|
motherboard/processer help
|
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
12. May 2008 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
the reason why im hesitant cause im a first timer overclocker and i c places like tom's hardware where they say overclocking can seriously damage ur computer since... and even if i don't ever get oc'ing i can have a strong 2.6 ghz stock processor since 5000 be easily outmatches e2200 and stock... i won't be oc'ing all the time and leaving it that way only when i go to play a game or watch a movie so while like surfing the net or doing regular thing a be 5000+ would be better but what if i get a 6000+ or 6400+ or even tri-core phenom 8450 then i won't need to oc and i can out match most processors at stock speeds but then the higher prices come into effect
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. May 2008 @ 16:40 |
Link to this message
|
Actually the E2200 would probably best the 5000+ even at stock, let alone if you overclock it, and overclocking intels is safe and easy. AMD Phenoms are rubbish, and if you're going for a fast AMD like the 6400+ you could afford a superior E6750/6850/8400.
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
12. May 2008 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
what are the stocks for the e6750 and e8400 and the oc'ing potential
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. May 2008 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
E6750 starts at 2.66Ghz and can make 3.5Ghz+ easily. The E8400 starts at 3.00Ghz and can make 3.3Ghz+, but the 8400 is about 10% faster per clock.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. May 2008 @ 18:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Actually the E2200 would probably best the 5000+ even at stock, let alone if you overclock it, and overclocking intels is safe and easy. AMD Phenoms are rubbish, and if you're going for a fast AMD like the 6400+ you could afford a superior E6750/6850/8400.
Actually the 5000+ is quite a bit faster than the E2200 AFAIK. I'd have to say the E2200 would be equal to the 4600+ at stock.
Quote:
so its a good product and when u say as fast as a stock e6600 is that maxing out the be 5000 or with it at stock voltage, cause i don't want to push it to far... and how fast is the stock e6600
You can get the 5000+ BE to 3GHz at stock voltage and leave it there. It will not hurt the processor or stress the system in any way because the voltage and FSB stay stock. You just turn the multiplier to 15. 15*200 = 3000MHz. It's that simple.
The stock E6600 is more than enough for all games and apps. The BE 5000+ at 3GHz should be fairly even with it and thus fast enough for anything you want.
Quote:
E6750 starts at 2.66Ghz and can make 3.5Ghz+ easily. The E8400 starts at 3.00Ghz and can make 3.3Ghz+, but the 8400 is about 10% faster per clock.
If you want a high OC you might want an E6750. I've had mine to 3.6GHz on this board.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. May 2008 @ 19:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've had a look around the tomshardware site - it's much too slow now they've gone with the rubbishy site layout to make any useful conclusions but the few tests I was able to dig up before I grew old were mostly of the opinion that the E4300 can keep up with and sometimes best the 5000+. An E4300 is a lot slower than an E2200 stock I can tell you.
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
12. May 2008 @ 19:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
so final conclusion and opionins which should i go with 5000+ 6000+ 6400+, e2200, e4400, e4600, e6750, e6600 or another
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
12. May 2008 @ 23:06 |
Link to this message
|
will be 5000+ oc'ed to like 3.1 ghz be enough with 2 gb ddr2 ram and a 9600 gt or 8800 gs or 8800 gt be enough to play games like crysis, gta 4, halo 3, cod 4, far cry, nfs, f.e.a.r., etc. on 1280 x 1024 on high settings and run a good benchmark score
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. May 2008 @ 00:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I've had a look around the tomshardware site - it's much too slow now they've gone with the rubbishy site layout to make any useful conclusions
Yeah, they screwed the site up bad. It runs so slow it's not even funny, and the charts are almost impossible to use. I liked the old layout much better.
Quote:
will be 5000+ oc'ed to like 3.1 ghz be enough with 2 gb ddr2 ram and a 9600 gt or 8800 gs or 8800 gt be enough to play games like crysis, gta 4, halo 3, cod 4, far cry, nfs, f.e.a.r., etc. on 1280 x 1024 on high settings and run a good benchmark score
Short answer, yes. It will run even Crysis well with a fast video card. If you're on a tight budget or currently using a socket AM2 board and looking for a good upgrade, the 5000+ BE will be your best friend. If you have the money though, I would recommend Intel. Maybe the E4x00 series would be your best OCer and performer for the money.
