PC geeks - ultimate gaming rig help

[stosstruppe]

Was just browsing Company of Heroes / OF & Age of Conan forums & checking out some of the PCs people had (as I was growing increasingly exasperated at how low I had to put my graphics settings for CoH / OF) when with ever increasing obviousness it occurred to me how obsolete my (former awesome) PC had became for gaming after "only" 3 years.

I'm cringing at the thought of yet again spending the equivalent of $3'500 for a new gaming PC again (fucking absurd I know, especially when I'm reading about PC savvy Yanks throwing together an awesome rig for 30-50% of that).

All of a sudden now these high end games seem to require DirectX 10, Vista 64mbit OS, 4GB RAM, 8/9 series GT(S), Quad processors etc etc giving me a fucking headache trying to decipher this bullshit.

Anyhoo, what am I looking for in order to throw together an awesome gaming rig with regards to graphics card, CPU, RAM etc? Generally what factors do you prioritise when constructing a PC for the ultimate gaming experience?

 

[75th]

Ill still pwn you in Call of Duty 4.

 

[chewyxrage]

I'm assuming you want a desktop?

 

[Razorguns]

Was just browsing Company of Heroes / OF & Age of Conan forums & checking out some of the PCs people had (as I was growing increasingly exasperated at how low I had to put my graphics settings for CoH / OF) when with ever increasing obviousness it occurred to me how obsolete my (former awesome) PC had became for gaming after "only" 3 years.

I'm cringing at the thought of yet again spending the equivalent of $3'500 for a new gaming PC again (fucking absurd I know, especially when I'm reading about PC savvy Yanks throwing together an awesome rig for 30-50% of that).

All of a sudden now these high end games seem to require DirectX 10, Vista 64mbit OS, 4GB RAM, 8/9 series GT(S), Quad processors etc etc giving me a fucking headache trying to decipher this bullshit.

Anyhoo, what am I looking for in order to throw together an awesome gaming rig with regards to graphics card, CPU, RAM etc? Generally what factors do you prioritise when constructing a PC for the ultimate gaming experience?

Get a grip on yourself bitch! It's not that bad!!

Quad, 32-bit Vista, Expensive Video card, 4 gigs, good warranty, powerful enough power supply, not having a zillion apps blogging your system, good speakers, big monitor. That's more than good enough right there.

The PC gaming geeks are the losers that spend hours and thousands of dollars tweaking shit for a 2% improvement. Imaging putting expensive rims on a sports car, hoping it'll go faster.

You can get more then good enough of a system at best buy. If you have money to blow, and want to look cool - you can get alienwar and xps sytems. Mind you, they also have just as many technical problems that go along with it. Read up on complaints.

(btw: If you've subscribed to my monthly newsletter - you'd know I bought a kick ass intel 4gb 2.6ghz quad from hp. And so far it kicks butt at any game i've tried it with).

r

 

[stosstruppe]

Ill still pwn you in Call of Duty 4.

Probably - I prefer Red orchestra OST-Front to CoD4 for my FPS experience.

I'm assuming you want a desktop?

Can you get laptops now that can handle high end games? But yea, I'm looking towards a desktop.

 

[stosstruppe]

Get a grip on yourself bitch! It's not that bad!!

Quad, 32-bit Vista, Expensive Video card, 4 gigs, good warranty, powerful enough power supply, not having a zillion apps blogging your system, good speakers, big monitor. That's more than good enough right there.

The PC gaming geeks are the losers that spend hours and thousands of dollars tweaking shit for a 2% improvement. Imaging putting expensive rims on a sports car, hoping it'll go faster.

You can get more then good enough of a system at best buy. If you have money to blow, and want to look cool - you can get alienwar and xps sytems. Mind you, they also have just as many technical problems that go along with it. Read up on complaints.

(btw: If you've subscribed to my monthly newsletter - you'd know I bought a kick ass intel 4gb 2.6ghz quad from hp. And so far it kicks butt at any game i've tried it with).

r

I hear ya. Don't care what the tower looks like, performance > image. Not going to spend a grand just for a negligible boost either. I don't know how to assemble my own PC - yea ok, I can do slight customising with the options provided via Dell, but I'll be fucked if I'm paying top price via Dell again.

