recommended an X2 over a Phenom

[runawayprisoner]

MrPink: Tell ya what, even if you are not overclocking, an Intel C2D should still be fast enough. Anyway, please don't try to get that X6800. Just slap on a E6750 or a E6850 (if you have the cash), and you're good to go. Here's a benchmark and review of the CPU you are willing to buy... versus other C2D processors at STOCK.

athlon 64 x2 6400+ review and benchmark

__________________
cChip interpreter WIP - current status: Release Candidate
LRx Filter RC - current performance rating: 9/10

[MrPink]

hmmm, i want to believe.
but intel cant be allowed dominance of the CPU market (as if they DONT already have it). plus, intel does a lot of shady stuff to make sure their products sell.

The Hard Case Against Intel

i am not saying that AMD wouldn't do these kinds of things if they had the capital to do so, but intel is just such a larger more powerful company.

__________________

Intel Q9550 @ 3.2ghz 1.2V l 4GB G.Skill Pi Series DDR2 1004MHz @ 5-5-5-15 1.8V l BFG 9800GX2 @ 600/1000 |
ASUS P5Q-E l PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad l 2x Seagate 250GB SATA, WD 500GB SATA |
Antec 1200 l OCZ Vendetta 2 with Scythe "Ultra Kaze" l Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit |

[Kaizen]

Originally Posted by MrPink

hmmm, i want to believe.
but intel cant be allowed dominance of the CPU market (as if they DONT already have it). plus, intel does a lot of shady stuff to make sure their products sell.

The Hard Case Against Intel

i am not saying that AMD wouldn't do these kinds of things if they had the capital to do so, but intel is just such a larger more powerful company.

AMD already have done many "shady" business practices
it's all a part of the business infrastructure

why let yourself be limited by wanting to support a particular company,
AMD doesn't give a ---- about you, that's for sure

same goes for intel

__________________
"Have Fun!"

[Master Chief]

Originally Posted by MrPink

hmmm, i want to believe.
but intel cant be allowed dominance of the CPU market (as if they DONT already have it). plus, intel does a lot of shady stuff to make sure their products sell.

The Hard Case Against Intel

i am not saying that AMD wouldn't do these kinds of things if they had the capital to do so, but intel is just such a larger more powerful company.

Intel, when you think about it, has almost always had dominance of the computer market. K8 gave AMD a bigger slice of the pie but Intel has always been a bigger company. Even when the Athlon 64 architecture hit the market, Intel was sitting on plenty of cash and their Pentiums were still selling. To me, it seems as if AMD has survived because they made a lot of smart moves. One wrong step and Intel is going to kick them out of the picture. I think it's going to happen eventually, as much as I don't want it to.

You shouldn't want to not buy an Intel because you like to support the "little guy". You buy the best available at the time. There is nothing wrong with Intel, they are a great company that has just launched an amazing product.

__________________

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.8ghz
Abit IP35 Pro
Corsair XMS2 2gig DDR2-800 (2 x 1gb)
MSI GeForce 8800GT OC
Realtek OnBoard 7.1 Audio
Maxtor 200 GIG SATA HD
Antec TruePower Trio 650w

[runawayprisoner]

And AMD just dominated the last time with the Athlon64 processors. It's only natural that Intel wins this time around. You'd fear that Intel will eventually monopolize the market, but... $200 from you or your friend won't help prevent that from happening.

__________________
cChip interpreter WIP - current status: Release Candidate
LRx Filter RC - current performance rating: 9/10

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

It feels so wrong that they are dominating though...

Afterall AMD can't help it that their X2's are not better than C2D's....as C2D's came out a year later...

Only when your new product comes out just after the competition or before it can you feel good about beating the compatiton...if it's only a year later that you have an answer then that's pretty darn sad...no matter how good it may be.

I mean Intel in this case had plenty of time to observe X2's and improve upon them...whilst AMD were struggeling with their stupid purchase of ATI.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M

Leadtek Winfast DTV2000H | Creative Sound Blaster Audigy Value | Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64bit

The Champ has retired, but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

[Kaizen]

Originally Posted by SCHUMI-4-EVA

It feels so wrong that they are dominating though...

Afterall AMD can't help it that their X2's are not better than C2D's....as C2D's came out a year later...

Only when your new product comes out just after the competition or before it can you feel good about beating the compatiton...if it's only a year later that you have an answer then that's pretty darn sad...no matter how good it may be.

