Help with some questions about making a computer.

Yea thanks didnt look at ALUs on the processors usualy. I dont get why the intel Core 2 that has lower clock speed and the same if not less l1 and l2 cache and are more expensive are they that much better? I been using an AMD processor for a while know so i havnt been keeping up with intel.
 
because Intel are doing what AMD did before

in the past (single core days) AMD chips were faster in practice, but much slower in clock speed (an 2.4 athlon would be the same as say a 3ghz Pentium 4). This was as they were more efficient

More efficient chips are the way to go, and Intel went that route with the Core2.
 
GamerX said:
Yea thanks didnt look at ALUs on the processors usualy. I dont get why the intel Core 2 that has lower clock speed and the same if not less l1 and l2 cache and are more expensive are they that much better? I been using an AMD processor for a while know so i havnt been keeping up with intel.
Click to expand...

What Core 2 Duo processor are you looking at? The Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale has 4 Arithmetic Logic Units and 6 megabytes of Level 2 cache and costs $190.

Here's an AMD processor I think is decent also: AMD Phenom 8650 Toliman has 6 Arithmetic Logic Units and 1.5 megabytes of Level 2 cache, 2 megabytes of Level 3 cache and costs $145.
 
OK so i went and changed some stuff

Intel CPU : Intel Core 2 Duo E4700 2.6GHz, 800FSB (Dual Core) 2048K

Intel CPU Fans : Spire Socket 775 Intel fan

Motherboard : ASUS P5GC-MX , 1333FSB, Onboard Video,PCI Express,DDR2,Sound, LAN

Case : Nikao Black Neon ATX Case w/ Temperature control, front USB & iEEE

The Core2 CPU that i picked know has less cache which is making me think about going back to the pentium even thou people say there not good. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
2048Megabytes said:
So Windows XP Service Pack 2 is better than Service Pack 3?
Click to expand...

For some reason the MS optical model mouse used here is no longer seen in XP despite repeat attempts at reinstalling the software. I simply end seeing a two standard illustrated in the selector. Vista on the other hand readily recognises the model whether plugged in with a PS/2 adapter or in a usb port.

This is something that came up lately long after SP3 went on and even following a clean install without the last service pack. Sometime I'll simply see XP go on again as a stand alone with the Vista drive unplugged to see if that persists.

jdbennet said:
because Intel are doing what AMD did before

in the past (single core days) AMD chips were faster in practice, but much slower in clock speed (an 2.4 athlon would be the same as say a 3ghz Pentium 4). This was as they were more efficient

More efficient chips are the way to go, and Intel went that route with the Core2.
Click to expand...

What made the older Atholons different was seeing more work done per clock cycle while Intel focused on cpu clock speed. AMD seems to have lagged a bit finally seeing the Phenoms come out while first putting out the dual FX-74 twin dual core concept when Intel came out with their quad cores.

Getting out of the old single core lineup into a 6000+ or 6400+ X2 seeing 3+ghz does make a large difference with the AMD line. Here I'm waiting for the next lineup of AMD quads to see if those will break the 3ghz mark for the next build. 2.6ghz is a start anyways while multitasking is the main idea. They simply have to expand further.
 
I got the ram covered but i am still up in the air about what i should go for

should i get an intel core2 E4700 or i was thinking about staying AMD and

getting a phenom quad core, because AMD is saying that there going to be

making intel users upset soon (acording to the pc bilder's bible 2008). Not

sure thou im still looking around.
 
Some more advice: Be prepared to regret whatever you buy with computer hardware as something newer faster and better will always come out and the price will drop on whatever you bought.

I buy AMD processors because they are a little lower in price and because I want to give them my business. Intel does make better central processing units currently but that does not mean AMD makes bad hardware. I am very satisfied with the Advanced Micro Devices Athlon 4600+ Dual-Core processor I just recently purchased. But if you want an Intel processor and are willing to shell out some more money for it then go that route.

