e6600 vs x2 3800+ system price comparison

[AshenSugar]

the e6300 isnt 300 bux lol. so lets say $260.00 for GPU..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102067

if your talking about the E6600...lol well there not even in the same performanc/price range.

even if it was a x1950pro..still would be overkill for todays games as my x850xt PE plays all at high res.

what do you consider high res?

this is a place people need to be more spicific, to me high res is 1600x1200 and up, but to some/many people 1024x768 or 1280x1024 is high res(lcd people and those with crappy 17in monotors mostly)

i have na x800xt pe in my 3700+ system, and it can play most games at 1600x1200 with decent/good quility settings, and 1280x1024 it can do oblivion at 30+fps(no shadows is the only tweak) fear has to be down to 1280x1024 for me to crank things all the way up even with shadows dissabled.

its a matter of prespective, but i can tell you the 3700+ at 2,6gz isnt holding the card back.

a 3800+ isnt gonna hold an x1900/1950xt card back either, but the x19*0xt is gonna give the system using it a HUGE gaming advantage over an x800xtpe/x850xtpe system.

and most of what people do at home(specly gamers) wont show any benifit from c2d over x2, things like browsing/surfing, emailing, chatting, game editing/tweaking, downloading, none of that stuffs gonna show a benefit that you can see/feel even if you went x6800ee, its like making an email machien for your mother using an fx62,x6800ee, or p4-EE chip vs using a cheap sempy64, shes not gonna feel the diffrance, because even the cheaper cpu has more power then is needed to do the job.

 

[AshenSugar]

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=17

this pretty much shows that cpu isnt gonna be the limmiting factor, gpu is

ps, yes the c2d gets more fps, but any cpu will get you your refresh rate in fps if you give it the proper video card(vsync enabled=best quility due to lack of image taring)

 

[Wile E]

Again, for overall system performance, C2D is the way to go. Nobody, and I repeat, NOBODY only games 100% of the time. If you're specifically in the market for a dual core cpu, you obviously feel you need the processing benefits offered by multiple cores, so why not go with the OVERALL better choice? C2D outperforms AMD PERIOD. You can throw all the gaming benchmarks you want, it still doesn't redeem AMD. They are getting their butts handed to them. I can bog my 3800+X2 @ 2.7GHz by running 3 Firefox windows, Encoding with Nero, Emailing with Thunderbird and having an HD H.264 video run. My friend with the 3.2Ghz E6300 clocked it down to 2.6xxGHz (to do a head-to-head comparo w/me) and can do all this, plus run Folding@Home in the background, and still NOT be maxed out.(In all fairness, I didn't witness this myself, this was over the phone with me, but I have no reason to doubt him) Oh, and his ran 10degC cooler, on air, doing it(I'm water cooled, BTW). My point? C2D also multitasks a hell of a lot better than X2. Again, the ONLY reason NOT to buy C2D is extremely strict budget constraints.

And to point it out, I have an AM2 3800+X2. I've been an AMD fan for years now. I used to hate Intel anything, but I have learned to admit my defeat. The sooner you do the same, the better off you'll be. C2D wins, hands down.

 

[AshenSugar]

my advice, get more ram, my singel core system is running opera with 8 windows open, yahoo, msn, vlc playing x.264 hd movie, running dbpoweramp converting audio books from flac to mp3(for use with my mp3 cd player) oh and i have prime95 running as well and i still have over 300mb free ram and no lagg when swaping windows

your using 1gb ram, that really isnt enought for heavy multi tasking anymore, specly if your running windows xp with all the latest patches(they slow the system down)

many people misstake lagg from lack of ram for lagg from lack of cpu power. OH and im on a singel core 3500+ not dual core, sure dual core would be nice, but hell at the time i got this chip the 3800 was over 200bucks vs this at 85bucks, i will grab a dual core once the new cores hit the market and i see whats the best value, i got no complaints i can do anything i like without problems as it is.

oh and if i need to encode/recode video i use my backup system a 3700+ clawhmmer with 2gb ddr1, why bog down my main rid when my backup can do the job just as well and allow me to game all i like as it does it?

try a c2d encoding to h264 with 1gb ram and running the apps your fond of all at once, trust me, it will bog down, h264 is very stressfull even to the best chips on the market (my buddys dual xeon system at 3.4gz with 4gb ram even bogs down)

 

[Deleted member 3]

try a c2d encoding to h264 with 1gb ram and running the apps your fond of all at once, trust me, it will bog down, h264 is very stressfull even to the best chips on the market (my buddys dual xeon system at 3.4gz with 4gb ram even bogs down)

I suggest he installs his software correctly. My 2.4s could already do such things while playing Quake 4 without any noticeable performance drop. Those were Prestonias. And once I order some additional RAM for my current system this system will do so without breaking a sweat as well.