I mean Intel in this case had plenty of time to observe X2's and improve upon them...whilst AMD were struggeling with their stupid purchase of ATI.

if amd planned their R and D better they might have had a better chance

and AMD and Intel have different technology,
only one can win and that's intel now

Intel deserves to because they provide a better faster, more reliable, more energy efficient solution to a market problem

like in wildlife it's survival of the fittest and intel is a better evolution of the cpu architecture just now

I don't care who wins, if AMD releases the denub and propus processors tomorrow then intel can run and jump for me to provide nehalem....then i'll choose the best

I honestly find it a little sad that you have such an affinity for a company,
really, I can't understand why, it confuses me that someone would purposely do something that impairs their benifit without getting something in return

__________________
"Have Fun!"

[Linktothepast]

Actually what feels so wrong is that AMD didn't won the market when she actually deserved it, which makes things even more difficult for them now.

__________________

System Specifications: Athlon64 3200+ @ 2,12 ghz, 1GB DDR RAM, 9600GT 512MB, 200+250 GB HD, Windows xp sp3

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Well look at my PC ...when it comes to Single Cores then Intel had nothing that could touch the AMDs.

I have yet to experience either dual cores, I am just not impressed with companies which have plenty of time to copy and improve upon what another did...which is why I am incredibly glad that the HD 2900XTX (or XT...can't remember which one was made) did not surpass the 8800GTX.

Besides as I said stock C2Ds (and especialy C2Qs) have clock speeds which are too low to play old non multicore support games.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M

Leadtek Winfast DTV2000H | Creative Sound Blaster Audigy Value | Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64bit

The Champ has retired, but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

[Kaizen]

Originally Posted by SCHUMI-4-EVA

Well look at my PC ...when it comes to Single Cores then Intel had nothing that could touch the AMDs.

I have yet to experience either dual cores, I am just not impressed with companies which have plenty of time to copy and improve upon what another did...which is why I am incredibly glad that the HD 2900XTX (or XT...can't remember which one was made) did not surpass the 8800GTX.

Besides as I said stock C2Ds (and especialy C2Qs) have clock speeds which are too low to play old non multicore support games.

really?

because a single core on core 2 at around 2 Ghz far surpasses any single core amd64

and if a picture says 1,000 words
.......then these words are beautiful

i'm sure this 4.4Ghz core 2 wolfdale running on 1 core could stun you with its performance



Again I have to say I'm not a fanboy,
I seem so biased,


but that's only because intels recent form is impressive as hell

__________________
"Have Fun!"

---

Last edited by Kaizen; January 11th, 2008 at 22:40. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[runawayprisoner]

Single Core, you said?

X-bit labs - News around the Web - Intel Celeron M 3.0GHz Beats AMD Athlon 64 FX-60

Take THAT for single core! It's even a mobile processor... wow...
Mmm... and here's for a non-mobile, still Celeron processor:

Intel Celeron 440 VS AMD Athlon 64 3500+ :: The Place of Online Shopping Store Articles

The Celeron 440 has 200MHz lower in clock speed, even... so needless to say, clock-to-clock, that single core processor would beat the Athlon64 3500+ quite easily. I don't know about the 3700+, but mind you, it's quite easy to reach 3GHz with this processor using air cooling methods... since it's still a Conroe.

__________________
cChip interpreter WIP - current status: Release Candidate
LRx Filter RC - current performance rating: 9/10

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

I said stock....I don't care about overclocked....well anyways this processor impressed me way more than the celeron 1.7ghz and pentium 2.6ghz which had virtualy no difference and both ran equally awfull...with this one I could actually feel aswell as see a difference and still can.

So basically I am used to Intels running crappy and AMDs running impressively...

Anyways it's not really important as I can't upgrade anytime soon and the next PC I will be getting will have to be a laptop.

So just ignore the poor person XD


By the way I just checked those links and it's quite sad that you think that they say anything...especially the non mobile one...of course a 2007 processor will be better than a 2005 (if not 2004) processor...

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M

Leadtek Winfast DTV2000H | Creative Sound Blaster Audigy Value | Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64bit

The Champ has retired, but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

[Kaizen]

Originally Posted by SCHUMI-4-EVA

I said stock....I don't care about overclocked....well anyways this processor impressed me way more than the celeron 1.7ghz and pentium 2.6ghz which had virtualy no difference and both ran equally awfull...with this one I could actually feel aswell as see a difference and still can.

So basically I am used to Intels running crappy and AMDs running impressively...

Anyways it's not really important as I can't upgrade anytime soon and the next PC I will be getting will have to be a laptop.

So just ignore the poor person XD


By the way I just checked those links and it's quite sad that you think that they say anything...especially the non mobile one...of course a 2007 processor will be better than a 2005 (if not 2004) processor...

