|
|
#1
28th Nov 2007, 11:29
|
|||
|
|||
|
hi all
I am looking to build a new pc and am thinking of either going for a amd x2 6000 or 6400, if anyone has a pc running either of the 2 cpu's can they let me know what they think and if they are worth the money. Cheers Zek |
|
#2
28th Nov 2007, 12:16
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Neither.
Intel E6850. Seriously, 'Nuff said.
__________________
__________________
heard wow is a better contraceptive then the pill, no joke i played rs for 2-3 years and 2 weeks after i stopped i lost my virginity. -Kanoakavirus
My System: Zoomy
|
|
#3
30th Nov 2007, 16:47
|
|||
|
|||
|
thats a matter of opinion, between amd or intel
also surely 6400+ is better as it has 0.4 Ghz more? |
|
#4
30th Nov 2007, 19:55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nope.
If you purchase a cpu simply based upon it's clock speed then you're deluding yourself. So what you're saying is that a Celeron 2ghz is a better cpu than a Core2 1.83ghz. Yes? No? The 6400 benches roundabout the E6750. Hence E6850. Why do you think AMD price the 6400 round the E6750's price? Craiig: Seriously now (and genuinely, I'm not trying to be insulting) but if this is how little you know you might want to get some more advice before buying the other bits I've seen you mention in a couple of other threads.
__________________
heard wow is a better contraceptive then the pill, no joke i played rs for 2-3 years and 2 weeks after i stopped i lost my virginity. -Kanoakavirus
|
|
#5
1st Dec 2007, 06:22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i know i dont know much but i will never know unless i ask and post? sorry if im anoying =( |
|
#6
1st Dec 2007, 06:46
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's far from annoying Craiig. I'd just hate any member to spend money on something when they could have could have purchased something better for roundabout the same money.
__________________
heard wow is a better contraceptive then the pill, no joke i played rs for 2-3 years and 2 weeks after i stopped i lost my virginity. -Kanoakavirus
|
|
#7
1st Dec 2007, 09:52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi
I have had a rethink and maybe the intel is the best option (i think), looking around at the minute you can get quad core qx6600 for 164.00, would this be better to go with this instead of E6850 ? |
|
#8
1st Dec 2007, 10:52
|
|||
|
|||
|
For future proofing? Yes?
For out and out performance? No, not just yet. Although multi-threaded apps are becoming more mainstream.
__________________
heard wow is a better contraceptive then the pill, no joke i played rs for 2-3 years and 2 weeks after i stopped i lost my virginity. -Kanoakavirus
|
|
#9
6th Dec 2007, 16:03
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Obviously you can't beat having a quad core in your rig, but as Alex said at the minute there isn't much (if any) performance increase using current software from a quad core cpu, compared to a dual core.
I was tempted to go for quad core as IMO it is a bargain at the minute - though I opted for the AMD X2 6000+, and haven't looked back since. It's running at stock speeds at the moment too, but I intend on overclocking it 
__________________
__________________
Woah! You found my secret sentence! lol, n00b. 
My System: =/
|
