bikerdude on 25/9/2008 at 15:48
Quote Posted by CaptSyn
Get a sweet Intel Yorkfield cpu now and you won't have to upgrade it for many years to come and it won't cost you your first born.
The Q9300 Yorkfield goes for $260 right now. I paid nearly $30 more for my Q6600 Kentsfield less than a year ago.
1. as I have already mentioned quad core cpus are a waste of time, 99% of apps dont/wont use the extra 2 core's........:nono:
2. intel cpus are quite a bit more expensive than Amd cpu's, the intel cpu's you mentioned above are still very expensive here in the UK.
3. he has an AMD mobo, he made no mention of wanting to change his entire setup (mobo/memory and cpu) which he would have to do in order to go the intel route.
4. he has a budget system, see reply no.2 and 3 the X2 6000 is a very capable cpu for the money £67...!!! and now the X2 6500 is out, which overclocks to 3.4ghz on the stock cooler.
biker
Dirty_Brute on 26/9/2008 at 02:42
Quote Posted by CaptSyn
There's absolutely no reason to ever buy a Phenom. Intel quad cores are much more widely supported. The Q6600 can be had right now for under $200.
Phenom quads are slightly cheaper, but you will be severely limited in your motherboard selection.
Intel has already moved on to the 45nm process, while once again AMD is lagging behind.
Also, I don't like the fact that AMD has been losing money instead of making it. They have been posting their quarterly statements on their site and they show a net loss each quarter of at least $250 million for the past few years.
If that keeps up, there will be no more AMD which means you won't have any sort of support when they close their doors.
While Intel was storming the world with kick ass quad core processors, AMD sat around with their thumbs up their butts and thought it would be really neat to make triple core cpus, something no one else even considered.
All the while, Intel's quads were already saturating the market over a year before the first Phenom rolled off the line.
It's obvious AMD is doing something very wrong and it's costing them dearly. Avoid them at all costs and consider your future upgrades.
Get a sweet Intel Yorkfield cpu now and you won't have to upgrade it for many years to come and it won't cost you your first born.
The Q9300 Yorkfield goes for $260 right now. I paid nearly $30 more for my Q6600 Kentsfield less than a year ago.
You sound like you either work in the Intel marketing department or you are a fanboy.
AMD/ATI is doing fine especially with their 4850/4870 video cards which are selling like crazy.
Brian The Dog on 26/9/2008 at 18:02
Hey guys,
Firstly, thanks for all the responses. I'm a bit rusty on my PC hardware since about 2004, so it's good to get a more modern view.
Yes, I will be sticking with AMD. Changing to Intel would require a whole replacement of motherboard/RAM as well, and probably a re-installation of Windows (you could get away without it, but I like to make sure it's all going to work fine). This would cost me waaaaaay more money than I have at the minute :( And in the extremely unlikely event that CaptSyn is right and AMD go bust in the next year or so, it won't matter to me as I will already have a system up and running.
And the kind of stuff I use my PC for will be highly unlikely to use the quad-core feature of a modern Intel. Heck, I keep having to turn one of my AMD cores off to get some of my games to run at a proper speed!
In general, my current CPU (AMD 3800x2) is perfectly OK for me, it's just I occasionally write some fairly simple but numerically intensive C++ code that takes anything from 10min to a 18hrs to run, so something that can do it faster for not much cash would be a good thing, that's all.
[Still slightly upset that my PC now registers as a budget system in Biker's eyes :cheeky: ]
Bjossi on 26/9/2008 at 18:59
Pfft, my X2 4400+ is no less of a cheap ass processor nowadays. I saw it in a bargain bin the other day, cost less than the average PC game.
bikerdude on 26/9/2008 at 20:13
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
[Still slightly upset that my PC now registers as a budget system in Biker's eyes :cheeky: ]
ROTFL..
Sorry Brian, I didn't mean to sound condescending :cheeky:
biker
Matthew on 26/9/2008 at 23:17
Quote Posted by Bjossi
Pfft, my X2 4400+ is no less of a cheap ass processor nowadays. I saw it in a bargain bin the other day, cost less than the average PC game.
Lucky swine, I only have a 4200+ :(
Dirty_Brute on 27/9/2008 at 04:39
Quote Posted by Matthew
Lucky swine, I only have a 4200+ :(
My X2 4800+ is running some of the latest games just fine albeit with an ATI 4850 video card.
bikerdude on 27/9/2008 at 08:04
Quote Posted by Dirty_Brute
My X2 4800+ is running some of the latest games just fine albeit with an ATI 4850 video card.
My previous, previous cpu was a 4800+ and to be honest the difference between that and the E8400 is only about 20-30% in games.
biker
CaptSyn on 28/9/2008 at 10:47
Quote Posted by Bikerdude
1. as I have already mentioned quad core cpus are a waste of time, 99% of apps dont/wont use the extra 2 core's........:nono:
You are right in that most software can't use multiple cores. In fact, most software can't even use 2 cores yet.
Where multiple cores come into play is in multitasking. The more cores, the better.
Quote Posted by Dirty_Brute
You sound like you either work in the Intel marketing department or you are a fanboy.
AMD/ATI is doing fine especially with their 4850/4870 video cards which are selling like crazy.
lol no I don't work for Intel and I suppose you could consider me a fanboy. I've been using Intel cpus exclusively since the 8086 microprocessor.
I've never owned an AMD product and seriously doubt I ever will unless it's given to me or it's a killer deal I can't pass up.
I've owned one ATi (pre-AMD) card ever, a VisionTek Radeon 9600 8x AGP card, still works good, but the rig it's in has a dying mobo that can't be replaced for a reasonable price.
And seriously, if you think AMD is doing good even when they are losing a quarter billion dollars every quarter for the last 2 years, then you really should take a basic business or economics class. It means they aren't making any profit. That's never a good thing in any business.
Zerker on 28/9/2008 at 12:19
Quote Posted by Bikerdude
1. as I have already mentioned quad core cpus are a waste of time, 99% of apps dont/wont use the extra 2 core's........:nono:
I have a Quad-Core Mac Pro, so I was actually curious how true this statement was a while ago. I ran a few games while using Process monitor to watch the CPU utilisation across all four processors independently. I only ran a few games, but I found that:
STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl only used one core
Bioshock (and probably all other Unreal Engine 3 games) used all four cores at varying degrees.
Half-Life 2 engine games used all four cores releatively evenly.
So at least two major game engines DO use all four cores. I can run some tests on other games when I get back home if anyone wants.
