Best processor for an average machine

[Devious]

Im not spouting any rubbish, i told you which was best in the first post, short and sweet, and now we have eventually agreed I was right.

I never posted any results, I said in my second post i wasnt going to post any and I told you to search google as there are so many out there.
The results you think I eventually posted was a link i copied from Corasik hence why i said "we've told you E6300 is the best" and not "Ive told you E6300 is the best"

Your not going to get many personal reviews on here of a E6300 as I think theres only 2 or 3 people on this forum who have them atm. you can only google results like everyone else.

 

[Vertigo]

Im not spouting any rubbish

Try "Sounds like you dont want to buy the best chip no matter what we say." - Utter twaddle.

i told you which was best in the first post, short and sweet

And sounded just like all the "Conroe rulez" fanboys in the process. The fact that you don't see this is worrying tbh.

I never posted any results

Afraid you did, right there in post number 19.

The results you think I eventually posted...

I think you posted? Better check that post number 19 again mate.

...was a link i copied from Corasik

That's as maybe but you still posted them again

hence why i said "we've told you E6300 is the best" and not "Ive told you E6300 is the best"

So when you said "we", you actually meant "other people"?

Your not going to get many hands on reviews of a E6300 as I think theres only 2 or 3 people on this forum who have them atm. you can only google results like everyone else.

Fair enough, I just wanted to garner opinions from anyone that did happen to have one or had some handy links for me to check out. I shall also do some searching myself of course.

 

[FreeStream]

Conroe, job done.

They overclock like mofos, use the least power (except for probably the X2).

Conroe is the better bet IMO.

 

[UKTopGun]

Try "Sounds like you dont want to buy the best chip no matter what we say." - Utter twaddle.

And sounded just like all the "Conroe rulez" fanboys in the process. The fact that you don't see this is worrying tbh.

Why won't you just believe us the Conroe is better...

I think you will acctually find that most people who are moving to Conroe used to have AMD because currently (well, before conroe) they offer the better bang for buck over Intel. Now Conroe is being released everybody is moving over the them because they now offer the bang for buck...

 

[Raikiri]

Out of those I would go with the 6300 witht his motherboard if not overclocking:

Asus P5VD2-MX Micro ATX (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard (MB-163-AS)

Price: £39.95 (£46.94 Including VAT at 17.5%)

If youw ill be overclocking (you may as well, really) then get the Gigabyte DS3

 

[Big-Mac-Please]

You might wan to relax a little vertigo, you ask people for advice and then throw it back in their face?

Google is full of information about the 6300 giving you plenty of hard facts! If you want to future proof and not overclock then I think its clear on most accounts that the new canroe processors are the best choice.

 

[easyrider]

Argh! What did I say about overclocking?


That may be the case, and if it is then great, I'd go for that over the P4. All I'm saying is that I'd like some hard figures to back it up rather than people just posting that the Conroe is better with no further info as you don't know whether these opinions are based on facts or "fanboyism"

troll I own a conroe E6600

Err, because it's faster maybe? If the P4 945 does turn out to be faster than the E6300 then it would make sense to buy the 945, especially paired with a board which could take a Conroe at a later date.!

are you serious? lmao!

Why not? If an AMD AM2 socket chip provides the best bang for buck then I'd go AM2, this is the whole point of this thread, to work out the best option!!

am2 does not work out the best option bang for buck conroe smacks its ass and sends it to sleep

And what model is that? Not an E6300 I'll wager! Please read my original post again - I'm talking about the low end models here!

troll

the low end 6300 smacks the similar price amd x 3800 on the butt.

what don't you understand?

how to use google?
or look at facts and reviews lol!

 

[FreeStream]

troll I own a conroe E6600

are you serious? lmao!

am2 does not work out the best option bang for buck conroe smacks its ass and sends it to sleep

troll

the low end 6300 smacks the similar price amd x 3800 on the butt.

what don't you understand?

how to use google?
or look at facts and reviews lol!

This man is on the ball, if you don't get conroe you are a fool.

 

[Vertigo]

Why won't you just believe us the Conroe is better...

I'm fully prepared to, but only when backed up with some hard facts rather than people just claiming it's better. I'm trying to separate fact from hype, why is this so hard to understand?

You might wan to relax a little vertigo, you ask people for advice and then throw it back in their face?

I'm not throwing advice back in people's faces, I'm throwing back unsupported opinion. If the E6300 is the fastest chip then fine, I have no problem believing that but only when supported with some figures, just as Corasik provided. I'm not the slightest bit interested in posts such as "Conroe E6300, end of" or "Conroe, job done" which are not backed up with any reasoning or figures as there's no way of telling whether these conclusions are the result of reasoned investigation on the part of the poster or what I call "fanboyism", where the poster has just bought into the hype and is assuming the Conroe is faster.

are you serious? lmao!

