[robina80]

whats the point when they already bought out quads

[Carbon]

They can get more out of their quad batches that are defective.

It's going to be a while until AMD is competitive again. Now is not the time to buy their stuff.

[kanoakavirus]

Unless your low on cash and respect for your system.

[redden137]

Originally Posted by Carbon They can get more out of their quad batches that are defective. It's going to be a while until AMD is competitive again. Now is not the time to buy their stuff.

They did the same with the defective dual core cpu, sold many as 3500 single core but with a "newer" manchester core,
m8 had one terrible overclocker as well

[slipend]

I have never ever used an AMD CPU, can't say I really want to either.

Having said that, how do the Athlon 64x2 dualcores cope?

[WHATSUP]

Originally Posted by slipend I have never ever used an AMD CPU, can't say I really want to either. Having said that, how do the Athlon 64x2 dualcores cope?

I'm running with Athlon 64X2 6000+ with no problem. OC to 3.4 and stable, still leaning on OC so not pushing to far yet.

[SocialWarfare]

Only very few applications are able to really make good use of the performance capabilities of a quad core processor which means that, generally speaking, the performance benefits are definitely not doubled up. The vast majority of programs only support two processors cores and, when this is the case, the computer is simply overworked by the application. If additional performance is required by the operating system, for the numerous applications running in the background such as Messenger, audio chat, video output on a second monitor or SHH encrypted downloads, the dual core application (for example, a 3D game) loses performance and runs at a slower rate. The third core is ideal for handling these additional tasks. It reduces the load on the other two cores and allows the dual core application to continue operating without disruption.

Source


As can see here they are a formidable opponent against the E8200




Source

[pandahead]

I swapped to an AMD core nearly 2 years ago, and I've yet to look back. The 5200 X2-64 I'm currently running is beautifully stable. It's clocked to about 3.4GHz and still doesn't even hint at being shaky. The Intel CPU I used to run would pack up and die if I even tried to OC, let alone to the degree I can on this one.

As to the tri-core vs quad-core argument, it depends on what you're using the system for. If, like me, you game a lot and do some 3d model work, video editing etc, then a core-3 is absolutely perfect. I simply haven't got around to upgrading yet.

If you're using the system to show off how big and padded your wallet is (or was, before you started an expensive upgrade process =D) then a core-4 is just what you need. Using a tri-core to take up a little bit of slack during high loads is sound. There are, to my knowledge, no applications that can perform the shunt to the 2 spare cores offered on a quad-core chip.

Tri cores, as far as it goes, are a good idea. They're just unecessary. By and large, a sufficiently powerful dual core will probably still match a tri-core for performance, and will likely still be cheaper than a tri-core of equivalent processing capability.

Plus, 3 is a cooler number than 4.

[SocialWarfare]

I would love to see a few pics of that CPU oc'd to 3.4Ghz as I have never seen one clocked so high