I need a cpu that handles windows 7.

B

BrownGeek1112

New Member
I building a pc to handle windows 7. I also want the computer to run fast any suggestion intel is my brand of prefrence but if you guyz can convince me about AMD than i will switch. I was think of getting a 3.2ghz processor
 
Most new Intel CPU's are dual-core, so anything will be able to handle Windows 7. What specifically are you looking to do with the computer?

P.S. AMD is a good company. I like them because they are cheaper than Intel and they give you more bang for your buck.
 
voyagerfan99 said:
Most new Intel CPU's are dual-core, so anything will be able to handle Windows 7. What specifically are you looking to do with the computer?

P.S. AMD is a good company. I like them because they are cheaper than Intel and they give you more bang for your buck.
Click to expand...
Well somewhat but I think the release of the i5 750 really did damage to AMD's image as bang for your buck.
 
Intel_man said:
Well somewhat but I think the release of the i5 750 really did damage to AMD's image as bang for your buck.
Click to expand...

Not really. IMO Intel has some great deals on great processors but I consistently see AMD come out with cpus that are less money than Intel's and yet are great performers.

To the OP:
If you are just looking for a computer to run Windows 7 (nothing special needed) then I would recommend any dual core Intel or AMD. Since you posted that you wanted a clock speed around 3.2 check out

Athalon ll Regor: $75
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103873

If you want Intel,
i3- 550: $150
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115065
The i3 has hyperthreading so it will show up with 4 cores in task manager but it is not a true quad core. For $150 you could just get a quad core from AMD.

In my opinion, Intel has a better architecture and is a bit faster (not in Mhz, the way it handles information) but AMD will still give a great amount of performance.

Just for an example I built my system in my sig and helped a friend build a rig with a i7-930. Both systems are very quick neither him or I can tell the difference when running regular applications ie: excel, winrar, virus scans, etc... The only time that I can tell that his cpu is better than mine is in benchmarks.

For a regular home office computer I would recommend AMD. Mainly because they are cheaper and the performance difference will not be noticeable in a lot of situations.

I guess I want to know, apart from running Windows 7 what else do you want to do with this pc? How many cores do you want? What are you looking to spend on a cpu?
 
Yes, but the AMD Phenom II x6 1090t is $299 (i think?) And the 980X is $1099... AMD's and Intels top of the line chips... and both are about the same in performance, intel's chip being moderately faster... but the price is my point.
 
jarlmaster47 said:
intel consistently beats AMD cpu to cpu. its a fact
Click to expand...

The only thing that is a fact is the noobness that surrounds you.

linkin said:
Yes, but the AMD Phenom II x6 1090t is $299 (i think?) And the 980X is $1099... AMD's and Intels top of the line chips... and both are about the same in performance, intel's chip being moderately faster... but the price is my point.
Click to expand...

Its great that a X6 unlocked processor goes for 299 bucks. But its not equal in performance to the 980X
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
The only thing that is a fact is the noobness that surrounds you.



Its great that a X6 unlocked processor goes for 299 bucks. But its not equal in performance to the 980X
Click to expand...

Not equal, no, but close enough that if you're gaming or jsut doing general tasks you won't notice much difference, and it's about 3x cheaper.
 
Yeah, the i7-980X is quite a bit faster, but the X6 is Astronomically Cheaper, the top-of-line core i5 costs nearly as much as that. (in the UK anyway)
 
jarlmaster47 said:
intel consistently beats AMD cpu to cpu. its a fact
Click to expand...

CPU to CPU? Explain, because do you mean price for price, clock for clock, "equal" CPUs (ie thuban to 980x, i7 to 955/965 etc)?

linkin said:
Not equal, no, but close enough that if you're gaming or jsut doing general tasks you won't notice much difference, and it's about 3x cheaper.
Click to expand...

Drenlin said:
Honestly, I think the locked Phenom II X6, at $200, is an even better deal...
Click to expand...

this for the reason Linkin put.

You can look at benches of how the Intel CPUs are faster, however like I said, you can look at BENCHES. In the real world, a 750 will not play a game or handle having several apps open at once any better or worse than the thuban will, same goes for a 955 or 965 for that matter which are cheaper. I'd go with the x6 though for the extra cores, which will make it better for futureproofing.

you could always wait a bit for the Bulldozer chips to come out (AMDs latest and greatest) instead, they look very pormising
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top