I currently own a XPS Gen 5 system that's coming up for 3 years old, it has:

256MB nVidia GeForce 6800 (which is apparently superbly obsolete)
2048MB RAM DDR2 533MHz
3.2GHz Dual-Core

The problem is I hear people talking about boosting their RAM and graphics card, both of which I have no idea how to do, and also what part of my PC specs / component is hindering my gaming performance (RAM? Graphics card? CPU?)

Do I seriously want Vista btw? I heard it had a tonne of problems which is why I stuck with my Windows XP.

People were also discussing the difference between Vista 32 and 64bits with regards to RAM usage / limits e.g. you can put 4GB of RAM with Vista 64bit, but expect alot of problems, whereas 32bit with 2GB RAM is less hassle, but then someone said RAM "works better" in even numbers, lol?

 

[Dial_tone]

Considering how much PCs cost why not just buy a game console?

 

[stosstruppe]

Considering how much PCs cost why not just buy a game console?

I haven't owned a games console since my Playstation about... 5-6+ years ago perhaps? I wouldn't even know where to start. Apparently they can hook up online now? <--- that's how ignorant / behind the times I am now with regards to consoles.

 

[milo hobgoblin]

Go with what I got

Commodore Vic 20
8 K RAM cartridge
12" color TV

Fucking PWNS Age of Conan!!



hehe



If you want to upgrade what you got (Im guessing its AGP)

Just install a Radeon HD3850 with 512MB of RAM for 200 bucks.. it will give you decent frame rates at medium settings on your box..

You can also OC that proc about 400 MHz and eek some decent performance out of that in combo with the card I mentioned

 

[Razorguns]

I hear ya. Don't care what the tower looks like, performance > image. Not going to spend a grand just for a negligible boost either. I don't know how to assemble my own PC - yea ok, I can do slight customising with the options provided via Dell, but I'll be fucked if I'm paying top price via Dell again.

I currently own a XPS Gen 5 system that's coming up for 3 years old, it has:

256MB nVidia GeForce 6800 (which is apparently superbly obsolete)
2048MB RAM DDR2 533MHz
3.2GHz Dual-Core

The problem is I hear people talking about boosting their RAM and graphics card, both of which I have no idea how to do, and also what part of my PC specs / component is hindering my gaming performance (RAM? Graphics card? CPU?)

Do I seriously want Vista btw? I heard it had a tonne of problems which is why I stuck with my Windows XP.

People were also discussing the difference between Vista 32 and 64bits with regards to RAM usage / limits e.g. you can put 4GB of RAM with Vista 64bit, but expect alot of problems, whereas 32bit with 2GB RAM is less hassle, but then someone said RAM "works better" in even numbers, lol?

Boosting ram and the video graphics card is easy. Just buy the best when you buy your computer.

Vista 64 is a pain because of trying to get drivers and hardware to work with it. Plus most apps are 32-bit so can't even take advantage of 64-bit. So you get neglible speed increase, and much more problems. Not worth it.

Visually Vista is far better. It has lots of organization, intuitive improvements which I like. Stability, I personally find it better. Then againm ost of the people who knock it, have 1GB installed. That's just stupid.

Get 4 gigs. I do. 3.2gigs for apps, and the rest used by the hardware and makes the system even faster.

Make sure you "tweak" vista to use the 4 gigs. I had to do some tweaking and now it shows all 4 gigs in system properties.

r

 

[stosstruppe]

Thanks fellas for the additional feedback, though the more threads I read on the AoC forum coupled with milo's suggestion the more inclined I am to believe that I can boost my PC simply by upgrading my video card rather than buying an entirely new PC.

