processors in Q1 2007 9 replies

Please wait...

yourface

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

19th September 2004

0 Uploads

114 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

I'm going to get a new computer in january or february 2007. I'm not sure what processor I should get, since so many aspects of the Intel and AMD competition have changed since I last bought a computer. Apparently, Intel is now better for gaming performance, but AMD is still cheaper. The Dual core AMD CPU's don't offer significantly better performance than the old single core athlon 64's. Since AMD is now merging with Radeon, maybe it would be a logical move to get and AMD processor and a Radeon card anyway? But then, since the Geforce 8 series has been out since November, maybe the prices of those cards will be reduced when the R600 is released and therefore the 8 series will have a much better value for money compared with their radeon counterparts! Now that I think about it, I don't know what will be in my PC at all!! :bawl:




Revenge VIP Member

Shizzle my nizzle

117,165 XP

28th July 2004

0 Uploads

10,354 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

The Intel Core 2 Duo is hidiously fast now for pretty much everything, but you'll be wasting a lot of money if you're not going to do processor-killer tasks like video editing or software compiling. Currently AMD's best offering is the AMD Athlon64 X2 variety.

If you're willing to wait until mid 2007, you can have a look at AMD's answer to the Core 2 Duo - the AMD K8L (that's a code name, by the way). Knowing AMD, this will probably be four cores on one chip, resulting in an advantage over Intel.

The current best, but most expensive, is probably the Core 2 Duo, but tailing that is AMD's X2s and below that are a lot more AMD chips before we reach Intel again. What I am saying is that if you eliminated the Core 2 Duo off of the list, AMD would dominate it.

However, all games will work perfectly well on the average X2 or Pentium D (Intel's last major offering behind the Core 2 Duo) - both around £100-£200 - they are both so blisteringly fast, you will likely not notice a difference. These days, it's the graphics card that matters for gaming.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago
Reven;3426227However, all games will work perfectly well on the average X2 or Pentium D (Intel's last major offering behind the Core 2 Duo) - both around £100-£200 - they are both so blisteringly fast, you will likely not notice a difference. These days, it's the graphics card that matters for gaming.

You can get an E6300 for about £120 and an E6400 for £140. The E6600 (ie the lowest one that has 4mb cache) is £200.

The only reason to buy something other than a Core 2 Duo at the moment is because you don't want to spend over £100 on a processor; only then do you have a reason to look elsewhere IMO. But you can get Pentium Ds and Athlon 64s down to about £60 now (X2s start at £80-odd) so even then, there's plenty of choice.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

AMD FTW! Their new 4X4 stuff looks freakin awsome.




Dragokatzov

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

24th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,363 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

AMD seems to be determined tyo catch up to AMD. With 4x4 coming out soon, and the release of the 5400+ and 5600+ CPU's, and the 5800 and 6000 coming out soon as well. wate and see, is what i would say. AMD could have a Conroe raper in the works they are working on seceratly behind their doors.




yourface

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

19th September 2004

0 Uploads

114 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

i found a review that strongly suggests that it's well worth investing in a higher end cpu if u want to see any results with the newest directx10 cards: http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64_uk/page12.html

oops, that was the wrong link (it is related though):

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu_uk/page6.html




marvinmatthew

Tech is where you'll find me..

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

3,627 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
Reven;3426227The Intel Core 2 Duo is hidiously fast now for pretty much everything, but you'll be wasting a lot of money if you're not going to do processor-killer tasks like video editing or software compiling.

I have to dissagre with you there. Four years ago, when I got my present computer, I could have saved some money and gone with a Celeron instead of a Pentium Four. The P4 was overkill at the time, but at the moment, I would really be kicking myself in the head if I had gotten that Celeron.

Anyway, those are some interesting benchmarks from Tom's hardware. It just shows that video cards are becoming so fast that the processors are starting to become the bottleneck.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 11 years ago

I recommed you spend more money on a better video card than on a CPU. Becuase In games today you'll need a faster video card than the CPU. But don't settle for a dated CPU and a high end video card ethire becuase then it will be pointless. If you got a midrange E6600 and watercooled 8800 GTX you'll be soo better off than spending all your money on a quad core AMD and than having to buy a midrange card like a 7800 GT.




marvinmatthew

Tech is where you'll find me..

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

3,627 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
Videoslave;3460947I recommed you spend more money on a better video card than on a CPU. Becuase In games today you'll need a faster video card than the CPU. But don't settle for a dated CPU and a high end video card ethire becuase then it will be pointless. If you got a midrange E6600 and watercooled 8800 GTX you'll be soo better off than spending all your money on a quad core AMD and than having to buy a midrange card like a 7800 GT.

Again, I gotta disagree.

You should get the best CPU you can afford, and get the cheaper video card. A CPU upgrade is more expensive and more difficult to make. Furthermore, a video card can be upgraded several times, where as the CPU can only be upgraded to the top of the line of its respective chipset. It made more sense for me to get a P4 2.8GHz with a 6200GT, than a 2.2GHz with a 6800GT. It is an very cost illogical upgrade for me to spend $250 later on down the road to upgrade the CPU for only a 600MHz upgrade.




vikke-viking

Cheese cake

50 XP

26th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,270 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

marvinmatthew;3461264Again, I gotta disagree.

You should get the best CPU you can afford, and get the cheaper video card. A CPU upgrade is more expensive and more difficult to make. Furthermore, a video card can be upgraded several times, where as the CPU can only be upgraded to the top of the line of its respective chipset. It made more sense for me to get a P4 2.8GHz with a 6200GT, than a 2.2GHz with a 6800GT. It is an very cost illogical upgrade for me to spend $250 later on down the road to upgrade the CPU for only a 600MHz upgrade.

I got to agree on that. Rather buy a good CPU now and maybe a midrange video card and then rather uppgrade that when DX10 is more used.