T
tifc8lraz
Just wondering if this chip (am2) is a good gaming cpu. Or is the Pentium D @ 2.66GHz (533fsb) better?
- Status
T
tifc8lraz
The only problem I have with it is it is 2.2GHz, although I am NOT aquanted with Athlon. I heard this can outpower a 3.2GHz P4, is this right?
nickslick74
Posts: 550 +4
Yes, it would outperform the old PD's and P4's (but not conroe). The Intel chip your are asking about, it wouldn't happen to be the 805 would it? The PD 805 are SUPER overclockers. You can get them up to about 3.4 on air and over 4 on water. THG did a review on this chip and verified that it can go that fast.
T
tifc8lraz
Yea, it is. Will it ouperform the 3500+?
EDIT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001
EDIT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001
T
tifc8lraz
Also note that I can't afford a nice cooler at the moment (still pulling out money for new mobo).
nickslick74
Posts: 550 +4
I'll have more of a chance to give input when I get home, but if you get the right mobo you could upgrade in the future to a conroe processor.
T
tifc8lraz
True, but AMD also has really nice dual core cpu's on their am2 mobos as well. The amd athlon runs cooler, and has a lower l2 cache which means less latency. Alhough, the Pentium D has 2 cores, and runs at 2.66GHz; I'm stuck!
EDIT:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/index.html
EDIT:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/index.html
T
tifc8lraz
johnmayo said:
Much better than my old Celeron 2.66 @ 3.1GHz lol!
T
tifc8lraz
I want the Pentium D, but my desicion is not yet locked. I did write a post saying that I am getting it, but that's not completely true. Give me 24 Hours to think 
T
tifc8lraz
Practically! I think the Pentium D would be a tad faster though. I liked my Celeron; it was blazing fast (weird huh)?
T
tifc8lraz
Right now I'm restricted to a PIII @ 933MHz, and 256mb sdram. I HATE this speed!
MetalX
Posts: 1,364 +4
Pentium D isn't 2 Celerons with more cache... because a Celeron is just a P4 with LESS cache. So if it had more cache that makes it 2 P4 2.66s. And while Pentium D isn't the best out there it is still better than anything single core and MUCH better than anything with the name Celeron.
nickslick74
Posts: 550 +4
Both sockets offer good upgrade paths. But, I'm not sure where AMD is headed with their AM2 platform, they have been pretty quiet. From what I hear, the mobos that will handle C2D should also support the quad core cpus set to come out in the future (year or less).
Edit: If you are going on price alone, then the AMD 3500+ for AM2 is cheaper than the 805 and the mobo will be cheaper also. Don't forget, both need DDR2 memory.
Edit: If you are going on price alone, then the AMD 3500+ for AM2 is cheaper than the 805 and the mobo will be cheaper also. Don't forget, both need DDR2 memory.
JimShady23
Posts: 360 +4
AMD Overclocks
I have not heard a whole ton on the overclockablity of the new AM2 based CPU's but if they are anything close to the Venice core 939 then they also overclock very well. 2.7 on air so ive heard.
Personally unless you have to, I am not going to even think about any new platform changes for the next year or so.
Yeah Conroe is great and all, but its the first chip of many to come.....From both Intel and AMD.....And knowing intel, every new chip they make is going to require a new chipset (i.e. motherboard) Although AMD isnt much better now a days. I think as many said AM2 was a easy way to jump into the DDR-II game. Other than that I am pretty certain that the next big thing from AMD is not going to be socket AM2 based.
Technically I am not getting into the DDR-II race until it becomes a standard and there is a significant performance increase over standard DDR with reasonably priced memory.
I have a AM2 X2 4400+ sitting on e-bay right now because If i used it I would have to upgrade my mobo and my memory wich i do not want to do.
And we are talking about quad-core ? I know and have researched this myself, but isnt that a little much ? We havnt even begun to get a software base for double threaded applications yet let alone quad threaded. Dual core is nice because yes, you can enode a DVD while burning one. But how much faster do you think quad core is going to be ?