2GB RAM and 3.2GHz dual-core processor (that I can apparently overclock to 3.4/3.6 if I bother to figure how to) are apparently "reasonable", though the message I'm getting is that my 6800 will mean having to run the game at low graphics settings:

If you want to upgrade what you got (Im guessing its AGP)

Just install a Radeon HD3850 with 512MB of RAM for 200 bucks.. it will give you decent frame rates at medium settings on your box..

Ok, considering 60min ago I was looking to buy a whole new rig, budget isn't a problem with regards to upgrading my graphics card, but can I seriously slap any new graphics card I want in to my PC? How on Earth does one remove their old card and put in a new one?

The following are what's available / am looking at (from AoC forum):

Class 1 Cards

With these your will probably be able to run the game on max, or at least very high sittings.

Geforce 8800 Series (All Versions) DX10

Radeon HD 2900 Series (All versions) DX10

Radeon HD 3800 Series (All version) DX10

Radeon X1950 Series (All versions) DX9

Geforce 7800/7900 Series (All versions) DX9
------------------
Class 2 Cards

With these you will probably be able to run the game in upper medium range sittings.

S3 Chrome 460 - (only one version) DX10 (expected to release this december)

Radeon X1900 Series (All Versions) DX9

Geforce 8600 Series (All Versions) DX10

Radeon HD 2600 Series (All Versions) DX10

Geforce 7600 Series (All versions) DX9

Radeon X1600 - 1650 Series (All versions) DX9

Radeon X800 Series (All versions) DX9

 

[Razorguns]

Thanks fellas for the additional feedback, though the more threads I read on the AoC forum coupled with milo's suggestion the more inclined I am to believe that I can boost my PC simply by upgrading my video card rather than buying an entirely new PC.

Well they're stupid. They probably oogle over naked Lara Croft images all day (like I don't).

4 processors > 2 processors. This is a no brainer.

While it may run AoC fine today. It won't run tomorrow's high quality processor intensive games tomorrow. And we all know how those asshole game developers just love to push the envelope more and more every year.

So get the expensive ram heavy card. And if your computer isn't up to speed one day - buy a new computer and transfer over the card.

And don't forget the big ass monitor. For games, and viewing lara croft images.

r

 

[stosstruppe]

4 processors > 2 processors. This is a no brainer.

So get the expensive ram heavy card. And if your computer isn't up to speed one day - buy a new computer and transfer over the card.

It's just RAM though? Any point buying sticks to go from 2GB to 4? Can you actually upgrade your processor from 2 CPUs to 4 or is that the part that involves buying a new PC?

 

[Dial_tone]

Few games take advantage of multiple CPU's right now. You're better off going with more megahertz.

 

[redsamurai]

dude, $3500?? what are you trying to buy some liquid cooled alien ware shit??

You can put together your own rig, and a damn good one, for probably 1500-1600......excluding monitor. I'd wait if I were you though, the latest vid cards that came out were not what was promised. The one thing you want to go all out on is the video card, that's the meat and potatoes of a gaming rig.

 

[Razorguns]

It's just RAM though? Any point buying sticks to go from 2GB to 4? Can you actually upgrade your processor from 2 CPUs to 4 or is that the part that involves buying a new PC?

Remember you're buying for the FUTURE not now. If you're upgrading it is for the NOW not the future.

So if 2 gigs is fine for now, stick to 2. If you envision buying a new computer later on, the future - then buy 4 with it.

You gotta weight the cost vs advantages vs future vs immediate needs.

My computer is all ready for 2009/10. You may simply want it to handle 2008. It's really up to you. Sounds like you just need a new kick-ass card to handle games you play today.

r

 

[stosstruppe]

Few games take advantage of multiple CPU's right now. You're better off going with more megahertz.

Yea that's what they said about the XPS Gen models a few years back when they went dual processor with little to no games utilising potential performance from it. I have no idea what MHz does in relation to gaming performance though

dude, $3500?? what are you trying to buy some liquid cooled alien ware shit??

You can put together your own rig, and a damn good one, for probably 1500-1600......excluding monitor. I'd wait if I were you though, the latest vid cards that came out were not what was promised. The one thing you want to go all out on is the video card, that's the meat and potatoes of a gaming rig.

