How is this CPU?

[Eddy01741]

Re: How is this CPU?

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Yea, like Eddy said, thats a MAJOR bottleneck right there. I mean, you'd have to be blind not to see that. A 3.6Ghz prescott beating a FX-57 in Doom 3? BS. My god man, a FX-57 is like a 4.8GHz Pentium 4 in NORMAL tasks. If you were to give a FX-57 a Performance Rating (or Pentium-Rating) it would be like a Athlon 64 4800+ or something.

I hate Tom's Hardware anyways. I only trust Xbit Labs, [H]ardOCP, and Anandtech.

Ya, u were the one who told me about GPU bottleneck in the first place (that was like 2 months ago) . Anyways, yeah, Tom's Hardware is a bit ATI biased and Intel Biased.

[whofriggincares]

Re: How is this CPU?

Tomshardware also said 2 6800s are better than 2 7800GTXs, atleast that's what a guy I know told me when he saw I'm getting 2 7800GTXs. He could just be jealous though. lol
Everything I've read says that Intels dual core are complete garbage. I've got a 4400+, stock 2.2GHz, running at 2.8GHz. Now that's power. (Well it was until my ram died. )

[Sir. MatDef]

Re: How is this CPU?

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Yea, like Eddy said, thats a MAJOR bottleneck right there. I mean, you'd have to be blind not to see that. A 3.6Ghz prescott beating a FX-57 in Doom 3? BS. My god man, a FX-57 is like a 4.8GHz Pentium 4 in NORMAL tasks. If you were to give a FX-57 a Performance Rating (or Pentium-Rating) it would be like a Athlon 64 4800+ or something.

I hate Tom's Hardware anyways. I only trust Xbit Labs, [H]ardOCP, and Anandtech.

That's because Tom's is a complete Intel stooge, and there's a reason they always see the new intel procs first. I looked it up a while back, and I believe that a p4 had to oc'd to 5.4 ghz on liquid nitrogen to catch up to a stock fx-57 for games.

[Flanker]

Re: How is this CPU?

Tomshardware also said 2 6800s are better than 2 7800GTXs, atleast that's what a guy I know told me when he saw I'm getting 2 7800GTXs. He could just be jealous though. lol
Everything I've read says that Intels dual core are complete garbage. I've got a 4400+, stock 2.2GHz, running at 2.8GHz. Now that's power. (Well it was until my ram died. )

Niiiice, Dual FX-57s, haha.

That's because Tom's is a complete Intel stooge, and there's a reason they always see the new intel procs first. I looked it up a while back, and I believe that a p4 had to oc'd to 5.4 ghz on liquid nitrogen to catch up to a stock fx-57 for games.

Actually, Tom doesn't run it anymore. It used to be decent but then Tom sold it to a bunch of Intel Fanboys who pretty much ruined it in the processor and video sections, which are probably the two most important ones.

[Eddy01741]

Re: How is this CPU?

Niiiice, Dual FX-57s, haha.



Actually, Tom doesn't run it anymore. It used to be decent but then Tom sold it to a bunch of Intel Fanboys who pretty much ruined it in the processor and video sections, which are probably the two most important ones.

Wow, they sold tom's hardware to intel/ati fanboys, i thought they were like that all the time (i didn't find out about THG until like March 2005 though).

[Sir. MatDef]

Re: How is this CPU?

Actually, Tom doesn't run it anymore. It used to be decent but then Tom sold it to a bunch of Intel Fanboys who pretty much ruined it in the processor and video sections, which are probably the two most important ones.

Thanks for the info, I actually didn't know that before (makes a lot of sense, though).

[Uncleadolph]

Re: How is this CPU?

Why dual cores? Simple. Future games will be able to support the dual cores. It works like this: The game will be be split into 2 seperate processes allowing the burden to be spread evenly between the CPUs. It will allow it 2 run faster. I'd have thought it would be a drop down menu in options allowing you to choose between dual or single core.

A dual core game would run a lot faster with a 2.4Ghz AMD dual core than the 2.8Ghz single core... Dual cores aren't just for multitasking...

