Intel or AMD

[zabor16]

I am about to put an new system together. I do some gaming (HL2, Battlefield, etc), programming, etc.

Should I go with an Intel E6400 or an AMD X2 4600+?
If AMD AM2 or 939?

I like the 2MB cache on the Intel but will the faster speed of the AMD make up for it?

I will OC it some but don't get into liquid cooling, I have a pretty good air cooled case for it.

Thanks in advance!

 

[1Tanker]

I am about to put an new system together. I do some gaming (HL2, Battlefield, etc), programming, etc.

Should I go with an Intel E6400 or an AMD X2 4600+?
If AMD AM2 or 939?

I like the 2MB cache on the Intel but will the faster speed of the AMD make up for it?

I will OC it some but don't get into liquid cooling, I have a pretty good air cooled case for it.

Thanks in advance!

E6400 all the way. Liquid isn't necessary. The E6400 performs in the X2 4600+ - X2 5000+ area, depending on app. GL

 

[mkaibear]

If you're planning on OC'ing, buy a 6300 instead. Save yourself some cash!

 

[Eurasianman]

agreed with 1Tanker.

just stick with an E6400, but be sure to shell out some cash on the mobo... especially if you want to be able to upgrade to Quad Core within the year. Graphics card... don't spend too much as when Windows Vista comes out, so will DX10, meaning DX10 cards should be around the corner. Note though, you do not need a DX10 card for Vista or DX10, but you would see a performance gain, if you did have a DX10 Card. For now, if you can, just go for like a nVidia 7600GT or something. RAM, at least 2 gig minimom! As well as get SATA 2 HD w/ Perpendicular Recording since these drives are slimmer, allows more air flow. PSU, 600 Watt should be efficient, even if you do go dual card... at least I know it's enough for ATI Crossfire. Haven't looked much into SLI, but I'm sure 600 is enough for it.

Good Luck!

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I am about to put an new system together. I do some gaming (HL2, Battlefield, etc), programming, etc.

Should I go with an Intel E6400 or an AMD X2 4600+?
If AMD AM2 or 939?

I like the 2MB cache on the Intel but will the faster speed of the AMD make up for it?

I will OC it some but don't get into liquid cooling, I have a pretty good air cooled case for it.

Thanks in advance!

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2MB Cache
Asus P5B/P5B Deluxe Motherboard
2x1GB G.Skill or OCZ PC2 6400 DDR-II RAM (Overclocking)
ATi x1900XT 512MB Video Card
Either one of the following Enermax, OCZ Gamstream, PC Power&Cooling, Seasonic, Forton PSU's with at least 520W of power (for future use).

That's my recommendation. ATi cards excel in Battlefield 2 (especially when using Adaptive AA and High Quality AF), nVIDIA cards shimmer like crazy in this game and don't perform nearly as well at the same price level. To be fair OpenGL titles (like Quake 4 and Doom 3) have the opposite effect, ATi cards don't shimmer but they do perform considerably slower at the same price range when compared to nVIDIA products.

 

[jaguarskx]

2x1GB G.Skill or OCZ PC2 6400 DDR-II RAM (Overclocking)

I recommend Corsair DDR2 800 (PC 6400) XMS2 RAM, then again I am partial to Corsair.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

2x1GB G.Skill or OCZ PC2 6400 DDR-II RAM (Overclocking)

I recommend Corsair DDR2 800 (PC 6400) XMS2 RAM, then again I am partial to Corsair.

Yeah I should have mentioned Corsair, I usually do. But since OCZ released the rev2 PC2-6400 *XTC* memory (Platinum not Gold) I've started recommending it instead for overclocking.

I'm running mine at 1200MHz I believe. It's hard to tell with the P5W DH since I have to use SPD and CPU-Z can't read any of the info correctly.

All I know is that I have the FSB set to 405MHz and the memory set to 800MHZ in the bios. Which I believe is 3/2. This would make my DDR-II run at ~ 1200MHz.

But honestly I need to find a program (other then sisoft) that can tell me what speed my memory is running at. Sisoft claims only a 45% efficiency. Which would indicate it's running at 1200MHz. Since I'm only hitting the bandwidth potential of the 405MHz FSB (or 800MHz Dual Channel PC2 6400) which allows me to get over 7000MB/s of bandwidth.

I wish Asus would not dumb down there BIOS so much. Every manufacture should just stick to plain and simple math (5/4, 3/2, 1/1, 8/10). It's dumbed down soo much even I have problems understanding some options. Like Hyperpath.. WTF is that? Is that Turbo mode? Says something about improving bandwidth but what is it really?