Seriously, we get ripped off in Britain for technological goods. Fucking lame so it is. The latest Dell XPS models are about $4-5'000 at current exchange rates. I might look in to importing a PC / laptop from the US though, take advantage of exchange rates and general not-getting-fucked-over-for-the-price-of-goods- like-in-the-UK.

I understand what you mean about the latest cards not being up to par. However, being an exceptionally impulsive person when it comes to buying gadgets the mental force in me is over whelming in that I must upgrade my 6800 NOW before AoC releases on the 20th - even if better cards are being released in a few weeks time.

 

[stosstruppe]

Remember you're buying for the FUTURE not now. If you're upgrading it is for the NOW not the future.

So if 2 gigs is fine for now, stick to 2. If you envision buying a new computer later on, the future - then buy 4 with it.

You gotta weight the cost vs advantages vs future vs immediate needs.

My computer is all ready for 2009/10. You may simply want it to handle 2008. It's really up to you. Sounds like you just need a new kick-ass card to handle games you play today.

r

Normally I would agree with you - when I buy a new gaming rig I want it to last me ~3 years as I did with my XPS gen 5 in '05. However I'm going to the army in ~2 months time and I don't want a brand new gaming PC costing 1'5-3k grand gathering dust in my house while I'm sunning myself in hot and sandy places.

And for this fact I also don't want to invest in an awesome gaming laptop to have it lying around in barracks.

So I just need a short term fixer i.e. the graphics card to fill the tedium in between sleeping and training sessions for the next couple of months.

 

[needtogetarmy]

Stay away from Vista -get a system with XP. Some progs will not play on Vista.

 

[gjohnson5]

I'm using a PC that I spent about $3500 on. But it has Ultra320 scsi, dual core xeon processors on a server motherboard and 4 gigs of ram. I can't even use all the features and it's 2 years old.

If you spent $3500 on a PC 3 years ago, you would still be able to play the games at high speed. Technology moves , but not that quickly

Was just browsing Company of Heroes / OF & Age of Conan forums & checking out some of the PCs people had (as I was growing increasingly exasperated at how low I had to put my graphics settings for CoH / OF) when with ever increasing obviousness it occurred to me how obsolete my (former awesome) PC had became for gaming after "only" 3 years.

I'm cringing at the thought of yet again spending the equivalent of $3'500 for a new gaming PC again (fucking absurd I know, especially when I'm reading about PC savvy Yanks throwing together an awesome rig for 30-50% of that).

All of a sudden now these high end games seem to require DirectX 10, Vista 64mbit OS, 4GB RAM, 8/9 series GT(S), Quad processors etc etc giving me a fucking headache trying to decipher this bullshit.

Anyhoo, what am I looking for in order to throw together an awesome gaming rig with regards to graphics card, CPU, RAM etc? Generally what factors do you prioritise when constructing a PC for the ultimate gaming experience?

 

[milo hobgoblin]

Well they're stupid. They probably oogle over naked Lara Croft images all day (like I don't).

4 processors > 2 processors. This is a no brainer.

While it may run AoC fine today. It won't run tomorrow's high quality processor intensive games tomorrow. And we all know how those asshole game developers just love to push the envelope more and more every year.

So get the expensive ram heavy card. And if your computer isn't up to speed one day - buy a new computer and transfer over the card.

And don't forget the big ass monitor. For games, and viewing lara croft images.

r

Razor is forgetting Amdahls law and when it comes to applications not specifically optimized for multiple processors going from two to four will yield little gain.. and beleive me NONE of these games are highly optimized for multiple procs.. they WILL use them but they have so many thread dependencies that throwing tons of processors at them doesn yield proportional gain.

Razor

I was only offering a "cheap" solution as his processor really isnt that bad .. he said his box was a few years old... so Im guessing its AGP. That dual core can be OCd pretty high as its a first gen core and completely unlocked.

The HD3850 is comparable to a 8 series card and that coupled with a little more RAM and some OC will run these games just fine..




