Intel does carry the performance trophy at the high-end (or if you're an extreme overclocker), but AMD's price cuts have resulted in processors that pretty much crush the C2D under $300. You really have to get an E6600 to beat AMD at stock speeds for the same price.
- Mar 6, 2007
- 66
- 0
- 18,630
Agreed aero.
One becomes a fanboy when they suggest I spend 2/3's more for a processor, when the 200 dollar AMD will do just fine.
EVERYONE GETS IT, INTELS ARE BETTER RIGHT NOW!!
But that doesn't mean everyone should spend way the hell more to buy a processor they dont need.
Intels dont touch AMD's at the 5200 range for the money (non OC'ed), period. So please stop telling everyone to buy overpriced processors. We dont all need them.
If the april price cuts bring the quad cores below $300, imagine what a 5200 will cost? Hell yes. (Not to imply I would prefer the AMD, but it will be hella cheap.)
One becomes a fanboy when they suggest I spend 2/3's more for a processor, when the 200 dollar AMD will do just fine.
EVERYONE GETS IT, INTELS ARE BETTER RIGHT NOW!!
But that doesn't mean everyone should spend way the hell more to buy a processor they dont need.
Intels dont touch AMD's at the 5200 range for the money (non OC'ed), period. So please stop telling everyone to buy overpriced processors. We dont all need them.
If the april price cuts bring the quad cores below $300, imagine what a 5200 will cost? Hell yes. (Not to imply I would prefer the AMD, but it will be hella cheap.)
jeff_2087
Distinguished
- Feb 18, 2007
- 823
- 0
- 18,980
Yeah that was my memory from one of the gazillion price cut threads in the CPU forum. They probably want to rain on K10's parade.
(edit: haha does anyone else see visions of q6600s falling from big blue clouds onto a bunch of glum looking AMD fans with green umbrellas?)
(edit: haha does anyone else see visions of q6600s falling from big blue clouds onto a bunch of glum looking AMD fans with green umbrellas?)
knowsitall
Distinguished
- Dec 19, 2006
- 377
- 0
- 18,780
i honestly rather have a e6300 instead of ur 5200.. it cost 180, u can buy a intel mother board and upgrade to a quad core, and also just over clock ur e6300 to 1333fsb, that will be 2.33 ghz on the e6300 which should smoke ur 5200 to sleep. Dont go Amd, Dont be a amd newb plz.
Criminal89
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2006
- 215
- 0
- 18,680
rochin
Distinguished
- Feb 9, 2006
- 210
- 0
- 18,680
I remember when intel was at a loss for a good CPU (P4 days) and the AMD crowd was making everyone that had a intel product seem like a total dumbass. Now that intel and C2D has come out they still hold that AMD is better. Now I am not a hard core OCer but almost anyone can change the FSB in the bios to make the e4300 near 3.0ghz. As well if the OP got a good MB and the e4300 now later on this year he could get a better CPU and still keep his same MB.
I have fallen into the "Ill upgrade in a month" issue. I was going to build a new system in March, but now im waiting again lol. Darn computer prices. But back on topic i see nothing wrong with the AMD chip, but for a cheaper price and 1 bios setting you would get better results.
Criminal89
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2006
- 215
- 0
- 18,680
Pentium fanboys? Where do you see anything about Pentium. Did you mean Intel you retard? Oh and btw you should have gotten a 6400.... they pwn that 5200+.
Criminal89
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2006
- 215
- 0
- 18,680
My FSB is at 400 and I believe my voltage is @ 1.365. (Not exaclty sure on the voltage because I am not right in front of it @ the moment.)
billdcat4
Distinguished
- Nov 14, 2006
- 1,178
- 0
- 19,280
Dear Mr. Curmudgeon:
YOUR COMPUTER WILL GO BIG BOOM LIKE. with the power supply you picked.
simple as that
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/PSU-101-ftopict198276.html
Its all about the amps. In order to run well your sys needs 34 amps or so including headroom.
I dont know how many max amps the Rosewill psu provides, but since it has one 17a and one 18a I would guess at 28a. It might run fine for a while but it is a very poor decision.
With your cpu (not dissing it), the 8800GTX will be SEVERLY bottlenecked. YOu wont Have a difference btwn it and a 320mb GTS.
im not even going to go into cooling.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL GO BIG BOOM LIKE. with the power supply you picked.
simple as that
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/PSU-101-ftopict198276.html
Its all about the amps. In order to run well your sys needs 34 amps or so including headroom.
I dont know how many max amps the Rosewill psu provides, but since it has one 17a and one 18a I would guess at 28a. It might run fine for a while but it is a very poor decision.
With your cpu (not dissing it), the 8800GTX will be SEVERLY bottlenecked. YOu wont Have a difference btwn it and a 320mb GTS.
im not even going to go into cooling.
Very true.
I still haven't seen any benchmarks to prove this. Will he have a few less FPS in games? Sure, he's got a slower CPU (than an E6600 or any highly overclocked low-end C2D). That doesn't mean it's bottlenecking his video card or reducing its capabilities, though.
Criminal89
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2006
- 215
- 0
- 18,680
You have no reason to brag.
Why don't you switch some components out and make the rig even better. I am not even saying you have to go Intel. Try this:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Brisbane 2.3GHz Socket AM2 Processor Model ADO4400DDBOX - Retail (The 5200+ is going to be a severe bottleneck to the 8800gtx anyway, so it will not hurt to drop a few hundred MHz and everyone knows the extra cache on the AMD procs really make no difference.)
If you are set on the 5200+ then get an 8800GTS instead of the GTX. Both the GTX and GTS are bottlenecked by the processor, so choosing the GTS over the GTX will not hurt your performance at all. Then you can spend the extra money on a better power supply. (Which you need severely!!!)
Edit: Oops, I did not even pay attention to the fact that your alredy placed the order. Let us know how that fried GTX turns out after that power supply gives under all that pressure! :roll:
billdcat4
Distinguished
- Nov 14, 2006
- 1,178
- 0
- 19,280
Very true.
I still haven't seen any benchmarks to prove this. Will he have a few less FPS in games? Sure, he's got a slower CPU (than an E6600 or any highly overclocked low-end C2D). That doesn't mean it's bottlenecking his video card or reducing its capabilities, though.
Its actually a well known fact. I dont remember where I saw them but here is an article on the subject: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/index.html
From what I remember, the X2 5200 is worse than the e6300 at stock.
The 8800GTX is known to bottleneck any processor. A 8800GTS with a good seasonic s12 550w would be a much better choice.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram