holyjunk
New Member
Last I heard December 5th.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600 or Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
- Thread starter Pc_Pimp
- Start date
Last I heard December 5th.
Bl00dFox
New Member
Yes. Easily.
what evidence could there possibly be for "I'm a fanboy"?
Bl00dFox
New Member
Its true. The E6300 has virtually LIMITLESS overclocking capabilities.
fade2green514
Active Member
okay, buy one and overclock it to 8ghz.
limitless huh?
besides:
PWNED
an opteron 165 would be too, at a low clock of 1.8ghz.
personally, i think that core 2 duo is great... for the moment, but with moore's law in effect AMD ought to pull ahead with K8L.
hence, get socket AM2 since the two cpu's in debate virtually perform the same.
not to mention 4X4 is just a better solution in comparison to quad core. of course, then you need to buy two cpu's. hopefully they'll find a way to make it affordable.
Last edited:
Moore's Law? Ok, let's think logically for one second. How long has AMD been in business? Since the late 70's? And they produced one goddamn line of CPUs in all that time that outperformed an Intel? Hmmmm. The way I see it, they just got lucky. Moore's Law has bugger all to do with it.
And he didn't get "pwned". The OP might not want to O/C now, but later he might change his mind. Have you ever changed your mind before? Of course you have. So really, you "pwned" yourself.
And he didn't get "pwned". The OP might not want to O/C now, but later he might change his mind. Have you ever changed your mind before? Of course you have. So really, you "pwned" yourself.
fade2green514
Active Member
Moore's Law? Ok, let's think logically for one second. How long has AMD been in business? Since the late 70's? And they produced one goddamn line of CPUs in all that time that outperformed an Intel? Hmmmm. The way I see it, they just got lucky. Moore's Law has bugger all to do with it.
And he didn't get "pwned". The OP might not want to O/C now, but later he might change his mind. Have you ever changed your mind before? Of course you have. So really, you "pwned" yourself.
you do realize intel is the company that relies on moore's law, right?
moore's law... not moore's theorem lol
law = fact
theorem = could be proven wrong.
http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm
read it. even intel believes in moore's law.
besides, you realize core = old technology right?
its pentium 3 effected by moore's law and tweaked a bit by intel.. combined with faster systems supporting pci-e and such.
core duo was intels dual core pentium M in a nutshell. they added more cache and tweaked a bit with the architecture, but basically it is pentium m.
AMD's K8L will be amazing, especially since they've got more engineers to help, the ones from ATI...
i mean you see what AVIVO video converter can do, i mean its only a matter of time before AMD creates the ultimate processor..
then there's nvidia with stream processing. i wonder how that'll go... will they take a side or just try to take all sides and make money off it?
i mean in all seriousness... my processor shows up as a pentium M in intels very own thermal analysis tool lol
supposedly AMD is revamping their whole system, something to do with their 4X4 technology. they understand that the transistor count goes up and that performance rises constantly... and once K8L is released, combined with their ideas of a supercomputer in a box running multiple hypertransport channels and having multiple dual channel memory pairs will be unmatched in comparison with intels single fsb at even 1333mhz and 4 cores...
if AMD would just hurry up and make it all affordable lol
Last edited:
I'm quite sure it will be a good CPU... But Intel always manages to have something on the back burner. They just seem to enjoy releasing it after AMD has shown their hand. It kicks AMD in the ass every time. Myself I think it's a great marketting strategy. AMD doesn't have the R&D resources nor the fab resources, nor even the cash backing that Intel has. Intel has the ability to completely outdo AMD at every turn. I think it's funny actually. It's like a big game of cat and mouse. Well, maybe more like elephant and mouse.
Bl00dFox
New Member
I swear you're the biggest retard Ive seen. I was just trying to help him out in case he wants to overclock down the track. And when I mean limitless, I dont mean literally. You can get the E6600 to 3.0Ghz pretty easily.
fade2green514
Active Member
well, when i say 8ghz i dont mean literally.
sure, its limited less than the 4600+ but thats not a problem since he clearly stated he doesnt want to overclock.
btw i have friends that are challenged i dont think you should be calling me a retard, i dont take offense, but im sure they would.
and what would your mommy say? haha
Bl00dFox
New Member
Archangel
VIP Member
hmmm.. that would depend on how you look at it tough... i mean,.. take for example the AMD64's when they were released.. untill the C2D release, Intel's CPU's weren't really a match for the AMD's in gaming.. however, the C2D's are 65nm processors, the AMD's are not... so i wonder who showed their hand first now tbh..
Yea really, AMD has been kickin around Intel for years, even there XP Athlon, the 3000 and 3200 was just 2.167 and 2.2ghz and could run with P-4s at 2.8 and 3.0 ghz and it even got worse with the 64s. And didnt intel just layoff 10,000 people. there C2D is a good processor but I think there face in the sun wont last long!
Geoff
VIP Member
From a gamers point of view, thats how it happens. But in reality, Intel has always been, and always will be the largest manufacturer for desktop and workstation PC's. Most of the gamers have AMD's (before the C2D), however if you look at everyone else, they all had Intels, usually Pentium 4's or Celeron D's.