Razor is right.. if you want to spend some cash 12-1500 dollars will buy you a ncie box and you should go top of the line on vid card (although IM a big beleiver in N-1 due to insignificant performance gains vs. cost)



wanted to add.. is yourr box is PCI-E ABSOULTELY do what Razor says and buy a high end card.. but its probably AGP and the HD3850 is the BEST AGP card there is.. bar none (I hear they make an OCd verion called the 3870..but I havnt seen it)

 

[gjohnson5]

The name of the game is processor to PCI-E throughput...
The more bus speed , the better the performance.

Having said the above , the AMD X2 processors are the best bang for the buck. They don't have the highest Ghz rating , but they have much higher bus speed (up to 4000 MHZ) due to multi channel hypertransport

*edit*
Actually AMD's new line of shit is their Phenom processors which are quad core
*edit*

Thanks fellas for the additional feedback, though the more threads I read on the AoC forum coupled with milo's suggestion the more inclined I am to believe that I can boost my PC simply by upgrading my video card rather than buying an entirely new PC.

2GB RAM and 3.2GHz dual-core processor (that I can apparently overclock to 3.4/3.6 if I bother to figure how to) are apparently "reasonable", though the message I'm getting is that my 6800 will mean having to run the game at low graphics settings:



Ok, considering 60min ago I was looking to buy a whole new rig, budget isn't a problem with regards to upgrading my graphics card, but can I seriously slap any new graphics card I want in to my PC? How on Earth does one remove their old card and put in a new one?

The following are what's available / am looking at (from AoC forum):

Class 1 Cards

With these your will probably be able to run the game on max, or at least very high sittings.

Geforce 8800 Series (All Versions) DX10

Radeon HD 2900 Series (All versions) DX10

Radeon HD 3800 Series (All version) DX10

Radeon X1950 Series (All versions) DX9

Geforce 7800/7900 Series (All versions) DX9
------------------
Class 2 Cards

With these you will probably be able to run the game in upper medium range sittings.

S3 Chrome 460 - (only one version) DX10 (expected to release this december)

Radeon X1900 Series (All Versions) DX9

Geforce 8600 Series (All Versions) DX10

Radeon HD 2600 Series (All Versions) DX10

Geforce 7600 Series (All versions) DX9

Radeon X1600 - 1650 Series (All versions) DX9

Radeon X800 Series (All versions) DX9

 

[needtogetarmy]

What GJohnson said

AMD > Intel (and less expensive)

 

[Razorguns]

What GJohnson said

AMD > Intel (and less expensive)

According to every benchmark and pcmag shootout test

Intel > AMD by a long shot.

r

 

[gjohnson5]

What vs what?

Any Intel processesor is faster then and AMD?
And name your source since you say ANY benchmark...

I disagree that Intel machines will be faster due to the processor alone.

According to every benchmark and pcmag shootout test

Intel > AMD by a long shot.

r

 

[Raptorex]

My AMD kicks ass in gaming, I play BF2, America's Army, COD...

 

[gjohnson5]

I'm looking for some Oracle Benchmarks. I know they used to have single and cluster benchmarks for loading data into a database. Last I looked AMD machine were crushing Intel machines in data loading, because it shows that processor speed isn't everything. The throughput to and from peripherals is more important then the speed of the processor.

 

[Raptorex]

and the winner is:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

What vs what?

Any Intel processesor is faster then and AMD?
And name your source since you say ANY benchmark...

I disagree that Intel machines will be faster due to the processor alone.

