What PC do I get?

t31os · 10 Aug 2006 at 14:25

In terms of speed, the lowest Conroe cpu will perform on par with the 2nd fastest AMD cpu.

It will OC to on par with the fastest AMD with about a 200mhtz OC, which is a breeze with these CPU's.

The choice is yours, but the conroe will last longer and perform better.

MattJones2k6 · 10 Aug 2006 at 14:34

t31os said:
In terms of speed, the lowest Conroe cpu will perform on par with the 2nd fastest AMD cpu.

It will OC to on par with the fastest AMD with about a 200mhtz OC, which is a breeze with these CPU's.

The choice is yours, but the conroe will last longer and perform better.

Heard it a million times, its a war of AMD vs. Intel. Intel people have their opinions AMD people have their opinions.

Its your choice. Not ours. Yours.

t31os · 10 Aug 2006 at 14:35

There's no argument, i always used AMD, and still have one now.

I don't personally care which name is on the hardware, i get what goes best for cash. At this time, its clearly Intel.

I'm guessing you're an AMD fan though from that comment.

Trigger · 10 Aug 2006 at 14:39

You seem to have forgotten to mention the fact of the large price difference as well as the fact that the Intel stock coolers operate like lawnmowers not to mention the ability to fry a full english breakfast on a CPU such as the prescott. They also have poor compatibility with motherboards and RAM and as AMD have proven how well their CPUs run over time

MattJones2k6 · 10 Aug 2006 at 14:44

I remember a long time ago when everyone thought the LGA775 was the beezneez and AMD Athlon was crap .. i remember then fitting my m8's LGA775 locking system which i thought was HARSH on the motherboard. The LGA775 was also supposed to be good for gaming i used both 939 and the LGA 775 for gaming, don't forget your all quoting other people untill you use it yourself you won't know. This chip is still "New".

Start flaming now!!

Edit Found the AMD better for gmaing btw!!

phill9800 · 10 Aug 2006 at 16:16

I'm not so much torn between either of them because I think its mostly down to the graphics now rather than the CPU.. I think whatever I do buy the step up from this XP1600 will be amazing.. I did have a XP Mobile before this at 2.4ghz with a 6800GT, which I was dead impressed with. I'm sure it will wipe the floor with it

Roll on enough money time to buy it

I'll probably get AMD anyways!! :lol:

ubern00b · 10 Aug 2006 at 16:26

Gibbs said:
dont bother with AM2, not worth the money for a 7-9% performace incrase over S939.

Surely this is bad advice as s939 is EOL? As far as I am aware AMD are no longer making s939 chips and as such buying one now would be suicide, no upgrade path? I could be wrong, so this is also a question as well as a semi-statement

daz · 10 Aug 2006 at 16:28

Who cares about what company is making it, or what the company produced last year etc. I don't understand why people don't just go for best performance/price ratio... there's really no reason to have an affinity to any multi-billion dollar corporation.

Depending on your budget, it's going to be either AMD or Intel. You seem to have a big enough budget to go for the latest and greatest Intel CPUs, that appear to be far outperforming the AMDs at basically everything for the time being. I'm sure you'll be incredibly happy with either though. The CPU business is pretty cyclical (much like the graphics card industry) and they pretty much take turns at being top dog for gaming performance.

Trigger said:
I say go with number one. To be honest, I think that Conroe is extremley overrated and I've had enough bad experience with the junk Intel churn out to last me a lifetime so my advice is steer clear. Of couse I'm going to get flamed and moaned at but it doesn't bother me- Intel CPU's run like lawnmowers, end of

Weird advice. I'm not sure whether you're trolling or you just know very little.

Trigger · 10 Aug 2006 at 16:38

daz said:
Weird advice. I'm not sure whether you're trolling or you just know very little.

Thanks

I just don't like Intel that's all and I've had too many problems with them in the past to recommend them so I'm sticking with AMD whom I have had no problems with at all. Conroe is still very much a new technology as well so there are lots of creases to iron out like compatibility issues. As for them running like lawnmowers, well they do- the amount of heat the prescott CPU churns out is just daft.

As a side note, what is trolling? I've heard it mentioned in GD numerous times but never got it

ubern00b · 10 Aug 2006 at 16:41

Trigger said:
As for them running like lawnmowers, well they do- the amount of heat the prescott CPU churns out is just daft.

Mate you obviously have read nothing technical, nor any other sort of information about the Conroes. They are a complete new core design pumping out far less heat than the netburst architecture. I would read about them before snapping to judgements based on very old tech.

Trigger · 10 Aug 2006 at 16:46

ubern00b said:
Mate you obviously have read nothing technical, nor any other sort of information about the Conroes. They are a complete new core design pumping out far less heat than the netburst architecture. I would read about them before snapping to judgements based on very old tech.

I know full well that Conroe uses a new core design and gives off slightly less heat- I'm talking about Intel's methods as in why did even old tech such as the prescott pump out so much heat?

