Intel Dual Core from £79 +VAT

Raikiri · 13 Mar 2006 at 23:45

Not bad at all!

But what cooling exactly? I know "air"

locutus12 · 13 Mar 2006 at 23:46

lowrider007 said:
Thats very true, I recently orderd and built a AMD system for my mate which was a Sandiego 3700+ on a ASrock 939dual-SATA2 M/B with a gig dual channel ddr400, as I had the machine for a few days before he picked it up I decided I would to some bench tests on it with my 7800GTX gfx card and to my suprise, compared to my intel 3.4 there was really very little difference, farcry, doom3 and bf2 all only scored about 10-15 fps higher than my intel setup on the same settings, tbh I was a little gutted, I was hoping it was going to "kick my systems performance in the bum" as some AMD fanboys would say, perhaps even the sandiego 3700+ was cpu limited.

thats not exactly a fair test... if youd done a stream of CPU tests then fine but using game tests to find info about cpu performance is a bad idea in my opinion as game test results have a lot of variables to them when your looking for CPU benchmarks, its just not a ture representation of what that cpu can do...

valerian said:
how is it that lots of you who have AMD's constantly dig at others with intels,
im quite happy with my intel thank you

i like my ddr2 also

it smacks of underdogitis

much like stoke and vale (ha ha)

its not that the AMD people dont like the Chips, they just dont like Intel.

its got nothing to do with Intels products and everything to do with the fact that intel are a large evil corporate entity that got to where it is today by screwing people over and has remained where it is today by paying people off.

valerian · 13 Mar 2006 at 23:53

i dont know anything about AMD, but im sure they are no angels in the business ethics world.

as mr burns said

family
religion
friends
these are the 3 demons you must slay to succeed in business

i think the choice of chips largely depends on what you have first, i.e. product loyalty

and historically price which you alluded to

Raikiri · 13 Mar 2006 at 23:56

valerian said:
i think the choice of chips largely depends on what you have first, i.e. product loyalty

Yeah I had intel first, put me right off 'em

this price is too good to resist though

Things change I've changed · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:17

locutus12 said:
thats not exactly a fair test... if youd done a stream of CPU tests then fine but using game tests to find info about cpu performance is a bad idea in my opinion as game test results have a lot of variables to them when your looking for CPU benchmarks, its just not a ture representation of what that cpu can do...

I don't see how this was,unt a fair test, in fact its in AMD's favour as I was comparing my p4 3.4 to a 3700+, anyway, I wanted to see what the difference in peformance was IN GAMES, bench marking them in apps like 3dmark etc would,dnt of given me a true representation of real world performance and thats what I wanted to see, tbh I fed up with si-soft sandra, Aqua, 3dmark etc, these days I use game engine benchmark ultilites, I can get much higher points in 3dmark2006 than a sandiego 3700+ with the same gfx etc as my Intel system but what exackly does that mean ?, I know the AMD will beat my system in every game out.

Raikiri · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:18

lowrider007 said:
I don't see how this was,unt a fair test, in fact its in AMD's favour as I was comparing my p4 3.4 to a 3700+, anyway, I wanted to see what the difference in peformance was IN GAMES, bench marking them in apps like 3dmark etc would,dnt of given me a true representation of real world performance and thats what I wanted to see, tbh I fed up with si-soft sandra, 3dmark, etc these days I use game engine benchmark ultilites, I can get much higher points in 3dmark2006 than a sandiego 3700+ with the same gfx etc as my Intel system but what exackly does that mean ?, I know the AMD will beat my system in every game out.

comparing a 3.4 to a 3700+ is no way in AMD's favour.

You have to compare prices not ghz vs. ratings so it was in intels favour

Things change I've changed · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:20

Raikiri said:
comparing a 3.4 to a 3700+ is no way in AMD's favour.

You have to compare prices not ghz vs. ratings so it was in intels favour

WHAAAAAAAATTTTTTTT????????? you can't be serious, so you can't compare intel cpu's to the AMD's ratings anymore, b-cos thats news to me,

check all the cpu benchmark reviews on the net b-cos thats how its been done for years mate, by your terms you can only compare a p4 2.2 to a amd 3700+ ummmmm, I don't think so

Raikiri · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:24

lowrider007 said:
WHAAAAAAAATTTTTTTT????????? you can't be serious, so you can't compare intel cpu's to the AMD's ratings anymore, b-cos thats news to me

Ok then, shall we compare the new 2.66ghz conroe to a dual 2600 xpm setup?

lowrider007 said:
check all the cpu benchmark reviews on the net b-cos thats how its been done for years mate, by your terms you can only compare a p4 2.2 to a amd 3700+ ummmmm, I don't think so

Dont be a nub, I said by price not by ghz :rolleyes:

Things change I've changed · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:28

Raikiri said:
Ok then, shall we compare the new 2.66ghz conroe to a dual 2600 xpm setup?

If Intel decides to give Conroes a rating, comparing them to AMD' megahertz then we will compre them to that

Raikiri · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:30

You seem to have missed what I have said completely

Ignore what GHZ they are, ignore what rating they are given. The only fair way to compare a cpu is to compare it with the nearest priced one. So the direct competitor to the 3700+ is the 640

Things change I've changed · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:30

Raikiri said:
Dont be a nub, I said by price not by ghz

woooooooo, sorry dude, I jumped the gun there, I really did,unt notice you said by price, I just read the first line and went into attack mode, yes I agree price to performance ratio etc does come into it.

Raikiri · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:31

lowrider007 said:
woooooooo, sorry dude, I jumped the gun there, I really did,unt notice you said by price, I just read the first line and went into acttack mode, yes I agree price to performance ratio etc does come into it.

I take back my rolleyes

Things change I've changed · 14 Mar 2006 at 00:34

Raikiri said:
I take back my rolleyes

no problem mate, I am a bit of a noob, and love Intel a little more than I should

Gibbo · 14 Mar 2006 at 08:41

Hi there

Well if they all clock like this then they are absolute bargains if you ask me.

Capt Doufos · 14 Mar 2006 at 09:18

Raikiri said:
Not bad at all!

But what cooling exactly? I know "air"

Sorry, Asus Star Ice.

maddness · 14 Mar 2006 at 09:29

nice results there, how about some benchies like 3dmark/pcmark so we can see what kind of performance the 2mb cache gives over the 4mb of the big brother presler

Capt Doufos · 14 Mar 2006 at 09:53

I will do some 3Dmarking when I get home from work.

matt1 · 14 Mar 2006 at 10:09

That is very impressive, 4GHz seems a good mark would be interesting to see if this is stable. I want to build one of these! I'm sure this forum contributes to my 'upgrading addiction', not been on for a few months and I've managed ok. :eek:

maddness · 14 Mar 2006 at 10:15

matt1 said:
That is very impressive, 4GHz seems a good mark would be interesting to see if this is stable. I want to build one of these! I'm sure this forum contributes to my 'upgrading addiction', not been on for a few months and I've managed ok.

tell me about it, i upgraded to pressies cause of vapor matt (i think/thank)

Emlyn_Dewar · 14 Mar 2006 at 11:43

Capt Doufos, what board are you running that Pentium D in?