Intel has the best processors to date, AMD is scrambling to produce something comparable as of yet. The only thing they have Intel beat on so far is power consumption, and that's not by much. Their new motherboards were supposed to be the king shit but have so far gotten mixed reviews, and there is limited ATX support, most of them are still mini.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

and the winner is:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html

Nice try, that was back in fall of '05-

http://reviews.cnet.com/5416-10442_7-0.html?start=320&assetID=6389077&orderBy=creationDate+desc

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

As far as gaming goes, at this point if you want to save money, learn how to build your own rig with parts from here-

http://www.newegg.com

For some reason people are still so afraid of opening up their computer case, and it's kinda baffling as to why, as it's much more logical than they initially think.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/building-pc,511.html

Also you can always ask here for example for some help-

http://forums.cnet.com/5204-6122_102-0.html?forumID=44&tag=forum.fd


Anyways, regarding a decent gaming PC, one underestimated factor is, what resolution are you looking to play a game in? I built a PC for $830 that can run Bioshock on high in 1680x1050 at a near-solid 60fps, all from newegg.com
It can also run Crysis on high but that was on my old monitor with a max res. of 1024x768.

So, you start with whatever monitor you plan on keeping for a while, and then build around its native resolution with hardware that can support it.

DDR2 800 is still mainstream as far as chipset/memory speed goes, but if you want to "future proof" your system (say 3-4 yrs) you'll need to spend more than what I did.

I can give you more info after I get some sleep.

 

[stosstruppe]

Thanks everyone so far for the detailed & informative posts. Was instructed elsewhere to ascertain that I was actually using PCI-Express (I am) using some software called CPU-z.

I was also told to check and see if my power supply could handle the latest cards:

I don't know if your power supply could handle the change though. Evga recommends 400w with 26 amps for the GT/GTS G92. Open up your case and look at the sticker on the side of the power supply. The watts will be easy to find, but you’ll have to add up the 12v lines to figure out the total amps (ex: 12v1 – 15a, 12v2 – 15a = 30 amps total.)

Power Output 460Watts 32Amps

Not sure where to find info. regarding my motherboard. I checked the Dell invoice which has a detailed list of all the components I purchased, though nothing screams out "motherboard!".

The current monitor I use I've always set it to 1024x768. Never experienced anything higher so never had the opportunity to observe the difference in visual quality.

 

[gjohnson5]

Yet Another generality without sources or information to back it up

AMD top of the line quad core processor
http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskt...+&f6=B3&f7=65nm&f8=125.000&f9=4000&f10=False&

Intel top of the line Server processor
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=889844,33088&familyID=5&culture=en-US

The AMD processor has 4000 MHZ system bus. The Best Intel has to offer is 1600Mhz. One distinction between Intel technology and AMD is that AMD chips don't have front side bus. What that means is the memory controller is on the chip. So the speed of the processor talk to the ram is much higher for AMD machines...

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8799,00.html

Intel chips are running 50W more power consumption then the AMD's. Granted the Intel chip is 3.1 GHZ vs a 2.5GHZ AMD, so the processing power edge goes to Intel. The hypertransport makes AMD a good option...

Intel has the best processors to date, AMD is scrambling to produce something comparable as of yet. The only thing they have Intel beat on so far is power consumption, and that's not by much. Their new motherboards were supposed to be the king shit but have so far gotten mixed reviews, and there is limited ATX support, most of them are still mini.

 

[NickyE3]

Thanks everyone so far for the detailed & informative posts. Was instructed elsewhere to ascertain that I was actually using PCI-Express (I am) using some software called CPU-z.

I was also told to check and see if my power supply could handle the latest cards:

I don't know if your power supply could handle the change though. Evga recommends 400w with 26 amps for the GT/GTS G92. Open up your case and look at the sticker on the side of the power supply. The watts will be easy to find, but you’ll have to add up the 12v lines to figure out the total amps (ex: 12v1 – 15a, 12v2 – 15a = 30 amps total.)

Only figures I could find were V: 115/230 A: 6.0/3.0 Hz: 60/50.

Not sure where to find info. regarding my motherboard. I checked the Dell invoice which has a detailed list of all the components I purchased, though nothing screams out "motherboard!".

The current monitor I use I've always set it to 1024x768. Never experienced anything higher so never had the opportunity to observe the difference in visual quality.

What is your dell model?

 

[stosstruppe]

What is your dell model?