As for a video card. The 9600GT might be your best bet for price/performance. The 8800GS is just a semi-crippled filler card and the 8800GT is a bit higher in price still. At such a low resolution as 1280 x 1024 you won't notice much difference between a 9600gt and an 8800gt. Note:Stay away from the 8800GT 256MB. It performs like crap in most games.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
13. May 2008 @ 07:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
will there be a noticable preformance if i get a e2200/e4400 and oc it a bit say 2.8-3ghz
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. May 2008 @ 16:03 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
will there be a noticable preformance if i get a e2200/e4400 and oc it a bit say 2.8-3ghz
I take it you mean a noticable performance difference.
In some stuff there will be a big difference between AMD and Intel. But if all you're doing is games then any decent processor will be fine.
If you opt for Intel, I'd suggest the E4x00 over the E2x00 series. They seem to be the most OC friendly and are slightly faster.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
13. May 2008 @ 18:19 |
Link to this message
|
in what areas would the intel way outdo the amd
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. May 2008 @ 02:28 |
Link to this message
|
Intel outdoes AMD in most things. But AMD is still quite adequate for high end gaming.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2008 @ 08:11 |
Link to this message
|
My CPU (E4300) at stock compares to about an Athlon64 4000+ and it runs games alright, but it feels a bit lacking in performance for the most demanding games. Overclocked to 3Ghz plus it's miles more responsive and can handle Crysis, Assassins Creed and Supreme commander:forged alliance without nasty slowdown - a friend who uses a 4200+ experiences issues in these games, issues related to the performance of the CPU, not anything else.
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
14. May 2008 @ 09:15 |
Link to this message
|
im probably gonna stick with a oc'ed 3.1ghz black edition for a 24/7 setup
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2008 @ 09:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
So be it. As for me I'll stick with my cheaper, 30% faster CPU...
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
14. May 2008 @ 09:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
which the e2200, but for gaming if I oc both they will be at equal performance for gaming? aside for gaming and normal computer operations there isn?t much I need the comp for
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2008 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
If that were so do you think I would push this argument so far? At the same mhz, the Intel chip is more than 20% faster than the AMD in most environments, and you can probably overclock it to an even higher clock speed in the first place, using an inexpensive board, without causing a massive power consumption. Despite what a lot of reports say, a fast CPU is a necessity for high-end games.
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
14. May 2008 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yea but to oc a b.e. 5000 all u gotta to do is raise the multiplier? and I doubt there will be a noticeable difference in the gaming from either
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2008 @ 09:45 |
Link to this message
|
and all you have to do to overclock the Intel is raise the front side bus...
Perhaps the 5000+ is different, but a highly overclocked 4200+ is almost unplayable in Assassins Creed, with a 3Ghz E4300 (not even the 3.15Ghz I now have it at) it's perfectly playable. I'd say that's a reasonable difference.
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
14. May 2008 @ 10:02 |
Link to this message
|
can u leave a oc'ed 4300 for a 24/7 ssetup, like u can with 5000+ black edition also i c that more people have a be 5000+'s than e4400 or e2200
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2008 @ 10:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
My E4300 is in use every day for almost the whole day, and has been running at 3.15Ghz since September 07. Additionally it had been running at 3Ghz from January 07 until then. The only reason it wasn't at 3.15 was because I had a naff motherboard.
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
14. May 2008 @ 10:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
y do u think more ppl went with a be 5000 instead of e2200 or e4400
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2008 @ 10:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't think that, because I don't know a single person who's built a new PC for gaming recently using an AM2 Dual core, not one. A good 15-20 people I know have built gaming PCs in the last year or so and every single one has been a Core 2 Duo based system.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
saadzaman
Junior Member
|
14. May 2008 @ 12:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
yea but as ore duo most of em have like e6750 and e8400 and stuff like that
|
