Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 what is the amd eqilevnt and which one should i

[BoyBandsMustDie]

I have decided to get an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ so i can get a better graphics card and motherboard and still have some spare money

 

Lets think about this cchalogamer

 

1. He never stated his budget

2. You pretty much agreed with what the 2 of of said.

(I can agree that the whole it's your loss thing isn't correct though.)

 

Why do you single us out for giving him our opinion. Are we incapable of looking in his profile and to see that it would better to go for a C2D? I gave him a dang fact, and based on his quote above, my post was very relevant to this thread.

[Queenz]

Both of you sit down and listen, while Core 2 is fast, it is great and it is an excelent way to go, the extra $30 or so in CPU cost (I'm assuming 3800+ X2), extra $100-200 ram cost for the DDR2 move, and additional motherboard cost makes it a very BAD idea for most in such a situation forcing him into the crap land of 7300/x1300 cards willmake any system suck for gaming :-\ Core 2 or not.

 

HOWEVER looking at his profile and seeing that he has NOTHING from a previous socket to really bring to the build, Core 2 really IS the way to go for performance. At least there WILL be a little more future in the 775 socket and assuming the software changes take place quad core will be an option to further your fun later on. 939...What you see is what you get, yesterday's hardware with no real future for performance. AM2...see 939, give it DDR2. When you have to buy all the parts anyway the extra money on the CPU and motherboard WILL be worth it in the long run. maybe just buy an older used x800xl (aka the one listed 4 sale in my sig) or something else "lower" on the scale that's capable to hold you until a littlee more cash comes in and then get a high end card.

 

Upping the video card later because it under performs is one hell of alot easier than swapping platforms.

 

 

Although I do understand why you would be taking his side on getting an AMD setup because from your sig it looks as though you are an AMD fanboy <_<

[ThunderChicken]

well i see this thread going to become a amd vs intel flame war, but to the original poster, performance wise c2d is the way to go. Budget wise it depends you can get a cheaper vid card and get c2d or get a nice decent setup with an amd with good vid, but not so good cpu. its completely up to you id go c2d if i were setting up a new rig, just for future proofing myself. but amd is not bad and its a great way to go to i prefer amd over intel but if you look at straight performance you cant beat intel right now.

[Bosco]

Knock it off

[cchalogamer]

I gave him a dang fact, and based on his quote above, my post was very relevant to this thread.

What fact might that be...that a x1950xt paired with a good CPU cant beat a 7900gs with a better CPU?

 

I find that to be a little odd. Let's look at some numbers:

 

CPU

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...3&chart=170

F.E.A.R. fps

E6400 (lowest core 2 in test): 121 fps

3800+ X2: 110 fps

 

Ok good a roughly 10% increase, not bad.

 

VGA

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.htm...8&chart=215

7900gs: 35.7 fps

x1900xt (x1950xt was nto part of the test so the next lowest/closest was chosen): 50 fps

 

So we get a roughly 30% difference here.

 

Now, you're telling me that a video card that sees OVER (remember x1900xt<x1950xt) a 30% performance increase over the 7900gs is balanced out by a CPU that sees only a 10% fps increase (dont forget a higher model that should further prove your theory again was chosen here aswell)?

 

While we're at it http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.htm...8&chart=199 that's the hl2 Episode 1 version of the video test, guess what MUCH begger gain for the 1900 card. (remember the Doom 3 engine (Prey/Quake 4) historicaly run better on nVidia's product)

 

That's why I quoted you, I just had to go before finishing my post earlier.

 

Although I do understand why you would be taking his side on getting an AMD setup because from your sig it looks as though you are an AMD fanboy <_<

 

If I'm an AMD fan boy, you're move of buying a 1900 series card to go with a celeron was rocket science.

 

Let's see, from the first 1.8 celeron up I've purchased (no real order here):

 

1.8 celeron x 2

1.3 celeron

2.5 celeron

2.66 P4

3000+ Winchester

3000+ venice

3.0 P4 x 2

Opteron 148

2.6 celeron

1.8 P4

Opteron 165 x 2

4000+

and most recently because I am SUCH a fan boy who never makes a move to get the most performance he can:

FX-70...no wait...I bought an E4300...oh darn...

 

Now of course the Core 2 system is faster in general, but for daily use and properly configured a 3800+ vs Core 2 doesnt feel much different, Internet speed and harddrive access times factor into the overall experence far more.

 

Again we get back to my statement that doing a new build Core 2 would be my choice. As for budget it seemed that anyone with a shread of intelligence could see that a person looking to get a 4300 was NOT loaded and is looking at performance on a budget, so in the chance that he hadn't updated his profile to reflect changes (much like me) and possilby HAD some newer parts I left the upgrade path related info in, not to mention the crapload of others makign the same choices right now. Not that any of them ever read...they'll just ask the same question again anyway...makes me wonder why I even resond to questions anymore.

 

Oh well have a nice day.

[Ricky C]

I have actualy built the pc now. I choose amd in the end as it was much cheaper and it does everything i want it to. I managed to build my whole setup for under

Edited February 1, 2007 by Ricky C

[firky]

maybe twice as much for intel but like 10 times faster!!! lol hope you like your new rig

Edited February 1, 2007 by firky