I'm not going to argue- you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine

j00ni · 10 Aug 2006 at 16:51

If you do decide to go conroe the Gigabyte boards have reported issues with that particular RAM, I believe the Corsair is what has been recommended as an alternative

(I'm not going to advise either way, as there are plenty of threads on the subject if you want to guage opinion - all I will say is that I am upgrading, but on a lesser budget and am plumping for conroe, and that's after 5 years of happy computing on an AMD desktop)

daz · 10 Aug 2006 at 17:03

Trigger said:
Thanks I just don't like Intel that's all and I've had too many problems with them in the past to recommend them so I'm sticking with AMD whom I have had no problems with at all. Conroe is still very much a new technology as well so there are lots of creases to iron out like compatibility issues. As for them running like lawnmowers, well they do- the amount of heat the prescott CPU churns out is just daft.

As a side note, what is trolling? I've heard it mentioned in GD numerous times but never got it

Trolling is posting a deliberately inflammatory comment, in order to generate lots of responses and arguing.

The Prescott was a bad CPU, but looking back to just a few years ago when the Northwood core was launched, it was the best CPU around for overclocking. It all goes in cycles. I own AMD and Intel systems, and I'm not going to swear my allegiance to either - I'll just get the best I can get for my money at the time.

(Whatever image AMD tries to portray as an underdog, it is, afterall a multi-billion dollar corporation!)

t31os · 10 Aug 2006 at 18:05

The question here its whats best for the money, regardless of wether you prefer AMD or not.

We're also not discussing old cpu's we're discussing the AM2, 939 and Conroe here, so old tech problems with older chips have zero relevance to this thread.

I'm glad quite a few people agree with me, quite sick of reading fanboy comments that clearly avoid the facts and just cause arguments without a leg to stand on, it derails the thread and doesnt help the OP much at all.

Again as it stands, Conroe is the best, debate it all you like....... but go do it where other fanboys are willing ignore the facts and stats posted ALL OVER THE WEB.

--------------------------- To the thread starter --------------------

Sorry about the rant above.

Conroe is a little problematic at this time, but with the right choice of memory and a bios flash and you shouldnt see any problems.

My buddy just got a Conroe, with some GSkill (which didnt work), replaced with Corsair, and it works, although still defaulting at the wrong CAS setting. Again this is likely to be fixed with the next bios update.

He's still hit 2.9 with the above problems.

Look at it this way, AM2 and Core 2 Duo (conroe) are the 2 to go for, 939 is old and it will be harder to replace parts or fix if anything should fail, since 939 is fading out... etc.....

The AM2 will still run like a dream. If you prefer AMD, go that route, but if you don't mind, then consider Conroe. Or if its better for you, choose which works out cheapest.

j00ni · 10 Aug 2006 at 18:12

t31os said:
snip

here here

Trigger · 10 Aug 2006 at 18:20

t31os said:
The question here its whats best for the money, regardless of wether you prefer AMD or not.

We're also not discussing old cpu's we're discussing the AM2, 939 and Conroe here, so old tech problems with older chips have zero relevance to this thread.

I'm glad quite a few people agree with me, quite sick of reading fanboy comments that clearly avoid the facts and just cause arguments without a leg to stand on, it derails the thread and doesnt help the OP much at all.

Again as it stands, Conroe is the best, debate it all you like....... but go do it where other fanboys are willing ignore the facts and stats posted ALL OVER THE WEB.

That's not what I'm getting at- the Conroe chip is a better performer than the X2 at the moment and I appreciate your point on that- what I am trying to point out is that there are still a lot of compatibility issues to be ironed out and I would prefer to use something when I know it's going to work and going to work properly. Much like windows vista- I won't use that as my main os until it has been in mainstream use for a while so that all the little creases can be ironed out of that with a service pack

Sorry if I came accross as an AMD fanboy because that I am not. AMD definatley has it's flaws but I am just pointing out that I have had less problems with them and I prefer to get something which I know will work for my money :cool:

t31os · 10 Aug 2006 at 19:36

Ok, i hear ya mate...

From what i've read, and know from hearing my buddies personal experience (he's registered here to), the issues are mainly board/memory related, and in his case the board.

I did however mention choosing the right memory you can run the system fine, ie. corsair worked in my buddies case. The memory issues are currently pointing at certain sticks, which you can see from the numerous conroe threads. Choosing the a board and memory that are known to work together should be easy now given the amount of threads about it. So as long as anyone spec'ing up a conroe rig takes the time to research and read about the parts they put together, its easily avoidable of having problems.

I will agree though, quite simply with the AMD its simply pick a part, stick it with another and it works, "pretty much"..... lol....

phill9800 · 10 Aug 2006 at 19:39

t31os said:
The question here its whats best for the money, regardless of wether you prefer AMD or not.

The AM2 will still run like a dream. If you prefer AMD, go that route, but if you don't mind, then consider Conroe. Or if its better for you, choose which works out cheapest.

Thank you for your comments.

All I really did ask, for the money, which was the better. I'm not a fanboy myself, but I do prefer AMD for some reason!!

I will consider the Intel as it is the fastest and as its the fastest at a slightly bit more money, as I have always firmly believed that paying out that slightly bit more is always worth it, because you get what you pay for.

I will post results and let you know what happens in due course. Damn car has to come first for a bit!!