Which CPU will be best for me?
- Thread starter Matthewcraig
- Start date
m0nk3ys1ms
Active Member
SC7 said:
very true, many dont know weither to buy now or wait on the new technology
m0nk3ys1ms
Active Member
i dont think AM2 is telling us who he truly is. he is supposedly 8 years old, and look at the system in his sig:
AMD FX-62 AM2 @ 3.4Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
2x Quad-7900GTX's SLI
X-Fi Elite Pro
4x 150GB 10K Raptors RAID-0
^now come on.... what 8 year old can afford that
AMD FX-62 AM2 @ 3.4Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
2x Quad-7900GTX's SLI
X-Fi Elite Pro
4x 150GB 10K Raptors RAID-0
^now come on.... what 8 year old can afford that
m0nk3ys1ms
Active Member
SC7 said:
good point
fade2green514
Active Member
i'd say get the 940 or the 3800+
if you're building it and you want to overclock, then definitely go with the 805. the thing is a beast when it comes to overclocking, and for a small amount of money.
if you're building it and you want to overclock, then definitely go with the 805. the thing is a beast when it comes to overclocking, and for a small amount of money.
I would reccomend the X2 for it's most straight forward performance advantage although to be honest any of them will be sufficient and it is somewhat dependent on the budget
Actually, "no". Clock speed isnt everything. Have a look at CPU 101 for starters
I think "many" might be a bit too broad
Last time i checked Conroe was a int monster. Not so loud in the fp department.
Lets stay on topic
fade2green514
Active Member
yea... the numbers they put out were most likely false.
#1 they didn't show system specs in that review
#2 reviews aren't always reliable... we all know how hard it is to make a small chart that says one cpu perform at 150% compared to another right
#3 conroe hasn't been released yet. wait til after its released and then start comparing it to other processors.
if it really performs even as good as an FX-60, then it's going to cost a pretty penny. lol
also, AMD is still using 90nm.... and people have even gotten them as high as 4ghz with vapochill
whatever happened to the falsely named "anti-hyperthreading" that was rumored? you know... lets two cores work on a single thread...
probably b.s. then right? lol
#1 they didn't show system specs in that review
#2 reviews aren't always reliable... we all know how hard it is to make a small chart that says one cpu perform at 150% compared to another right
#3 conroe hasn't been released yet. wait til after its released and then start comparing it to other processors.
if it really performs even as good as an FX-60, then it's going to cost a pretty penny. lol
also, AMD is still using 90nm.... and people have even gotten them as high as 4ghz with vapochill
whatever happened to the falsely named "anti-hyperthreading" that was rumored? you know... lets two cores work on a single thread...
probably b.s. then right? lol
SC7
New Member
1. In the ones I saw, it was a 2.13 GHz Conroe with 2 MB L2 cache, all systems had 1 GB of their respective best RAMS, and a 7900GTX.
2. There are several different reviews on this topic out there.
3. The price scaling has been released, and several processors which are priced lower than the FX-60 outperformed it. It's AMDs own fault they're still at 90nm. I don't care what they can do, they need to do it (offer 65 nm parts)
4. Anti-hyperthreading is BS to begin with, it's the mentality "Oh, let's sacrafice real world performance for better benchmarking results."
Conroe has been reviewed at many different places and all of the results conclude it's superior. What's wrong with that? The chip is just apparently superior, I'm not going to say it is myself until I can fairly test it, but I can, based on all I've read, advise people to go for Conroe over the current AMD offerings.
2. There are several different reviews on this topic out there.
3. The price scaling has been released, and several processors which are priced lower than the FX-60 outperformed it. It's AMDs own fault they're still at 90nm. I don't care what they can do, they need to do it (offer 65 nm parts)
4. Anti-hyperthreading is BS to begin with, it's the mentality "Oh, let's sacrafice real world performance for better benchmarking results."
Conroe has been reviewed at many different places and all of the results conclude it's superior. What's wrong with that? The chip is just apparently superior, I'm not going to say it is myself until I can fairly test it, but I can, based on all I've read, advise people to go for Conroe over the current AMD offerings.
Geoff
VIP Member
I think they actually did show the system specs.fade2green514 said:yea... the numbers they put out were most likely false.
#1 they didn't show system specs in that review
#2 reviews aren't always reliable... we all know how hard it is to make a small chart that says one cpu perform at 150% compared to another right
#3 conroe hasn't been released yet. wait til after its released and then start comparing it to other processors.
if it really performs even as good as an FX-60, then it's going to cost a pretty penny. lol
also, AMD is still using 90nm.... and people have even gotten them as high as 4ghz with vapochill
whatever happened to the falsely named "anti-hyperthreading" that was rumored? you know... lets two cores work on a single thread...
probably b.s. then right? lol
Well it's obviously better than an FX-60, but to find out how much, we will need to run some tests when they come out. And the Conroes are going to cost around $300-$500.
And a few overclockers got their 2.93Ghz Conroe's to 5Ghz, and it ran SuperPi 1M in 10.2s.
Clutch
banned
fade2green514 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1
Anandtech Review said:
#1 of your post debunked. System specifications were posted on that first preview of the Conroe.
You need to realize it's not only large websites which have the Conroes, but also individual overclockers, and all the results have the same connotation that when these processors are released to the general public, they will destroy anything that AMD has at the moment. #2 of your post debunked, yet again.Fade2Green514 said:#2 reviews aren't always reliable... we all know how hard it is to make a small chart that says one cpu perform at 150% compared to another right
When Conroe finally does come out, it's not going to be any slower than what we have seen over the past month or two in the hands of many reviewers/individuals. The preliminary samples people have now are 90-95% of the final product which Conroe is going to be when it is released. The only thing Intel would do between this time period is to possibly optimize the architecture even more, although I doubt that, as the processors are most likely already being fabricated as we speak.Fade2Green514 said:
And it will not cost a pretty penny to beat an Athlon 64 FX-60, as evident by referring to the pricing charts.
Yeah, and the Conroe has already reached 5GHz.Fade2Green514 said:
Last edited:
Well anti-hyperthereading is a supposed AMD innovation (if it even exists I don't see it working at all, and even if it does work probably not well) so are you trying to slam your own product of choice?
Thanks for the commentary, do you do colour commentary as well?