In theory you can burn a DVD, encode a movie, play a game and scan for virus's all at the same time, but dont you think that Memory is going to be the bottleneck when it comes to doing that many things at one time ?
Even with the bandwidth of DDR-II 1066mhz your going to notice lots of lagg when trying to do 4 things at once. Do you not agree ? I notice that with dual core. Yeah I can encode a movie and play F.E.A.R but do my frame rates drop ? And does the encoding take a little longer ? Yes it does, because it is allocating memory to each task in return making less avaliable for each task.
So I guess I would have to say my advice is to get the cheepest platform that you can survive with for the next year or so. Almost any P4 or AM2 single core will be pretty cheap. Unlike me, if your buying a new system go with a DDR-II chasis. I myself have $300 stuck into DDR so the jump to DDR-II at this time wouldnt be very cost effective for a few extra FPS in games.
Sorry im throwing a ton of ways to look at things out there but it is a confusing time in terms of system configurations.
Another thought is chipsets, of course Intel is going to make their own for ever, making it a necessity to buy a new motherboard every time a new CPU comes out. But AMD is not going to have Nvidia as a backer for too much longer either. AMD's buy out of ATI is a certainty of that.
I have not heard a whole ton on the overclockablity of the new AM2 based CPU's but if they are anything close to the Venice core 939 then they also overclock very well. 2.7 on air so ive heard.
Personally unless you have to, I am not going to even think about any new platform changes for the next year or so.
Yeah Conroe is great and all, but its the first chip of many to come.....From both Intel and AMD.....And knowing intel, every new chip they make is going to require a new chipset (i.e. motherboard) Although AMD isnt much better now a days. I think as many said AM2 was a easy way to jump into the DDR-II game. Other than that I am pretty certain that the next big thing from AMD is not going to be socket AM2 based.
Technically I am not getting into the DDR-II race until it becomes a standard and there is a significant performance increase over standard DDR with reasonably priced memory.
I have a AM2 X2 4400+ sitting on e-bay right now because If i used it I would have to upgrade my mobo and my memory wich i do not want to do.
And we are talking about quad-core ? I know and have researched this myself, but isnt that a little much ? We havnt even begun to get a software base for double threaded applications yet let alone quad threaded. Dual core is nice because yes, you can enode a DVD while burning one. But how much faster do you think quad core is going to be ?
In theory you can burn a DVD, encode a movie, play a game and scan for virus's all at the same time, but dont you think that Memory is going to be the bottleneck when it comes to doing that many things at one time ?
Even with the bandwidth of DDR-II 1066mhz your going to notice lots of lagg when trying to do 4 things at once. Do you not agree ? I notice that with dual core. Yeah I can encode a movie and play F.E.A.R but do my frame rates drop ? And does the encoding take a little longer ? Yes it does, because it is allocating memory to each task in return making less avaliable for each task.
So I guess I would have to say my advice is to get the cheepest platform that you can survive with for the next year or so. Almost any P4 or AM2 single core will be pretty cheap. Unlike me, if your buying a new system go with a DDR-II chasis. I myself have $300 stuck into DDR so the jump to DDR-II at this time wouldnt be very cost effective for a few extra FPS in games.
Sorry im throwing a ton of ways to look at things out there but it is a confusing time in terms of system configurations.
Another thought is chipsets, of course Intel is going to make their own for ever, making it a necessity to buy a new motherboard every time a new CPU comes out. But AMD is not going to have Nvidia as a backer for too much longer either. AMD's buy out of ATI is a certainty of that.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FTC votes to ban most noncompete agreements nationwide- RudyBob replied
-
Razer launches $160 Viper V3 Pro gaming mouse with 8,000 Hz polling rate- hahahanoobs replied
-
What should i do?- bruno167573 replied
-
Apple Vision Pro is facing declining interest and sales among consumers- Raytrace3D replied
-
Apple expected to unveil new iPads at upcoming May 7 event- Daniel Sims replied
