Would it be worth updating my video cards

[ShadowFold]

how can ANYONE say the 6000+ @ 3.3ghz is weak!!

If I were you I would sell the X1950's and get a 8800GTS 512mb or two HD 3850's.

 

[theonetruewill]

I am moving from AMD but it is not for 3Dmark reasons. However, I do completely agree with trog here. Anyone who says otherwise is frankly talking nonsense. There are only a few reasons that you need to go Intel over an AMD 6000 as an enthusiast:

-You are a serious benchmarker, and I respect you for that.
-You want to follow the crowd, I don't respect that.
-Someone told you they were so Uber super duper and could destroy wimpy AMD crap. Intel H4xor 1337 chips FTW!!!.... need I say more about your source.
-You are genuinely wanting to overclock to very high speeds, and the work you do does actually benefits from the processing power.
-You're bored with AMD chips, fairs fair, we all like a little change.
-You plan to use a Quad core, for gaming in pretty much the only game that uses it - Supreme Commander.
EDIT: - You plan to use software that takes advantage of the very fast design and you will actually benefit from that.

AMD is fine with most stuff. I myself am going Intel at the very moment. however I am doing it for the last reason listed (I plan to go quad after the E2140), I plan to get a 100% overclock to give me a sense of primitive achievement, and I'm bored with AMD- I want to try something new. Bear in mind I've changed gfx cards 4 times in 8 months so please accept that I get bored easily- a fault of mine. Final note: a 6000 is not a bottleneck unless you play at 1024x768 and can genuinely see the difference between 300 and 400fps. I can't and neither can 99.99999% of the world; the rest are lying anyway. Bottlenecks in all games, bar massive RTS titles, are GPU bottlenecked.

 

[cdawall]

you missed a reason you do video editing or CAD or another multi threaded app that benifits from the high speed quad core intel

 

[trt740]

Nice, read my post again. I said it is different per game and there are several (ie not so many) games where the AMD will shit out. That kinda makes your post the BS since it is a response to something that hasn't been said. Quid pro quo.

And the whole innovation thing is of course false, Core is based on the P6. Intel was only forced to use AMD64 extensions, not because they were superior to Intel's (nobody will ever know if it is or not) but because Microsoft wouldn't make a 3rd 64bit Windows. What else have they copied?

Dan you really are very intel bias every thread your on some one points this out try to be fair. As for the innovation thing this has been reported in several tech magaizines aswell as review cites , and even the future intel chips are going to copy AMDs onboard memory controller. This infact is a good thing because in the 90's AMD copied the heck out of Intels stuff and improved it. Intel is the performance king for sure it's just how much performance do you need. I think unless AMD has a major break thru, this time next year it won't be the same company it is today. The AMD part may go under with ATI as a seperate company. Since from what I read ATI is going to take back the GPU crown in the near future.

 

[trog100]

a wee bit off topic but we do seem to be on an amd or intel thing.. or even a more cores the better thing..

i have just handled some 6 gig rar files.. intel wins out in winrar benches or so i thought.. but..

i am pretty sure my single core amd sandy chip would have done the job just as quickly.. turning a bunch of rars into a 6 gig iso file for example.. i sit there seeing 10% cpu usage waiting for my bloody hardrive..

my old single core amd sandy would have shown a far higher cpu usage but still unrared the things just as quickly..

it strikes me all this cpu power is being wasted cos someone needs to re-invent the bloody hardrive..

trog

ps.. in fact seeing low cpu usage is a trend i have noticed.. what i used to consider cpu intensive things showing 100% cpu usage i am now seeing more cores going bloody slower with no real llife performance gain..

 

[pt]

a wee bit off topic but we do seem to be on an amd or intel thing.. or even a more cores the better thing..

i have just handled some 6 gig rar files.. intel wins out in winrar benches or so i thought.. but..

i am pretty sure my single core amd sandy chip would have done the job just as quickly.. turning a bunch of rars into a 6 gig iso file for example.. i sit there seeing 10% cpu usage waiting for my bloody hardrive..

my old single core amd sandy would have shown a far higher cpu usage but still unrared the things just as quickly..

it strikes me all this cpu power is being wasted cos someone needs to re-invent the bloody hardrive..

trog

ps.. in fact seeing low cpu usage is a trend i have noticed.. what i used to consider cpu intensive things showing 100% cpu usage i am now seeing more cores going bloody slower with no real llife performance gain..

get a new nand hard drive

 

[trog100]

"get a new nand hard drive"

i need a new shotgun and learn how to be a bank robber first

trog

 

[JrRacinFan]

LMAO, Nice one trog.