A wise choice or should I wait?

[Inanimate]

Hey there.

 

First off I want to thank you people @ the street for giving me the basic knowledge of clocking. I currently own a opty 170 which I clocked to 2600mhz on stock vcore, all because of the fine tips I've been given here.

 

 

Now, I've been torn between abandoning AMD and going Intel, simply because Intel is faster than AMD these days, and that nothing in the Phenomseries, not even the things being released in 2008 seems to be able to beat Intel.

 

I recently bought a 8800gtx which greatly improved my fps and performance overall in most games.

Im a Crysis-junkie, and I want to get most out of it. Also, I have cash to spare, so Im very much in the place where I want to buy something.

 

 

I've been reading alot but I cant make up my mind wether I should go for Intel Dualcore or Quadcore, or perhaps stick with AMD and get the 6400+ which is ridiculously cheap, and it comes with an unlocked mult.

Looking at some benchmarks, the Intel E6750 still beats the 6400+, but an unlocked mult, thats just crazy.

 

 

The Phenom seems to be a no-go unless a not too expensive one comes out Q1 2008 that beats most Intels. Which is very unlikely lol.

The last choice is to wait for the Intel Penry, which seems to be insane, 16mb cache and all.

 

If someone is still reading, perhaps you could tell me what you think.

I dont want to buy anything right now since there are still some very interesting things to happen in Q1 2008.

 

Thanks a bunch.

[Angry_Games]

well, then just keep your eyes open from now until 2008 to see what is going to be the best bang for your buck then. That's the best advice I can give ya. I'm watching all the AMD and Intel and Nvidia and ATI stuff with much interest.

 

What's hot and best bang for the buck right now probably won't be what's hot and best bang for the buck by Q1 2008 =/

[Inanimate]

Yeah, and while thinking about it, the thought of leaving AMD hurts my soul :/

Angry, you know if there are any recent Penry-benchmarks out there? Tbh I havent seen any at all.

 

Have u bought any Phenom yet to see how it's clocking?

 

Regards

[Angry_Games]

you know, you and many others have to get off the whole "it hurts" thing about trying Intel. We want everyone to try whatever is BEST at the time, or BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK at the time, and for a while now it has been Intel. They are faster than any of the AMD cpu's in almost everything except memory bandwidth (which means zero honestly), they overclock like a dream, and they are (on Intel chipsets) a LOT less problematic (just like the old days) than the AMD stuff in my opinion.

 

I hated Intel with the best of them but the whole Core2 thing pretty much started when some dudes took the old Pentium-M mobile cpu's which were built off the P3 cores and started clocking them up to FX-55 speeds and they were crushing the FX-55. DFI made one of the first boards, an 855 something or other that cost $400, and locked just about everyone's overclock to 2.66-ish Ghz, but cripes man, at that time, it truly was hitting about 40% faster in a lot of things, most notable games like Id's engine games (based on the Quake/Doom engines).

 

When we were discussing that at DFI internally, I knew then if Intel would get their heads out of their asses they'd be able to make a KILLER chip that would beat the A64, and they did thankfully. Now it's AMD's turn again to be behind and come up with something better. I guess if you want a real in-depth rant look at the big thread about Phenom I made.

 

Anyway, best is best, regardless of your feelings. I HATE THE DETROIT RED WINGS WITH A $@#$@#$ PASSION...but I know they are one of the top 3 teams in the NHL every single year. Same with the NY Yankees. Got to go with the head, not the heart when you spending your money. I love AMD too, maybe more than you as I've been an outspoken fan of theirs since the first Athlon 500Mhz Slot A processor. That was a freaking long time ago because I still lived in Florida back then...must be more than 7 years now?

 

Anyway, I haven't bought a single AMD thing since I got my E6600 Core2Duo cpu that forum members here donated to Rgone and I. There's a reason for that. I still recommend AMD64's a lot more based on the fact most people have a much smaller budget than I do...and AMD64's are still a lot of bang for the buck.

 

But if you are going for performance, the ball is still squarely in Intel's court. This could change in an instant, or a year, or never again, who knows. By Q1 2008 we'll know more than we know now, but most likely it will still be Intel with the most bang for the buck (definitely as long as Phenoms are priced too high for their performance level like they are now, and with Intel bringing Penryn, you can bet that the Core2's and Quads will come down in price and they already beat the Phenom...so where does that leave AMD? Out in the cold for a while until they get their . together again or go after the budget-to-mid market, which they can do EXTREMELY well in with that cpu and their new ATI gpu's).

 

I won't be buying a Phenom anytime soon, especially with falling Intel prices...unless the Phenoms come down in price to the point they are worth it.

[Inanimate]

Haha, yeah.. I lol'ed at that Detroit-part

 

How is really the quality and stability of the Intels?

My friend is a hardcore-overclocker, but unfortunately, he is a real AMD-fanboy, and he doesnt hold back on the hate when he talks about Intel hehe. He doesn't give an objective view of Intel when I ask him, and he says that "Intel put every last bit of technology into their CPU's and did a poor job testing them for errors, which means that people end up with unstable rigs" etc etc.. calling people retards for not choosing the right components etc

He claims that if you want quality and stability like nothing else, then go AMD. I normally wouldnt listen to a Fanboy like him, but seeing so many people on Crysis-related forums saying that their games crash and they dont get the sause out of their systems that the benchmark indicates, im beginning to wonder.