D07XP5 - XPS Gen 5

 

[stosstruppe]

Ok, pretty much settling on a GeForce 8800GT GFX Card as everyone seems to be raving about them and there high performance : cost ratio. However when you put "8800GT" in to a search literally dozens of different products come up, leaving a layman such as myself completely

Essentially, what are the differences between all these different models e.g. 256, 512 & 1GB RAM etc ?

 

[gjohnson5]

Dude:

Nvidia makes chipsets...
Many Many Many manufacturers will make video cards by that name because they resell an NVIDIA chipset... All of those cards by the name GeForce 8800GT GFX are basically the sane thing and the same driver funtions on all of them

Ok, pretty much settling on a GeForce 8800GT GFX Card as everyone seems to be raving about them and there high performance : cost ratio. However when you put "8800GT" in to a search literally dozens of different products come up, leaving a layman such as myself completely

Essentially, what are the differences between all these different models e.g. 256, 512 & 1GB RAM etc ?

 

[gjohnson5]

ALso the ATI Radeon X1900 I bought several years ago for this box still provides very high quality 3d and fast performance. Also ATI owns OpenGL so I would expect 3D to more advanced on ATI cards

I need an HD display and a new ATI video card that does HD... That if I ever cared about gaming

 

[Razorguns]

Yet Another generality without sources or information to back it up

AMD top of the line quad core processor
http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskt...+&f6=B3&f7=65nm&f8=125.000&f9=4000&f10=False&

Intel top of the line Server processor
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=889844,33088&familyID=5&culture=en-US

The AMD processor has 4000 MHZ system bus. The Best Intel has to offer is 1600Mhz. One distinction between Intel technology and AMD is that AMD chips don't have front side bus. What that means is the memory controller is on the chip. So the speed of the processor talk to the ram is much higher for AMD machines...

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8799,00.html

Intel chips are running 50W more power consumption then the AMD's. Granted the Intel chip is 3.1 GHZ vs a 2.5GHZ AMD, so the processing power edge goes to Intel. The hypertransport makes AMD a good option...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2226942,00.asp

ET's famous quad showdown article. Read the conclusion on the last page.

r

 

[gjohnson5]

Dude , you didn't even read the article , you just looked for the conclusion at the bottom of this opinion????

If you look at your own post you'll see that the AMD have much better 3d rendering and video encoding was faster. ALso once the video quality of the games went up , you noticed the AMD actually surpass both intel chips in performance. I bet if they did a more intensive test such as the database tests I talk about you would see the Intel's get smoked

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2226942,00.asp

ET's famous quad showdown article. Read the conclusion on the last page.

r

 

[Razorguns]

you just looked for the conclusion at the bottom of this opinion????

If you look at your own post you'll see that the AMD have much better 3d rendering and video encoding was faster. ALso once the video quality of the games went up , you noticed the AMD actually surpass both intel chips in performance. I bet if they did a more intensive test such as the database tests I talk about you would see the Intel's get smoked

I'm posting a general conclusion - you're trying to state specific categories of the chip's performance.

That's like saying "fords suck, they blow up at 30k - but hey, they have nice seats!".

The conclusion is what matters.

r

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Yet Another generality without sources or information to back it up

AMD top of the line quad core processor
http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskt...+&f6=B3&f7=65nm&f8=125.000&f9=4000&f10=False&

http://reviews.cnet.com/processors/amd-phenom-x4-9850/4505-3086_7-32908353.html

Intel top of the line Server processor
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=889844,33088&familyID=5&culture=en-US

The AMD processor has 4000 MHZ system bus. The Best Intel has to offer is 1600Mhz. One distinction between Intel technology and AMD is that AMD chips don't have front side bus. What that means is the memory controller is on the chip. So the speed of the processor talk to the ram is much higher for AMD machines...

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8799,00.html

Intel chips are running 50W more power consumption then the AMD's. Granted the Intel chip is 3.1 GHZ vs a 2.5GHZ AMD, so the processing power edge goes to Intel. The hypertransport makes AMD a good option...

I agree AMD is getting better though, and you're right about the superior chipset design. Still too early to see who holds the best overall performance though. I'll wait for the next cpu review from tom's hardware.