Archangel
VIP Member
hmmm... might that happen to be because Intel's were used in Dell's, Compaq's and HP's etc? and i gues that has to do that Intel is a contracted manufacturer for them (or at least, would be my guess).
but now also AMD's are used by dell, and i think HP etc will follow too.
true,.. Intell might be bigger atm, but, you cant deny AMD is still winning ground
but now also AMD's are used by dell, and i think HP etc will follow too.
true,.. Intell might be bigger atm, but, you cant deny AMD is still winning ground
Thats true, but I dont know about (always will be). Intels kinda like microsoft, so big thats theres alot of dead space. I look at the C2D like Vista, really Vienna should have already been out
fade2green514
Active Member
the biggest advantage intel had was their contracts with dell and their reputation. intel managed to keep pentium 4 above in the workstation game by using hyperthreading but that was only a quick fix. not to mention AMD was way ahead of the game as far as performance per watt.
then, AMD released dual core. what did intel have on the backburner then? their costly pentium EE processors that were dual core with hyperthreading enabled? another quick fix that used as much power as a whole LAN party where everyone has an athlon 64.
i mean sincerely, ive built all my pcs with athlon 64 processors, except two. (only two allowed a budget for core 2 duo)
basically theyre the best budget gaming processors for now because intel hasnt released a budget core 2 duo. i mean my aunt wanted a computer with a 19" LCD and wireless desktop and she wanted me to spend $550 on it after shipping. my cuzins do a lot of gaming, and she just does internet so there was NO way i was going to fit a $180 processors in there... so i went with a single core 3500+
AMD still has their share of the market, trust me.
they made their name with gamers... ever attend a LAN party? well i have, and 90% of the cpu's there were all athlon's of some sort. i mean, my friend built himself a workstation years ago with dual Athlon MP's... AMD clearly had their share of the workstation/multithreaded market at the time as well...
i mean try a multithreaded benchmark of dual athlon MP's at 2.2ghz (his rig basically) vs. a pentium 4 w/ HT at 3.6ghz
not gonna happen, and pentium 4's weren't even near those clocks at the time, and may not have even had HT yet for all i know...
then theres the business section. did you see the new dell commercials with athlon 64 X2's? well they're makin them now... and lets say you own a business that builds gaming computers. you're not going to stop offering athlon 64's... you know why? because you can offer them a reallly good gaming computer at a cheaper price.
face it, unless you've got the money to spend a lot on the video card, you're not going to go with a core 2 duo just for gaming. AMD still offers really good processors that are truly all that games require in order to play them.
core 2 duo is great and everything, but its mostly about bragging rights, either that or you do a lot of processor intensive apps like video conversion... which btw there are alternative's for: avivo video converter??
in a way you could look at core 2 duo like you could at directX 10 video cards (maybe not SO much)... but you dont need that type of processing power, so why pay for it when its still at or near its initial price??
i mean you could have their new quad extreme processor or w/e its called and dual 8800gtx's... but what good does it do for you if a 7900gt and an athlon 64 3500+ would've played the game at the same fps? (you know, vsync, they build fps limiters into the game you know lol)
the only real advantage is that it'll last you longer... and thats not a very money efficient way to go lol
then, AMD released dual core. what did intel have on the backburner then? their costly pentium EE processors that were dual core with hyperthreading enabled? another quick fix that used as much power as a whole LAN party where everyone has an athlon 64.
i mean sincerely, ive built all my pcs with athlon 64 processors, except two. (only two allowed a budget for core 2 duo)
basically theyre the best budget gaming processors for now because intel hasnt released a budget core 2 duo. i mean my aunt wanted a computer with a 19" LCD and wireless desktop and she wanted me to spend $550 on it after shipping. my cuzins do a lot of gaming, and she just does internet so there was NO way i was going to fit a $180 processors in there... so i went with a single core 3500+
AMD still has their share of the market, trust me.
they made their name with gamers... ever attend a LAN party? well i have, and 90% of the cpu's there were all athlon's of some sort. i mean, my friend built himself a workstation years ago with dual Athlon MP's... AMD clearly had their share of the workstation/multithreaded market at the time as well...
i mean try a multithreaded benchmark of dual athlon MP's at 2.2ghz (his rig basically) vs. a pentium 4 w/ HT at 3.6ghz
not gonna happen, and pentium 4's weren't even near those clocks at the time, and may not have even had HT yet for all i know...
then theres the business section. did you see the new dell commercials with athlon 64 X2's? well they're makin them now... and lets say you own a business that builds gaming computers. you're not going to stop offering athlon 64's... you know why? because you can offer them a reallly good gaming computer at a cheaper price.
face it, unless you've got the money to spend a lot on the video card, you're not going to go with a core 2 duo just for gaming. AMD still offers really good processors that are truly all that games require in order to play them.
core 2 duo is great and everything, but its mostly about bragging rights, either that or you do a lot of processor intensive apps like video conversion... which btw there are alternative's for: avivo video converter??
in a way you could look at core 2 duo like you could at directX 10 video cards (maybe not SO much)... but you dont need that type of processing power, so why pay for it when its still at or near its initial price??
i mean you could have their new quad extreme processor or w/e its called and dual 8800gtx's... but what good does it do for you if a 7900gt and an athlon 64 3500+ would've played the game at the same fps? (you know, vsync, they build fps limiters into the game you know lol)
the only real advantage is that it'll last you longer... and thats not a very money efficient way to go lol
Last edited: