|
Choosing CPU.....
|
|
|
T3kk
Junior Member
|
5. February 2007 @ 20:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. February 2007 @ 04:33 |
Link to this message
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. February 2007 @ 04:50
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 10:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
intel core 2 duo is better
[
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
If the AMD was a faster model such as a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ AM2 Dual Core, or a AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ AM2 Dual Core would the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Conroe Dual Core still win?
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes dude if ure gonna get a faster model of the amd y not get a faster model of the core 2 duo
[
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:14 |
Link to this message
|
Well its that I've already got a computer with a 4600+ and I figured it was faster, but my friend has a computer with a Intel E6300, and the computers are basiclly the same except for that. But mine has 2 gigs of ram and his only has 1 gig. But after encoding DVDs using Nero on both of our computers, mine ran at around 65 frames, and his ran at about 90. But mine is faster when using DVD Shrink. So I was just wondering if I should have got the E6300 or E6400 over my 4600+.
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
hehe imagine if he had 2gb, on Nero i get 480 when recoding a dvd (and i have a pentium d)
[
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yea, I have no clue why mine is so slow. If my computer should be the faster one all around. Better yet, how do you get 480 with a Penitum D (not that I know much about Pentium D), but I thought AMD's Dual Cores Beat Intel hands down in the benchmak test there.
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
true dude but i said recoding not encoding a movie to a dvd encoding a dvd i probably get 160 tough it depends on the ram timming alot from what i experienced
[
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:32 |
Link to this message
|
I suppose I'll try recoding just to see what I get and compare. I don't think I've ever recoded anything using Nero actually.
Edit: Well I can't give an exact number of frames because it kept jumping really bad, but it did take 3 minutes and 34 seconds to finish, and I never recode anything so I don't know how good or bad that is.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. February 2007 @ 13:41
|
|
T3kk
Junior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 15:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
so i should get the intel one? im confused....can anyone tell me straight foward which one i should get and why i should get it?
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
intel core 2 duo is faser so get it and its cheaper THE END
[
|
Junior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 16:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
intel core 2 duo is faser so get it and its cheaper THE END
Cheaper as in quality? Because it is less expensive to buy comparable AMD CPUs. elokito has obviously never played with a PC using an AMD cpu. As far as speed goes between the AMD and Intel CPUs you are looking at, the AMD is much faster. When AM2 CPUs came out, intel almost shatt their pants because it was totally unexpected from AMD. And besides, the worlds fastest PC was built with an AMD cpu.(even though it was insanely overclocked) I guarantee you will enjoy that AMD over the intel cpu.
PS. Stay away from Socket 939 CPUs. AMD already stopped producton on them. So there won't be much upgrading in the future if you were to get one. Just some advice.
Microsoft XP Pro 5.01.2600 SP2
ASRock K8Upgrade-1689 MoBo
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0Ghz
480 Watt PS (generic)
1024 PC3200 Kingston RAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 128MB
160GB Seagate HDD @ 7200rpm
120GB Seagate HDD @ 7200rpm
Lite-on DVDRW SOHW 1633s
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. February 2007 @ 16:24
|
Senior Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 16:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't know if you can say that AMD is that much better than intel. If it was a comparison between AMD dual core and Pentium D then I would deffinatly say that AMD is much better. But I think the Core 2 Duo is probablly faster than the AMD. It seems the Core 2 Duos run very efficiently. No offence but I think you just like Intel alot.
|
Senior Member
|
7. February 2007 @ 00:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
hell yeah the core 2 duo beats the am2 ANY DAY , ANY DAY!
im not an intel fan nor amd fan i go with what IS FASTER he asked which is faster i said the truth the core 2 duo is faster than any amd out (except the quad core)
[
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. February 2007 @ 00:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. February 2007 @ 02:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
It is really going to come down to personal choice, people are going to sit here for days going back and forth on the AMD VS Intel thing.
I know people who build PC all the time and each prefers one or the other for their own personal reasons.
But if you do get the core2duo i really reccomend you step up from the 1.86 E6300 to the 2.13 E6400
I have mine overclocked about 10% and running 2.5GHz on both cores, so 5.0GHz total. Which will be plenty enough to do just about anything most users could want.
|
|
T3kk
Junior Member
|
7. February 2007 @ 11:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
well my limit is $200 so i guess i'll jus get the 1.86 e6300
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. February 2007 @ 11:39
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
T3kk
Junior Member
|
7. February 2007 @ 11:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
well my limit is $200 so i guess i'll jus get the 1.86 e6300
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. February 2007 @ 11:39
|