Of course I am, are you!? Note that I said "If the 945 does turn out to be faster than the E6300"! Having read the very useful link that Corasik provided, it does indeed appear that the E6300 is significantly faster than the 945 but if it had turned out that the 945 was quicker then yes I may well have gone with one of those as it's also cheaper, why is that so hard to understand? I strongly suspect you completely failed to read what I said and assumed I was claiming the 945 was faster than the E6300.

am2 does not work out the best option bang for buck conroe smacks its ass and sends it to sleep

It may well be the case that Conroe is a better bang-for-buck processor than any of the AM2 chips but comments such as the above and "why buy am2" with no reasoning or references just paint you as a Conroe fanboy I'm afraid.

troll

the low end 6300 smacks the similar price amd x 3800 on the butt.

what don't you understand?

I don't understand why you're incapable of restricting your comments to the subject in hand and providing anything resembling a reasoned argument.

Have a look at Corasik's post for an example of what I was after - reasoned argument backed up by a very informative review related directly to my question. All we get from you, OTOH, is how Conroe "smacks butt" and "sends AM2 to sleep", comments on the performance of your E6600 which are irrelevant and talk about overclocking which I specifically said I wasn't at all interested in.

As I've said above, you, Devious and others may well have reached your conclusions on the back of facts, figures & reviews, in which case just point me in the right direction as Corasik did and that'd be great. The problem is you don't post anything of the sort, you just post short quips about how awesome Conroe is and there's no way of telling whether your opinions are based on fact or hype and hearsay.

 

[Vertigo]

This man is on the ball, if you don't get conroe you are a fool.

More reasoned argument

EDIT: Actually, I can't be bothered with this thread anymore. Many thanks to Corasik for being about the only person who understood what I was on about and posted some useful info and a good link. It does indeed appear that the E6300 is the best processor out of the ones I listed, despite its clock speed and cache deficiency compared to some others, which is what I needed to know. Some of you will now no doubt claim that this is what you were telling me all along and it's my own stupid fault for not listening, whilst being totally unable to grasp why I wasn't prepared to rely on your unsupported "omg, Conroe rulez!" type posts. Whatever

 

[FreeStream]

More reasoned argument

My post in another thread:

Conroe is good because its cheap (although not the chepeast out of AMD/Intel atm) but still the cheapest one is very close to beating the AMD FX-62, after a mild overclock is whips its backside.

Overclocking: AMDs X2 on air tend to top at 3ghz. At the same clockspeed Conroe is 5-50% quicker, so at 3Ghz conroe still has 500 mhz to go just on air - although retail chips might be rubbish.

Performance: They are VERY good at number crunching, 15/18 sec at stock? 12/13 sec clocked on air. The fastest AMD has done it in what 17s? a 4.2Ghz FX-57. a usual 3Ghz does it in about 23/24 IIRC. And don't say it means F/A, as it shows number crunching power. Anything from Folding to 3D modelling will benefit from this. 3D is usually limited by the graphics card. But in some games (flight sims) Conroe excells as they are all majorly CPU limited.

Until AMD ramp up clockspeeds more (although the FX-62 is getting a very high TDP now) or they go to 65nm, AMD are now behind Intel, for how long? We don't know. K8L in 2008 might briung them ahead again.

CR.

P4s don't even come into the equation. So I stand by my comment. You don't buy conroe you are a fool (or a fan-boy). Don't call me one, i've had 6 AMD rigs, XP, then a awsome XP-M, then 3200, 3700 and then a X2.

 

[man_from_uncle]

Vertigo. My advice to you is to generally ignore those who don't, or aren't capable of, making an appropriate response to your particular question (or better still mollify them with cross-examination which should expose either their source of knowledge or their ignorance). Tearing strips of Easyrider's lackadaisical tendency to tell you what he thinks you ought to know, rather than what you ask, is a waste of time that'll get you no closer to having your questions answered but simultaneously get the backs up of half the community here. I sympathise with your longing for more actual data on the subject but you must understand that as abrupt as 'Conroe, nuff said' (or some such) is, it still contains within in it the abbreviated knowledge of some quite well informed people (not of course that you are to know that unless you cross-examine them).

Further, the 4th argument of evidence, as suggested by Henry Sidgwick, is to test consensus. And at least on that front you can be sure that Conroe is widely accepted to be the 'best thing since sliced bread'.

 

[Raikiri]

More reasoned argument

These do? 6300 is currently the best value CPU on the market especially for games and things like winrar

 

[Vertigo]

My post in another thread:

P4s don't even come into the equation. So I stand by my comment. You don't buy conroe you are a fool (or a fan-boy). Don't call me one, i've had 6 AMD rigs, XP, then a awsome XP-M, then 3200, 3700 and then a X2.

Fine, so why didn't you just give me a link to that in the first place rather than posting "Conroe, job done"?

 

[Vertigo]

These do? 6300 is currently the best value CPU on the market especially for games and things like winrar

Yep, excellent thank-you! Why couldn't people just post things like this to start with, it would have saved so much grief?

 

[smids]

Yep, excellent thank-you! Why couldn't people just post things like this to start with, it would have saved so much grief?

A lot of the posters here are highly knowledgeable on these subjects and when we answer the same questions every day or so, we get tired and abbreviate. Also, we impute a high standard of knowledge onto the posters who ask questions.