 

When looking at this:

 

[ATTACH]6249[/ATTACH]

 

.. I wonder which one that will be the best clocker. My money is on the 9450 or perhaps even 9300.

If those estimated prices ends up being definate, there is really no question about it; im getting one..

 

A question though, when looking at the L2-cache info, the 9300 is @ 6mb, the 9650 is at 12 mb, but the two in the middle say "A 2mb". Does that mean that each core will be @ 2mb, 2x4 = 8mb?

[Angry_Games]

How is really the quality and stability of the Intels?

I would NEVER lie about something like this. It's everything you always wanted AMD to be in terms of overclocking, but usually better. Less hassle. Motherboards with less settings but more things going on in the hidden background adjusting to your overclocking needs so you only have to worry about a few things.

 

Your friend is an idiot. Plain and simple. People don't like me much because I tell it like it is, without any care for anyone's feelings, I only care about the truth. Your friend is a Class-1 moron. He probably believes everything the television and the internet tells him to.

 

Crysis = not even 8800GTX SLI on Quad6600 Intel can can play this game with everything maxed out and max resolutions. Has zero to do with the cpu, and everything to do with the gpu. PS: your friend is still a moron, but now a bigger one for this nonsense.

 

As for those cpu's, the Q9300 is going to be the best bang for the buck. The Q6600 right now is the best bang for the buck. I have no idea what the "A 2MB" thing means, but I wouldn't even worry about it. I stopped caring that my A64 cpu's might only have 512k cache instead of 1MB cache a long time ago, so when I got to the Intel Core2 stuff, I didn't care one bit that my E6600 had 4MB cache and my E6400 only had 2MB.

 

Sorry about your friend. It happens sometimes when their mouths get bigger than the rest of them. He should come read around here a bit and get some real learnings instead of whatever fantastical weirdo site he's reading to spout that nonsense

[Imsochobo]

I got my AMD 790 FX board in the house Gigabyte MA790FX-DQ6.

 

Okey, lets see, theese benchmarks are the ones ive tested:

Lightsmark, 65 fps vs 160

3dmark2006 8100 vs 10000

 

Systems:

2900 XT Watercooled no oc yet.

dfi lanparty-ut nf4 sli-dr expert.

OCz pc4000 platinium edition 2048 mb @ 3-3-2-5

4400+

 

2900 XT watercooled no oc yet.

Gigabyte MA790FX-DQ6

Mushkin pc9200 Extreme performance running at 800 mhz 5-4-3-9 2gig kit.

amd x2 5600+

 

The cpu diffrence wasnt that much, but I saw a FREAKING hot change in the sm2.0 3.0 and such in 3dmark, 450 score was cause of the cpu score, however, i do not know how much the cpu does in the SM2.0 and SM3.0 test's.

 

AMD 790 boards come quite cheap, they dont produce alot of heat, GREAT

[Inanimate]

Angry, the Q6600 is the best bang4buck? Wouldn't the similar model with Dualcores be better? Everywhere you read, the Quad-series bring less DPS, but it unpacks .rar's and crap, alot faster. Sure, solving problems and unraring is a part of what you want to be done fast as well, but for gaming?

[Angry_Games]

forget gaming, any and every cpu that is strong, from single core AMD64's to dual-quad-mega-core Intels are going to give you excellent gaming. But the question is...do you game 24/7 only? Or do you do things like surf web, fiddle with pics from your digital cam, watch/convert/rip movies/dvd's, etc?

 

I have never met anyone that just uses the computer for gaming and gaming only. Not even my Vista-64 test rig, which I set up ONLY for gaming gets used for...only gaming lol.

 

There is no AMD cpu that can touch the Q6600 right now. I've gamed on a Q6600, and hundreds of others around here have too, and I'm pretty sure they'll tell you the same thing I am telling you: Q6600 is great for EVERYTHING.

 

But like I said, by Q1 2008...who knows what will be best bang for the buck?

[Praz]

But like I said, by Q1 2008...who knows what will be best bang for the buck?

Wolfdale E8500.

 

All Penryn processors share the same issue with overclocking. The 1333 FSB sets the stock multiplier too low on most of the processor for an overclock comparable to what the processors are capable of. The quad-cores with 12MB of cache are also FSB limited to around 420-430 on the average because of the cache.

 

Most developers are finding it difficult to code for more then 3 cores at this time. There's a big difference between seeing Task Manager showing 4 cores being utilized and those same cores working with dedicated threads.

 

Come Q1 AMD is still going to be playing catch-up to Intel. Most Penryns suffer from low multipliers. 12MB cache limits the FSB speed. The majority of apps/games now and for the foreseeable future won't benefit from additional cores at a reduced speed. All of this adds up to the E8500 being the price to performance champ.

[Angry_Games]

but even you Praz, you nor I nor anyone KNOWS what will be best bang for the buck in Q1 2008. Your guess is as much speculation as mine or anyone else's is. I've no doubt it will be Intel, but which processor exactly? Who can guess at this stage? That's why it's best not to speculate too much and wait to see exactly what is happening, as neither you nor I can say that the AMD cpu's won't be BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK by then

[s1ick]

I treat buying computer components like getting car insurance dont look a few months ahead thinking oo what can i buy then, wait then do your research when you have the money waiting in the bank.

My point is prices and products change so much its just a waste of time. Who knows when the new proc's get released the price drop on the Q6600 may still make it the best bang per buck? Or maybe as AG indicated AMD may slash prices to compete.