 

[1Tanker]

But honestly I need to find a program (other then sisoft) that can tell me what speed my memory is running at. Sisoft claims only a 45% efficiency. Which would indicate it's running at 1200MHz.

What about Everest?

 

[Mike995]

The thing is open gl titles such as Doom 3 and Quake 4 are capped off @ 60 fps, so after that it really doesnt matter. But on the topic, I say go with the core 2 duo, it will offer the greatest overclockability, and best performance. Dont worry about availaibility of the core 2 duo either, it seems to have stabilised.

 

[rahul_cracker]

i suggest you go for the intel bet ,if you are tight on budget go for E6300 or get the E6600 it's a bit expensive but really worth it and the rest of the specs mentioned by the ati dude are great .

:twisted:

 

[Scooby2]

As every one else has said, currently its Intel all the way.

The Core2 range has a better price/peformance ratio and they will overclock much much better than the AMD parts. The cherry on top is that they consume less power so you can start to save for a K8L or its Intel counterpart.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

But honestly I need to find a program (other then sisoft) that can tell me what speed my memory is running at. Sisoft claims only a 45% efficiency. Which would indicate it's running at 1200MHz.

What about Everest?

Did even think about that one. Since they stopped there free version I haven't used it.. but I'm sure you can get a copy of the free version somewhere from a 3rd party site still.

Thanks..

 

[Scooby2]

They still do a Trial version though its partially locked.

 

[1Tanker]

But honestly I need to find a program (other then sisoft) that can tell me what speed my memory is running at. Sisoft claims only a 45% efficiency. Which would indicate it's running at 1200MHz.

What about Everest?

Did even think about that one. Since they stopped there free version I haven't used it.. but I'm sure you can get a copy of the free version somewhere from a 3rd party site still.

Thanks.. I like version 2.2...you don't get the "TRIAL VERSION" in place of some benchmark scores, although it only has 3 benches: Mem Latency, Mem Write, Mem Read.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181

My fave download site.

 

[gOJDO]

I am about to put an new system together. I do some gaming (HL2, Battlefield, etc), programming, etc.

Should I go with an Intel E6400 or an AMD X2 4600+?
If AMD AM2 or 939?

I like the 2MB cache on the Intel but will the faster speed of the AMD make up for it?

I will OC it some but don't get into liquid cooling, I have a pretty good air cooled case for it.

Thanks in advance!

None!
Go with VIA!

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

None!
Go with VIA!

LOL!!!

 

[Eurasianman]

agreed with 1Tanker.

just stick with an E6400, but be sure to shell out some cash on the mobo... especially if you want to be able to upgrade to Quad Core within the year. Graphics card... don't spend too much as when Windows Vista comes out, so will DX10, meaning DX10 cards should be around the corner. Note though, you do not need a DX10 card for Vista or DX10, but you would see a performance gain, if you did have a DX10 Card. For now, if you can, just go for like a nVidia 7600GT or something. RAM, at least 2 gig minimom! As well as get SATA 2 HD w/ Perpendicular Recording since these drives are slimmer, allows more air flow. PSU, 600 Watt should be efficient, even if you do go dual card... at least I know it's enough for ATI Crossfire. Haven't looked much into SLI, but I'm sure 600 is enough for it.

Good Luck!

Ok, to please an unsatisfied person who had to PM me because I'm human and I make mistakes.

DX10 is locked with Vista. Windows XP, as of now, will not run DX10. However, DirectX 9 Video Cards will render DirectX 10, just not as well as a DirectX 10 card, which would make sense. DirectX 9 will run Windows Vista just fine! It's just that, Windows Vista is DirectX 10 base, that's all I'm saying. It's up to the user if they want to wait for DirectX 10 cards or not though.

Second, the seagate hard drive I have, is slimmer, but I do not know if it's because of the perpendicular recording or just a different model. I might have just gotten the slimmer version of the hard drive.

Lastly, PSU, 600 WATT is sufficient enough, efficiency is something different for all you people out there that pay attention to grammar and everything.

To the guy who PM me, sorry oh great one for not being clear and perfect, I didn't realize you were Jesus.

 

[4745454b]

An edit would have been fine, but I think your moving in the wrong direction...

Fixes to this is in order.

DX10 is locked with Vista. Windows XP, as of now, will not run DX10. However, DirectX 9 Video Cards will render DirectX 10, just not as well as a DirectX 10 card

(everything else in that paragraph is ok.)

