Is this a good gaming Pc?

Itanda

Itanda

New Member
Specs

AMD 5200+ 64BIT(Am2) Cpu
2 Gig DDR2 PC4200 RAm
320 GB Sata 7200RPm HArd Drive
NVIDIA 7600GS 256gmb PCI-E Graphics
480W Power supply

The only thing i might need to change is the graphics card. plz tell me as soon as posibly if i should change it.
 
I wouldn't bother with AMD at the mo. try this..::

Intel e4300 or e6300
Gigabyte S3
2Gb DDR2-667 or DDR2-800
ATi X1950 Pro (get the cheapest 256Mb card you can find, they are ecellent cards.)
and make sure you get a decent, branded PSU.
 
The CPU is good, but I would also go with a Core 2 Duo instead.

And if you plan on playing the newer games, and want to play them at a decent quality, you need a better video card, such as the x1950PRO or 7900GS.
 
Mankz_91 said:
I wouldn't bother with AMD at the mo. try this..::

Intel e4300 or e6300
Gigabyte S3
2Gb DDR2-667 or DDR2-800
ATi X1950 Pro (get the cheapest 256Mb card you can find, they are ecellent cards.)
and make sure you get a decent, branded PSU.
Click to expand...


Why wouldnt you go with AMD? What is wrong with their CPU's comparing to the Intel C2D ones?
 
I used to be a massive AMD fanboy, but, for performance, bang-for-buck and basically everything else, Core 2 Duo's are better, however, the AMD's are no slouch.

Its really upto personal preferance, for example, a slightly overclocked e6600 will easily out perform an FX-62
 
I have AMD 64 +3500 and i am very pleased with it. When i bought it, every body told me not to buy an Intel one.

So an E6400 is better than a dual core AMD? ( Without overclocking)
 
mazinya said:
I have AMD 64 +3500 and i am very pleased with it. When i bought it, every body told me not to buy an Intel one.

So an E6400 is better than a dual core AMD? ( Without overclocking)
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. The Athlon X2's are the dual core brothers of the Athlons, akin to the Pentium D/Pentium 4 relationship. The Core 2 Duo is the next generation of technology after the Pentium D's. At the time your 3500+ was new was during the Athlon/Pentium 4 era and AMD was considered the better gaming chip at that time. I have a 3800+ and I'm totally pleased with it. However the Pentium 4's didn't suck either and the overheating issue wasn't a problem with proper cooling. I had a Pentium 4 650 OC'd @ 3.74GHz and it never went above 44 degrees celcius under full load and idled in the high 30's with a factory CPU fan, I just had 3 case fans.
 
I would personally still get the AMD, but I'm just a die-hard fanboy.

Not a bad system, maybe upgrade the video a little
 
mazinya said:
And does AMD going to have a competition to the C2D? are they going to come up with a match?
Click to expand...

As of yet, no. But who can really see into the future? As of current news, Intel plans to release the next generation of Core 2's by the end of the year - using 45nm transistor technology. This is far more advanced than anything AMD has announced because in addition to 45nm, it is in fact based on the Core 2 architecture.

Intel spent a good time focused solely on "fast" chips (Pentium 4 era) during which time AMD pulled ahead with their smarter, more efficient chips. However, Core 2 architecture lands Intel in the lead with combined efficiency, speed, and power consumption. Check out some benchmarking on the web for more information.
 
If its AMD, it sucks, Intel Core2s Allendale, Conroe, Kentsfield, Clovertone, they all kick ass, but AMD is just to slow, and If you are gonna go DX9, get a X1950XT, and if DX10, wait for the 8900GTX, and for RAM, G.Skill HZ, motherboard, ATI, go with ASUS P5B-Deluxe, nVidia, go with XFX nForce 680i LT, and for cooling get Tiniq Tower 120, and there is your gaming rig.
 
Yeah I would really recommend to wait for the Yorkfields, which is just a redesigned Kentsfield. That 680i Lt Looks good. R600 will be a good choice to if it ever comes out.
 
Last edited:
I went to a local computer store and they said that an AMD Athlon 5200+ X2 @ 2.6 would outperform an C2D @2.66. I also heard most ppl who build gaming rigs they use AMD's I think thats cause of the price/performance ratio is better then intel. by the way i love AMD
 
Itanda said:
I went to a local computer store and they said that an AMD Athlon 5200+ X2 @ 2.6 would outperform an C2D @2.66. I also heard most ppl who build gaming rigs they use AMD's I think thats cause of the price/performance ratio is better then intel. by the way i love AMD
Click to expand...
You're local computer store doesnt know what they are talking about, i suggest you refer them to this article - http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=621&p=3

Also, no AMD for gaming rigs was BEFORE intel released their Core2Duo range. At this current point in time, intel are superior

dragon
 
I will concede that Intel are a bit faster then AMD, however with the things that have happened to me with AMD chips I can't bring myself to buy anything else (other then my macbook)
 
Itanda said:
I went to a local computer store and they said that an AMD Athlon 5200+ X2 @ 2.6 would outperform an C2D @2.66. I also heard most ppl who build gaming rigs they use AMD's I think thats cause of the price/performance ratio is better then intel. by the way i love AMD
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're on crack. Who should you listen to, someone trying to sell you something, or a bunch of people who don't really care what you buy? Good luck wasting your money =)
 
mazinya said:
Why wouldnt you go with AMD? What is wrong with their CPU's comparing to the Intel C2D ones?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with AMD. they are very good. And also they are cheaper than intel but runs the same performance. The AMD 5200X2 is beter than the E6400 from intel. I have a 5200+ which is great.
 
I wouldn't trade my AMD for an intel, even a much faster one.

I melted a motherboard overclocking once, had to pry the CPU form the socket and the damn thing still worked. I have bought AMD since
 
xTREME X55X said:
If its AMD, it sucks, Intel Core2s Allendale, Conroe, Kentsfield, Clovertone, they all kick ass, but AMD is just to slow, and If you are gonna go DX9, get a X1950XT, and if DX10, wait for the 8900GTX, and for RAM, G.Skill HZ, motherboard, ATI, go with ASUS P5B-Deluxe, nVidia, go with XFX nForce 680i LT, and for cooling get Tiniq Tower 120, and there is your gaming rig.
Click to expand...

I have a 4600+ and an E6400 and while the dual core Intels do have noticeably better processing power not all AMD's "suck". How much first hand experience have you had running dual core AMD's and Intels simultaneously in different machines swapping PSU's and graphics cards for comparison? Because I can tell you how much experience I've had doing that. :D The E6400 at stock 2.13GHz clock benchmarked higher then the 4600+ OC'd @ 2.80GHz on 3DMark06 by 340 points. The 4600+ @ 2.80 scored an 8504 to the E6400's 8843, both with the same 8800GTS at the same clock in the same room within an hour of each other. Of course that's with the E6400 at stock clock but considering the 4600+'s $125 price tag it's not directly compairible with the E6400 and it hung within 340 3DMark points of the E6400 with an overclock on the 4600+. The Core 2 Duo is a better chip then the Athlon X2 indeed but I wouldn't call all AMD's slow and I've run Pentium 4's, Athlons, Core 2 Duos, and Athlon X2's.
 
Last edited:
cryption said:
I will concede that Intel are a bit faster then AMD, however with the things that have happened to me with AMD chips I can't bring myself to buy anything else (other then my macbook)
Click to expand...

It's a pretty dumb decision to buy AMD only because you liked them in the past.

The Core 2 Duo's are by far superior when compared Ghz to Ghz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top