seeking advice

Jimbob87

Jimbob87

Jimbob87

Associate
Joined
5 Jan 2007
Posts
1
Hi everybody! :D

I am looking at building my first pc, which I want to use for gaming. I'm hoping you guys could give some advice and point me in the right direction, if you dont mind. I have been looking at CPU's and am tossing up between:

Intel core 2 duo E6300 1.86GHz 1066FSB
or
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ 2.20GHz

A question I have, is for christmas I got a computer game that requires 3GHz to run. Where I was looking at other CPU's such as

Intel Pentium 4 945 Dual Core "LGA775 Presler" 3.4GHz 800FSB

Would it not be worth getting the 3.4GHz? as my assumption was that as it is duo it will give out double the stated value and what significance does FSB have as I see the 1.86GHZ has more?

your help will be much appreciated, thanks :)
 
The easiest question on your list to answer is that of Front Side Bus. This will determine the speed with which your processor communicates with your RAM. It used to be simple in the old days but now things have mulitpliers and limiters flying all over the place but to cut a long story short... high FSB is better for many applications including games.

Sheer clock speed is no longer a good indicator of speed, which I'm sure you've already read up on.

My advice would be to go for one of the dual core processors, they do not quite give out twice their clock but yes they do give more than a single core of the same or higher value. I would tell you to go for the AMD processor for two reasons:

1 - AMDs are that little bit cheaper
2 - Intel have the most ridiculous advertising for their duo range that I have ever seen. A man in lots of different positions with an intel symbol near him..... what a load of pants. But because it's on bill boards everyone wants it..... blah blah blah..... country is going to the dogs....... rant rant rant...... 1945..... bloody lesbians.....


Sorry, where was I? Ah yes.. Take your pick of the two cores, you'll get various people giving you various answers and they wont agree. Mine is to go for AMD as it's cheaper and just as good but the decision is ultimately yours.

(it's cheaper due to the lack of advertising BTW)
 
H2F Scott said:
Bit harsh?

But yeah, I agree. Go with the C2D.
Click to expand...

You have to understand that, what we input here will make an effect on how a person decides on which components to buy.

What if no one posts after Nefarious did? The chances of OP buying the AMD will rise up from 50% to 75%. Hence wasting his money when he can get a much better performing cpu.
 
Intel is a better chip -yes, I don't deny this but many of the reviews out there are showing that in actual game performance you would be far better off ploughing the extra money into your GPU.

Intel has better memory bandwidth at the moment due to the memory clock divider (which I hinted at in my original posting) but due to the substantial savings from going for AMD you can get a much better GPU.

I am willing to admit I'm wrong over things but could you please give citation over insult. I can cite several tests where the GPU is shown to be the limiting factor for gaming (what he will be using it for). If he were ripping DVDs or doing video encoding what I had said would have been complete twaddle but I can only go on what I'm told.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014650,00.asp
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom