• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

an AMD X2, are they still good for gaming?

Not at all, Conroe may be better but in no way are they so much better that you should be thinking of throwing away a perfectly good X2 system.

GPUs are more important when gaming.

Jokester
 
tomanders91 said:
Well i know Conroes are much better proccesors but it dosent make AMD X2's bad though does it.
Click to expand...
Here's my take. Don't believe the hype!

I just finally got round to installing my new E6600 rig last night, coming from an AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.5Ghz.

I clocked the E6600 to 3.2Ghz but to be absolutely honest there isn't a whole lot of difference in games to my Opty 170.
Sure, there's a few fps difference, but at 700mhz extra over the AMD and after hearing some of the hype put about by certain members of this board, I expected more. Much more!

C2D is a good cpu, but I would say don't waste your money on an unnecessary system upgrade.
An X2 will do the job just fine in all games for at least another year.
 
I wouldn't upgrade to a conroe processor solely for the purposes of gaming. The differences are small and most X2's will feed the current GPU's without problem unless you max out the resolutions and the AA/AF settings and even then the differences are slight.
 
tomanders91 said:
Is something like a 4600+ X2 2.40ghz still a good proccessor for gaming even though C2D is pretty much killing it. It would be paired alongside something like an X1950XTX or 8800 with 2gb of ram, how long would it last before another major upgrade?
Click to expand...

Instead of the 4600 you might want to look at the 4400. Ok its 2.2ghz not 2.4, but it has 2 x 1mb cache over the 4600's 2 x 512kb. Will also be cheaper and should still clock well.
 
a few months ago X2's were rated as being good for games.

they havent overnight become BAD for games, their performance has merely been surpassed by a newer line of CPU's.

no reason to start ditching X2's left right and center i shouldnt think..
 
The 4600+ (AM2) is not a good clocker, from 2.4Ghz you'll get it to about 2.7Ghz stable if you are lucky. - I have mine running on the Zalman vf9500 cooler and it is cooled well, but doesn't clock well.

It's not that good a chip to be honest, if you have the cash for an AM2 like the 4600+, get a C2D, you'll really be better off.

InvG
 
well yes if your building a whole new system then c2d but if upgrading while on the skt then amds x2 are still good 4200+ and 3800+ are the best as they overclock to 5000+ speeds
 
dale1uk said:
Instead of the 4600 you might want to look at the 4400. Ok its 2.2ghz not 2.4, but it has 2 x 1mb cache over the 4600's 2 x 512kb. Will also be cheaper and should still clock well.
Click to expand...


where can i find a 4400? there arnt any on ocuk?

and 4200's are better overclockers that 4600's?
 
you'll be lucky to find 4400 and 4800's atm.
Its not that 4200's are better overclockers as such its just they start at a lower clockspeed(and price of course) but usually get to around the same level , usually between 2.6-2.9.
My 4800 is a 2.4ghz chip but only gets to 2.8ish and thats on water.
 
aztechnology said:
They will ok for a while yet, but if I was building from scratch at the moment, C2D is a better choice (and I'm a bit of an AMD fanboi).

After Xmas I'm putting together 2 machines, one will be an C2D (for a mate who has cash to spend) and mine is an AMD (with an Opteron 170 sourced 2nd hand).

I'll clock both, mine will be clocked till it screams, and the C2D will have a moderate clock applied. If this thread is still around (or I can find it) i'll post back some results.
Click to expand...

I have all the bits now, so bringing this back the top so I can find it. I'll keep you informed as to how it turns out...
 
still using a x2 4400+ @2.7 and still kicks in games
as was said ,the gfx is very important
will keep mine till end of year till next amd cpu comes out maybe
 
Sorry to hijack the thread, but i have pretty much the same question

would a amd 4000+ san diego @ 3.0ghz still be with good games and a 8800 gts
 
Hellfire260 said:
Sorry to hijack the thread, but i have pretty much the same question

would a amd 4000+ san diego @ 3.0ghz still be with good games and a 8800 gts
Click to expand...

At the moment your CPU should be more than enough, even with current multicore enabled games. This may change with certain next gen games that are on the horizon (Crysis, Supreme Commander, Alan Wake?) but if the difference is huge you can always upgrade then. Fact is most people still have single core CPUs and most games developers will take that into account.

Its funny how people keep switching back and forth between the CPU Limited Vs GPU Limited arguement. I'm pretty sure when the C2D was being released a lot of people switched to the CPU limited side, yet now they're saying its GPU limited again! :rolleyes:
 
dale1uk said:
Instead of the 4600 you might want to look at the 4400. Ok its 2.2ghz not 2.4, but it has 2 x 1mb cache over the 4600's 2 x 512kb. Will also be cheaper and should still clock well.
Click to expand...
I've seen the 4400 going for more than the 4600 in view of the cache on places like the bay.
 
I plan on getting a 939 4600 and pairing it with an 8800gts. I can always crank up AA and AF to their maximum levels if I get cpu limited.
 
I've got a x2 4600 with a x1900xt and can happily play recent stuff (R6:Vegas, GRAW etc) at 1280x1024 with everything maxed. I got mine as an upgrade from a 3200+ and have been very happy with it.

However if I were in the market for a new processor/mb/ram, then I'd only be looking at a C2D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom