amd vs intel processor for pc under 600$

[Tatty_Two]

Again I would go for the E6600 and sorry would have to agree with Hat over the Quad Core but for different reasons Too few apps take advantage of dual core let alone Quad, also quad is such a price hike, just cause it's Quad dont make it faster and whilst it definatly is better technology "better" can be very subjective, Personally, and it is only my opinion I would got as I said for the 6600.

I do not beleive in paying today for something that I dont feel I can get value out of today, in Quads case.....yes, down the line maybe's but in that case, down the line is when I will buy it.

 

[Wile E]

Again I would go for the E6600 and sorry would have to agree with Hat over the Quad Core but for different reasons Too few apps take advantage of dual core let alone Quad, also quad is such a price hike, just cause it's Quad dont make it faster and whilst it definatly is better technology "better" can be very subjective, Personally, and it is only my opinion I would got as I said for the 6600.

I do not beleive in paying today for something that I dont feel I can get value out of today, in Quads case.....yes, down the line maybe's but in that case, down the line is when I will buy it.

The Q6600 will be the same price as the 3Ghz dual core in 2 months. And again, we don't know what he'll be doing with the compy. If he's doing a/v work, or is a heavy multitasker, the quad will be better for him.

If I could afford it, I would have a quad. I'm always having to stop tasks to start another because a dual isn't enough for me. But, then again, I'm one of those weirdos that will try to play a game while encoding a video, and keep f@h going, all at the same time. lol

 

[erocker]

Hey Tatty... how well would your system run a 2900xt or 8800? I really want to dump this s939 system.
Whats the diff between the 4300 and 4400?

 

[x800professor]

The Q6600 will be the same price as the 3Ghz dual core in 2 months. And again, we don't know what he'll be doing with the compy. If he's doing a/v work, or is a heavy multitasker, the quad will be better for him.

If I could afford it, I would have a quad. I'm always having to stop tasks to start another because a dual isn't enough for me. But, then again, I'm one of those weirdos that will try to play a game while encoding a video, and keep f@h going, all at the same time. lol

Imagine the future...16 cores...32 cores...64 cores...never, ever experiencing slow down while a process waits its turn. Now that's what I want. Now imagine talking to a 15 year old computer geek 10 years from now. "You used to have single core processors?!"

 

[Tatty_Two]

Hey Tatty... how well would your system run a 2900xt or 8800? I really want to dump this s939 system.
Whats the diff between the 4300 and 4400?

It would run it as well as most C2D's, the difference between the 4300 and the 4400 is meerly 9x and 10x multiplier therefore the stock speed of the 4300 is 1.8Gig and the 4400 2Gig, remembering these have the 800Mhz FSB. I am getting the E6600 this week however to replace the 4300, 3.3Gig just aint enuff for me! It's ver much the luck of the draw but most dont get beyond 3.3Gig as the 4300 and 4400 have the less than famous L2 stepping.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I hear what you are saying Wile and I cannot argue with that but I dont think your example is particularily commonplace for most users, I convert a lot of audio from analogue to digital and often do so either whilst playing a game or watching a movie and that activity does not result in full load on either of my cores.(usually)

I just think that with some exceptions, possibly you too from what you have said, most people dont really need one yet and many actually just multitask more after they have bought the processor (because they can)as opposed to needing it because they were grinding to a halt before they bought it if you get my meaning. IMO you do not need a core per app/activity but thats what manufacturers would at times like us to beleive.