you will get with a single core CPU that costs the same".....WRONG!!! concerning performance.


You could just say admit you were generally wrong and apologise opposed to picking on a minor mistake. Apology accepted in advance.

Big John
02-12-2006, 03:45 PM
For a Start this little argument started when a AMD 64 4000+ was recommended over a Intel e6300, and the original post mentions FS9,COD,AOE, of course gaming is not the only thing he will do.


Actually the original post mentioned FSX not FS9 which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I have an E6700 with 2GB DDR2 ram and 8800GTX Gfx card and can play FSX and encode videos at full speed on both with no worries at all. No slow down noted in FSX at all even with things turned way up. Also running addins at the same time. Core temps running around 53 degrees at full load. This is core temp and not CPU temp.

I am considering putting FS9 back on with all its add-on's but I am sure it will preform even better.

The two chips simply don't compare with each other and it has been shown in numerous reviews the Core 2 Duos out-perform the AMD chips by far.

Master_Frost
02-12-2006, 04:24 PM
pctek

Owning something for a year and then recommending it over something that is more recent and superior is "silly".


I used to own a 386DX40 it was GREAT should I be recommending that? Or maybe my VZ200 that was pretty good :)

Miami Steve
02-12-2006, 06:18 PM
And if you decide to even do a simple mild overclock of a e6300 it will destroy a MAXIMUM overclocked AMD64 4000+ no question. By Overclocking a $300 e6300 to 3.3gig (fairly easy and very common) you can surpass a $1800 e6800 extreme in real performance.

Overclocking is something that I would be keen to try - your comments sound quite promising with the E6300. I might just do some background on this - presumably OCNZ is the place to look?

To clarify, I currently have FS9 - doesn't run great on my P4 2.8 with an FX5900 card. I would like to add FSX to my collection, but I am not willing to break the bank to do it - I will try the demo version once I'm ready and make a decision then.

Master_Frost
03-12-2006, 12:24 PM
Overclocking is something that I would be keen to try - your comments sound quite promising with the E6300. I might just do some background on this - presumably OCNZ is the place to look?

To clarify, I currently have FS9 - doesn't run great on my P4 2.8 with an FX5900 card. I would like to add FSX to my collection, but I am not willing to break the bank to do it - I will try the demo version once I'm ready and make a decision then.

Well if you are interested this thread contains a conroe overclocking database and can be used as a bible for buying parts (and what not to buy).

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1075792

Whole forum in general is better for power users and overclocking CPU/GPU ram etc info.

PedalSlammer
05-12-2006, 09:07 PM
I am grateful for all suggestions but the 7950GT will be pushing the budget as it is. If somebody convinced me that I shouldn't touch the 7950 but get the 8800 instead, I would do it, but other than that I couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a video card.Yo, I forgot something here, you need a really fast CPU to have 8800GTX. Like the Core 2 Extreme Quad Core CPU.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/index.html