Look around for a while. Think about it for a few weeks.
 
Yea thanks also gunna look around to see if even worth getting a quad core yet since not too many games use all 4.
 
GamerX said:
You use the amd 4600 is it good for gaming?
Click to expand...

I play older video games that don't require the latest computer hardware. The video game I play that has the greatest video requirements is Ghost Recon Island Thunder. There are some modifications to Ghost Recon I use that boost the video requirements. So if you are going to play video games that came out in 2004 and earlier it would be a good enough processor.
 
Here I've stayed with AMD models since first getting into custom building and moving out of the old Ix86 Intel systems back in the late 90s. I skipped right over ME from 98SE to XP and have run quite a few 1st person games on the different builds with only the older single core models and was never disappointed.

Most of the reviews favoring the Core 2s were initially there for selling Intel's then new line of cpus while you can run a good number of these games on single core cpus AMD and Intel alike. The latest resource intensive games see the benefits of having a secondary core or second set of cores like the quads for seeing those kick in once a good load is placed.

Moving from a 2.2ghz single core build into the 3.014ghz dual core 6000+ X2 saw a good leap in everything there. With the old Socket As simply bumping from an XP3000 to an XP3200 for that .2ghz gain made a difference. The newer dual core models since then make up for quite a bit.
 
I was looking at the amd 6000 will it be able to run games like crysis with maybe a 8800gt or will it slow down performance?
 
The 6000+ X2 since newegg and no one else had the 6400+ at the time I was ordering was an actual boost for Steam as well as other games. For a stock cpu without ocing in the mix that is the next to fastest AM2 model. It performs well for what it is there.

If you were simply running the 939's FX single core models you wouldn't have any problems while the newer AM2 dual core models are a step up seeing faster clock speeds. That plus being a more performance orientated dual core over the 939's X2s gives you a slight edge.

With a 6000+ being slightly over the 3ghz mark you will probably be scratching your head saying this thing moves faster then anything I ran before. Vista loaded up with softwares sees the desktop here faster then booting XP with nothing more then the basic device drivers/software on there. It's a good work horse as well as performer for games without bragging rights.
 
In short PC Eye's answer was the Athlon 6000+ is a great processor for gamers. It is a 125 watt processor which means heat. Definately scrape off any thermal pad that comes with it and buy thermal paste and apply it correctly. Good price too at $114.

If you're deciding on the Athlon 6000+ I wouldn't wait too long as I heard that Advanced Micro Devices will discontinue making the processor soon.

Is the stock cooler that comes with the Athlon 6000+ processor good enough if you're not overclocking at all?
 
I placed a Zalman CNPS9700 on top of the one here. During the initial breakin during the first few days the temps were down to 23C with just that application of AS-5. A good case with plenty of air flow and keeping boards temps down is one key tip to seeing low cpu temps overall.

The stock hsf for that as well as any other model will obviously see higher idle temps while a good load there will get into the 50s. That seems to be the case with just about any cpu you can expect when using the included stock hsf. Buying the cpu OEM and going for a good 3rd party cooler is the preferred.
 
Wow thanks guys you been alot of help so far more than i was expecting when i came here. I have baught 3 pre made systems in the last 3 years o.O know im getting into making my own and you guys are making it easier for me lol thanks alot :)
 
GamerX said:
I was looking at the amd 6000 will it be able to run games like crysis with maybe a 8800gt or will it slow down performance?
Click to expand...

The Core 2 Duo E7200 is better than AMD 6000+. Moreover it consume much less power.

If you are going to build a new computer then get E7200
 
maroon1 said:
The Core 2 Duo E7200 is better than AMD 6000+. Moreover it consume much less power.

If you are going to build a new computer then get E7200
Click to expand...

Have you run a 6000+? The 6000+ has been a very versatile cpu here whether for running games or multitasking. Despite the 125w rating it runs cooler when a load is placed on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top