I wonder how you think DX9 will handle the geometery shader found in DX10? I can't think of a nice way to say this, so I'll have to just be blunt. From your first post to this "fix", you seem to not understand the move to DX10. Maybe you do but can't seem to find a way to put it into words, maybe you flat out don't know. I'm asking you to fix it so people don't come along later and read INCORRECT info, and believe it to be true. People search forums like this for answers, think about what your posting first. (and if you flat out don't know, don't post.)

Lastly, PSU, 600 WATT is sufficient enough, efficiency is something different for all you people out there that pay attention to grammar and everything.

Considering the amount of money that the 600W PSU might be powering, the difference between sufficient and efficient is important. While this isn't rocket science, if you want a good computing experience, you need to pay attention to what you pick and why.

To the guy who PM me, sorry oh great one for not being clear and perfect, I didn't realize you were Jesus.

I give you a 6 for originality, but a 3 for the insult. Go to name calling if you need to, I'd fire back with facts.

 

[smelly_feet]

depends on how much money you want to spend.

the best sub $200 processor is the x2 3800+ (in terms of price per performance per wattage). Anything over 200$ definitely go conroe (at least according to Tom's CPU charts).

In terms of price/performance, core2 is better. More computing power (for the most benchmarks) for less money and runs cooler also.

If you decide to go amd, go am2


just my 2 cents

 

[DaveUK]

Core2 ftw its a no-brainer really, seriously

plenty of harder questions in life than this

I bet you knew the answer before you posted it? Lets face it noone was gonna say 'get the X2 definitely man its way more 1337'.

...

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

depends on how much money you want to spend.

the best sub $200 processor is the x2 3800+ (in terms of price per performance per wattage). Anything over 200$ definitely go conroe (at least according to Tom's CPU charts).

In terms of price/performance, core2 is better. More computing power (for the most benchmarks) for less money and runs cooler also.

If you decide to go amd, go am2


just my 2 cents

The best sub $200 processor is the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 priced at $183USD. CLICK ME!

 

[Eurasianman]

An edit would have been fine, but I think your moving in the wrong direction...

Fixes to this is in order.

DX10 is locked with Vista. Windows XP, as of now, will not run DX10. However, DirectX 9 Video Cards will render DirectX 10, just not as well as a DirectX 10 card

(everything else in that paragraph is ok.)

I wonder how you think DX9 will handle the geometery shader found in DX10? I can't think of a nice way to say this, so I'll have to just be blunt. From your first post to this "fix", you seem to not understand the move to DX10. Maybe you do but can't seem to find a way to put it into words, maybe you flat out don't know. I'm asking you to fix it so people don't come along later and read INCORRECT info, and believe it to be true. People search forums like this for answers, think about what your posting first. (and if you flat out don't know, don't post.)

Lastly, PSU, 600 WATT is sufficient enough, efficiency is something different for all you people out there that pay attention to grammar and everything.

Considering the amount of money that the 600W PSU might be powering, the difference between sufficient and efficient is important. While this isn't rocket science, if you want a good computing experience, you need to pay attention to what you pick and why.

To the guy who PM me, sorry oh great one for not being clear and perfect, I didn't realize you were Jesus.

I give you a 6 for originality, but a 3 for the insult. Go to name calling if you need to, I'd fire back with facts.

Like I said in the PM, if you're here to correct people in forums, you got a huge load of work buddy! I just pulled that from other threads! People say that DX9 cards will render DX10, but will not be able to handle all of DirectX10's capabilities. Is that better wording for you Professor English?

sheesh!

But hey, the way I look at it, if you go and fix everyone's post, you should catch up to wusy's post count in no time!

 

[BaronMatrix]

I am about to put an new system together. I do some gaming (HL2, Battlefield, etc), programming, etc.

Should I go with an Intel E6400 or an AMD X2 4600+?
If AMD AM2 or 939?

I like the 2MB cache on the Intel but will the faster speed of the AMD make up for it?

I will OC it some but don't get into liquid cooling, I have a pretty good air cooled case for it.

Thanks in advance!

The Core 2 is generally faster but nowadays these two chips are fast enoguh that it doesn't matter. Either one will do the job. Gaming is more video card dependent so for most things either of these will be more than you need.

My AMD loyalty says 4600+ all the way but the speed of Core 2 says go for it. The choice is yours. If you have DDR, 939 is the best bet.

 

[dasickninja]

Straight up and down go with the Core 2. Very few chip can hold a candle to their performace and OC ability.

 

[dasickninja]

Or if you are a fanboy that can't see past your own stupidity.
[joke people... don't flame me ]
The 939 platform to me still has more worth than AM2 on the perspective that its far cheaper and allows you to spend money on other components, like the FX series that some people think will be sold at $300...