*cough* the stock speed is 3.16 Ghz

and within 6 months there will be 3.8 Ghz models

TBH there was a time not long ago when I was a fanboy
........................but i was an AMD fanboy

__________________
"Have Fun!"

[MrPink]

wow, those wolfdales are overclocking higher than people i see with C2Ds right now. highest i saw or heard of (practically, i mean no liquid nitrogen ) in terms of clock speed was 3.4 or 3.5 ghz, maybe some people would get 3.7.

but 4.4? thats just overpowered, it seems almost a waste to have such a high clock speed on a duel core, imagine a quad at that speed

__________________

Intel Q9550 @ 3.2ghz 1.2V l 4GB G.Skill Pi Series DDR2 1004MHz @ 5-5-5-15 1.8V l BFG 9800GX2 @ 600/1000 |
ASUS P5Q-E l PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad l 2x Seagate 250GB SATA, WD 500GB SATA |
Antec 1200 l OCZ Vendetta 2 with Scythe "Ultra Kaze" l Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit |

[Kaizen]

Originally Posted by MrPink

wow, those wolfdales are overclocking higher than people i see with C2Ds right now. highest i saw or heard of (practically, i mean no liquid nitrogen ) in terms of clock speed was 3.4 or 3.5 ghz, maybe some people would get 3.7.

but 4.4? thats just overpowered, it seems almost a waste to have such a high clock speed on a duel core, imagine a quad at that speed

yeah

but that's just an average chip with average cooling (arctic pro 7)

quite a few guys have hit 5 Ghz on the scythe coolers and thermaltake

5ghz is crazy, i wonder what the second gen wolfdales and yorks could hit

would 6ghz factor into it?
god that would be insane

__________________
"Have Fun!"

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by SCHUMI-4-EVA

By the way I just checked those links and it's quite sad that you think that they say anything...especially the non mobile one...of course a 2007 processor will be better than a 2005 (if not 2004) processor...

The Celeron M is not a recent processor.. nor is the Intel 975 chipset. My brother has had his Celeron M laptop for over two years now... if you ask me.

__________________
cChip interpreter WIP - current status: Release Candidate
LRx Filter RC - current performance rating: 9/10

[MrPink]

yeah, considering most recommended requirments (which is usually a load of bull anyway) for games aren't even at 3GHz yet.

jesus, they aren't even at 3GHz dualcore yet!

a 5GHz dualcore would have to last a while if all you do is play games.

__________________

Intel Q9550 @ 3.2ghz 1.2V l 4GB G.Skill Pi Series DDR2 1004MHz @ 5-5-5-15 1.8V l BFG 9800GX2 @ 600/1000 |
ASUS P5Q-E l PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad l 2x Seagate 250GB SATA, WD 500GB SATA |
Antec 1200 l OCZ Vendetta 2 with Scythe "Ultra Kaze" l Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit |

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

The Celeron M is not a recent processor.. nor is the Intel 975 chipset. My brother has had his Celeron M laptop for over two years now... if you ask me.

That paticular processor was due Q3 2007...

and the other was a 2006 Core Duo...

Originally Posted by MrPink

yeah, considering most recommended requirments (which is usually a load of bull anyway) for games aren't even at 3GHz yet.

jesus, they aren't even at 3GHz dualcore yet!

a 5GHz dualcore would have to last a while if all you do is play games.

Actually they have reached that mark for Single Cores.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M

Leadtek Winfast DTV2000H | Creative Sound Blaster Audigy Value | Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64bit

The Champ has retired, but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

---

Last edited by SCHUMI_4EVER; January 11th, 2008 at 23:47. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[Kaizen]

Originally Posted by SCHUMI-4-EVA

That paticular processor was due Q3 2007...

and the other was a 2006 Core Duo...



Actually they have reached that mark for Single Cores.

yeah, and the recommended processor for colin mcrae dirt is e6600 or higher
but there's no point dwelling on the past

the future is 64 core 10 ghz processors

Edit: BTW the celeron M is ooooooollllld
and the core 2 may have been from 2006, but you said any intel dual core doesn't have a high enough clock
for single core games

"Besides as I said stock C2Ds (and especialy C2Qs) have clock speeds which are too low to play old non multicore support games."

lets take all this offtopic to the intel vs amd thread?

good debate btw, i'm enjoying it

__________________
"Have Fun!"

[MrPink]

yeah, after posting i realized that supcom recommended a 3GHz, so does crysis probably (i'm too lazy to pull out the case and look though)

__________________

Intel Q9550 @ 3.2ghz 1.2V l 4GB G.Skill Pi Series DDR2 1004MHz @ 5-5-5-15 1.8V l BFG 9800GX2 @ 600/1000 |
ASUS P5Q-E l PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad l 2x Seagate 250GB SATA, WD 500GB SATA |
Antec 1200 l OCZ Vendetta 2 with Scythe "Ultra Kaze" l Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit |