f13.net

Hey all,

 currently using a AMD6000+ but i'm looking to change to a Intel chip after reading various reports. Been with AMD for a few years now so well out of the loop on there cheaps, just read that the Intel equiv is normally 18% faster then the AMD. There also seems to be a few diff chipset names for the Intel CPU's. And im not sure is itworth having a quad core over a dual for gaming? I don't do photo editting etc

Its for the gaming machine, already have 4GB and a 8800GTX  Extreme which im planning to change in a few months.

Budget is around £300 for a CPU and mobo

http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/guide-200809.ars

Just a question, why would upgrade from a 3.0Ghz processor (I'm pretty sure with that processor your going to be GPU limited)?

Hmm, Same question as you. I love my x2 6000+ Its a nice 3.0Ghz Dual Core. I dont have any problems with any games, and don't see any issues for at least 6 more months.

I think Logie should hold off on his upgrades and throw some more money into the fund while waiting for some new generations of equipment to be developed.

Cause the Core 2 Duo architecture is much more efficient Hz for Hz compared to the Athlon 64 architecture. I.e. a 3.0 GHz C2D is *much* faster than a Athlon 64 X2 6000+, though of course it's more expensive. The X2 6000+ is more in line with, say, a 2.4 GHz C2D like the old E6600.

You have anything that proves that with empirical evidence?

Umm...look at CPU benchmarks?

You can start here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/benchmarks,16.html

Wasnt calling you out. Those benchmarks explain why my new laptop is so quick. I got my current processor and mobo for free from a dealer rep of mine so im not complaining, I plan on upgrading my machine in about 6 months though. Wonder if there are going to be any type of new developements between now and then.

P.S. Holy shit, i was just cruising intel prices on newegg. They are absolutely rediculous. Charging those prices for such marginal gains and barely percievable performance differences.

I thought Intel had gone a step infront of AMD, so was looking to upgrade, but if theres not much point i have no trouble in waiting if theres a new line of CPU on the horizon!

Hi, welcome to building PCs since they made PCs.

Depends on what 300 Pounds can get you but given our wacky US Dollar and my unfamiliarity with UK computer Web stores I couldn't tell you if that's enough money to get a substantial enough upgrade.

Yes but this is crazier than normal. Intel is smoking crack if they think their performance is good enough to sway me from AMD pricing.

P.S. Ive played my favorite games and some new bleeding edge games, on both really nice Intel Quad Cores and AMD Phenom builds(Lots of nerd friends who build their machines every 6 months or so). Ill be damned if i could tell a difference in performance of the software and games.

 Oh no doubt, the IPC advantage was even noticeable for me as my e2180 was almost as fast as a x2 5000+ before overclock in basic CPU benches. I was glad to ditch my AM2 system for an Intel a year and a half ago, if it was today not so much.  I'm just wondering at what point tho the GPU is going to kill any performance gains in respect to CPU (I guess what's games he's intending to get the performance from ie: supcom slaying his CPU).

The i7 is launching quite soon (ddr3 change, motherboard socket, cpu), I'd just drop the cash on a high end video card and wait it out sell the system this/next year with the 8800gtx to fiance a whole architecture change. Glad its not my choice ;)

It's been typical, since the late 90's, that if you want to stay bleeding edge you pay up to triple for numerical performance gains of 5 - 8%, which is generally an unnoticeable improvement.

I pretty much never buy anything this generation, I do pay attention to reviews though so I am ready once the price drops.