 

[Raikiri]

Looking at it, the performance of the 3800+ and the 6300 is about the same per £ but the 6300 has other advantages such as lower power consumption and more overclocking headroom.

 

[Vertigo]

I sympathise with your longing for more actual data on the subject but you must understand that as abrupt as 'Conroe, nuff said' (or some such) is, it still contains within in it the abbreviated knowledge of some quite well informed people (not of course that you are to know that unless you cross-examine them).

Exactly. As I don't frequent this forum a great deal and don't know the characters involved, all I see is a bunch of posters all shouting "of course Conroe pwns all, what are you, stupid!?" which is hardly constructive.

Further, the 4th argument of evidence, as suggested by Henry Sidgwick, is to test consensus. And at least on that front you can be sure that Conroe is widely accepted to be the 'best thing since sliced bread'.

It certainly does appear that way.

 

[easyrider]

I'm fully prepared to, but only when backed up with some hard facts rather than people just claiming it's better. I'm trying to separate fact from hype, why is this so hard to understand?.

Then do a search on the internet linking to reviews.If you want to be spoon fed the facts thats fine but some initial results and research done by oneself can lead you to what you need to know.

I'm not throwing advice back in people's faces, I'm throwing back unsupported opinion. If the E6300 is the fastest chip then fine, I have no problem believing that but only when supported with some figures, just as Corasik provided. I'm not the slightest bit interested in posts such as "Conroe E6300, end of" or "Conroe, job done" which are not backed up with any reasoning or figures as there's no way of telling whether these conclusions are the result of reasoned investigation on the part of the poster or what I call "fanboyism", where the poster has just bought into the hype and is assuming the Conroe is faster.

Here you go again with your fanboyism statements.No one is buying into the hype thay are buying into new technology that is significantly faster than previous gen cpu's.

Of course I am, are you!? Note that I said "If the 945 does turn out to be faster than the E6300"! Having read the very useful link that Corasik provided, it does indeed appear that the E6300 is significantly faster than the 945 but if it had turned out that the 945 was quicker then yes I may well have gone with one of those as it's also cheaper, why is that so hard to understand? I strongly suspect you completely failed to read what I said and assumed I was claiming the 945 was faster than the E6300.

So you were considering buying a slower older chip?
I had already stated the conroe was faster but you didn't believe.You believe a review on the internet but not first hand experience coming from someone who has had both AMD and 900 series cpu's in the past?

It may well be the case that Conroe is a better bang-for-buck processor than any of the AM2 chips but comments such as the above and "why buy am2" with no reasoning or references just paint you as a Conroe fanboy I'm afraid.

Why does it?People who educate themselves before upgrading are not fanboys for your information.They are people who have bothered to do a bit of research for themselves.Unlike you.

The reason you would not buy AM2 for the tenth time is that its slower.My conroe E6600 is faster than there flagship cpu beating it in everything thing it does.

My conroe beats my old amd 170 running at 2.8ghz (FX62) speeds by a massive margin.In all the benchies I have done.Have a look in the conroe overclocking thread for the facts screenies etc...that show this to be the case.

I don't understand why you're incapable of restricting your comments to the subject in hand and providing anything resembling a reasoned argument.

Have a look at Corasik's post for an example of what I was after - reasoned argument backed up by a very informative review related directly to my question. All we get from you, OTOH, is how Conroe "smacks butt" and "sends AM2 to sleep", comments on the performance of your E6600 which are irrelevant and talk about overclocking which I specifically said I wasn't at all interested in.

Fine Conroe is faster www.google.com

Your arguement is niether reasoned or very well put.You refuse to take advice from people that clearly know more than you and have actually compared conroe against other cpu's available in real world tests.

At stock of 2.4ghz (no overclocking) my E6600 was faster than my opty 170 running at the speed of the FX 62 by a staggering 9 seconds in 1mb super PI.

This is the conroe running 400 mhz slower than AMD flagship cpu.

As I've said above, you, Devious and others may well have reached your conclusions on the back of facts, figures & reviews, in which case just point me in the right direction as Corasik did and that'd be great. The problem is you don't post anything of the sort, you just post short quips about how awesome Conroe is and there's no way of telling whether your opinions are based on fact or hype and hearsay.

They are based on experience of actually using them in our pc's how can this be hype or heresay?

I have posted screenies of my conroe showing how much faster it is.These are not opinions this is hard fact photo evidence.I really dont see what else you need.

 

[FreeStream]

Fine, so why didn't you just give me a link to that in the first place rather than posting "Conroe, job done"?

Because,

A) Could I be one of the ones on this forum who have spent a lot of time over the last few months looking at benchmarks, clocks, power usage, etc? and actually be 'in the know' enough to make such comments?

B) I Posted that before I posted the other larger post.

C) I didn't want to type loads and loads just to make a simple point that Conroe is better. We have had loads of threads about it and its just boring.


Now, are we all agreed that Conroe is the best processor at the moment in time?


CR.