BTW, if I wanted to OC my X2 4800+ to say 2.8 how would I do it and would I need liquid cooling?

-Ben

[Hephaistion]

Re: How is this CPU?

Clock frequences really don't matter, a 2.4 ghz AMD will knock out a 3.4ghz P4. The 2.8ghz normal intel P4 wouldn't be great but a dual core , should do you good.

Agreed, Pentium/Intel is dead as far a gaming goes. Do yourself a favor, with the $$ u spend on just the processor, you can buy a decent Mobo/Athlon64 setup.
For example:
AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (2.2GHZ) $201.00

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=BA21523

Asrock 939 Dual: $62.50

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=MB-BA22009

total with ship: $275.00

Intel Pentium D 2.8 GHZ $243.00

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=BA21419

$255.00 shipped, for $20 more you can have a real gaming machine, not a wordprocessor that struggles to play solitaire.
Look, I was a die-hard Anti-AMD, PRO INTEL advocate for almost 10 years, after moving to AMD last July I finally understood what all of the fuss was about. Don't get me wrong, 80% of the world still uses Intel processors, hell Apple is switching from RISC to Intel, but just as in anything in life, overspecialization breeds weakness, in this case Intel did not keep up with the needs of the gamers, AMD, who stopped buying/renting Intel proprietary architecture when it released the Thunderbird, swooped in and took advantage of the gap in the marketshare. PC gaming is a multi billion dollar industry (as we all know) and Intel is really blowing it big time when it comes to gamers. Intel needs to realize this mistake and look into developing a parallel technology that puts them ahead of AMD. For the time being, AMD leads the pack when it comes to gaming.

I have the Asrock 939 Dual, it is an inexpensive Mobo, but it packs alot of features and has a lot of power (NForce4 chipset to boot)

[whofriggincares]

Re: How is this CPU?

You need a PSU that can provide consistent voltage. You need RAM that will run at high clocks and you need a mobo that has the right options to help you overclock.

[<DV8>mrbucket]

Re: How is this CPU?

Agreed, Pentium/Intel is dead as far a gaming goes. Do yourself a favor, with the $$ u spend on just the processor, you can buy a decent Mobo/Athlon64 setup.
For example:
AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (2.2GHZ) $201.00

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=BA21523

Asrock 939 Dual: $62.50

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=MB-BA22009

total with ship: $275.00

Intel Pentium D 2.8 GHZ $243.00

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=BA21419

$255.00 shipped, for $20 more you can have a real gaming machine, not a wordprocessor that struggles to play solitaire.
Look, I was a die-hard Anti-AMD, PRO INTEL advocate for almost 10 years, after moving to AMD last July I finally understood what all of the fuss was about. Don't get me wrong, 80% of the world still uses Intel processors, hell Apple is switching from RISC to Intel, but just as in anything in life, overspecialization breeds weakness, in this case Intel did not keep up with the needs of the gamers, AMD, who stopped buying/renting Intel proprietary architecture when it released the Thunderbird, swooped in and took advantage of the gap in the marketshare. PC gaming is a multi billion dollar industry (as we all know) and Intel is really blowing it big time when it comes to gamers. Intel needs to realize this mistake and look into developing a parallel technology that puts them ahead of AMD. For the time being, AMD leads the pack when it comes to gaming.

I have the Asrock 939 Dual, it is an inexpensive Mobo, but it packs alot of features and has a lot of power (NForce4 chipset to boot)

Was your old Intel P4 machine bad for you? I dont know what you had running, but I will give you a challenge. My computer w/ it's 3.2 will be equal if not better AT ANY BENCHMARK. I only say this because it's to prove a point. Although the CPU plays a factor in certain thing's, in gaming it's the overall system that ensures speed and stability. Either PM me or post here, If you win, I will never bother you again, and concede you as winner. Now I'm not an Intel fanboy, just a realist. I do believe that AMD is better for games. But I can't stand to hear you say that P4's have issues running solitaire and the like. So please take my challenge..............