 

[Wile E]

I should've also pointed out that he has the exact same ram kit that I do. We got them for $80 a kit from a local mom and pop shop that was having a going out of business sale. They were the only 2 kits of DDR2 800 they had left, in any size. We couldn't pass them up. I'm waiting for the prices to drop back down a little more, then I plan on buying another of the same kit. (Although I've heard that AM2 boards don't like running 4 sticks, any truth to that?)

 

[Deleted member 24505]

i thought amd dont like running 4 sticks full stop.i might be wrong tho'.

 

[Tatty_Two]

i thought amd dont like running 4 sticks full stop.i might be wrong tho'.

Your right most of the time but some are OK with it, it's very much the motherboard manufacturer, with my old 3200 Venice on an Asrock Dual SATA 2 it would not run 4 stsicks of 512MB but for some strange reason my current system/mobo/cpu will, I only tried it the once tho when I first got it before I bought my current 2 x 1GB kit.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Had a quick read thru all of these posts, some interesting stuff here. I am seeing ram quantities and the like come into the equation, this was not mentioned in the initial post, there is NO doubt that the C2D is the fastest thing out there and noone can really doubt that (certainly not me), the origional point however was aimed at gaming and TBH a C2D will generally give you better gaming performance.....why? because even in the most GPU biased games the CPU still plays a part, 3D Mark 2005 is heavily GPU dependant but with the same GPU, same system, same settings etc if you ran the test with each processor the higher score would go the the C2D, just like with my current rig, at 3Gig I get a 3D Mark 2005 score of 11,480 and at 3.2Gig it's up to 11,818 or whatever it is in my siggie link, all other settings are identical.

The key thing however is, unless you have the VERY highest performing GPU then the CPU is less of a factor in as much as if the GPU aint got the revs to handle the game it dont matter what CPU is in the slot, where it does matter is on that "borderline" where the GPU is struggling with FPS, that extra CPU juice could just make an unplayable game playable, all just my own thoughts of course.

 

[lemonadesoda]

If someone says "3800+ x2 > C2D" then that's womens logic. There's no point arguing. You are wasting your breath. Just say "yes, dear", and get a cold beer, turn on the game, and put your feet up...

 

[DRDNA]

In ALL instances and in all things the Highest performing Processor will always out perform the lower performing processor set up with the same GPU.....There is no way of fooling people with any thing other than that !!!!

Well I can say AMD held the performance crown and did so fairly well for some time , but the CD2 is the KING right now!!!! The thing thats killing me is I kinda prefer AMD and that was great cuz they had the performance lead but the ratio of AMD's performance lead compared to this phenomenal lead in performance that Intel is now showing is like almost to the point of being unmeasurable as where Intel's performance is like viewing the Grand Canyon .....

Oh-well such is life o few months ago I had the king pin processor now i have chump change compared to CD2's performance....... careful now thats chump changed compared to the CD2 but i am still gaming and benching very well just not when compared to the CD2 set ups............this AMD dude(me) wants a CD2 set up very much now , but because of this phenomenal lead Intel has dished out ; I feel the time is right to see what this new 4x chips will due.....AMD feeling they must save face in the performance area and Intel giving us magic performing chips !!!(very interesting time frame for processors)

 

[beachbum86]

C2D pwns AM2 in performance... Prove me wrong.

(and dont show a FX-62 on phase change and OC'ed to the max against a stock e6300)

 

[DRDNA]

C2D pwns AM2 in performance... Prove me wrong.

(and dont show a FX-62 on phase change and OC'ed to the max against a stock e6300)

lol

 

[Tatty_Two]

C2D pwns AM2 in performance... Prove me wrong.

(and dont show a FX-62 on phase change and OC'ed to the max against a stock e6300)

Did anyone actually say that AM2 was better? because clearly it's not!

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Did anyone actually say that AM2 was better? because clearly it's not!

but for the low end market, it cant be touched!

 

[Wile E]

^^^^ Hey!!! Don't laugh! That's where I'm stuck! lol

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

^^^^ Hey!!! Don't laugh! That's where I'm stuck! lol

As are most of us.

Which is why the intal fanbois can eat it

 

[DOM]

As are most of us.

Which is why the intal fanbois can eat it

what you can eat are dust.

 

[DRDNA]

even with MY Vapochill LS I am eating dust





Any one have a CD2 they want to trade for umm possibly an A64 3700+ ??