which the e2200, but for gaming if I oc both they will be at equal performance for gaming… aside for gaming and normal computer operations there isn’t much I need the comp for
If that were so do you think I would push this argument so far? At the same mhz, the Intel chip is more than 20% faster than the AMD in most environments, and you can probably overclock it to an even higher clock speed in the first place, using an inexpensive board, without causing a massive power consumption. Despite what a lot of reports say, a fast CPU is a necessity for high-end games.
Yea but to oc a b.e. 5000 all u gotta to do is raise the multiplier… and I doubt there will be a noticeable difference in the gaming from either
and all you have to do to overclock the Intel is raise the front side bus... Perhaps the 5000+ is different, but a highly overclocked 4200+ is almost unplayable in Assassins Creed, with a 3Ghz E4300 (not even the 3.15Ghz I now have it at) it's perfectly playable. I'd say that's a reasonable difference.
can u leave a oc'ed 4300 for a 24/7 ssetup, like u can with 5000+ black edition also i c that more people have a be 5000+'s than e4400 or e2200
My E4300 is in use every day for almost the whole day, and has been running at 3.15Ghz since September 07. Additionally it had been running at 3Ghz from January 07 until then. The only reason it wasn't at 3.15 was because I had a naff motherboard.
I don't think that, because I don't know a single person who's built a new PC for gaming recently using an AM2 Dual core, not one. A good 15-20 people I know have built gaming PCs in the last year or so and every single one has been a Core 2 Duo based system.
what bout e2200 or e4400 cause if i go intel ill go with that... that thing i like about intel is later i have upgrade room... i can lter get a e6759 or e8400 or after that a quad core, or wayyy after an extreme...
you could, or more importantly a quad core. To be fair you have that optopn open with AMD as well, but their quads are rubbish.
Not really, they're slower than even the cheapest of Intel's quad cores, the Q6600, can't be overclocked very much at all, and aren't even compatible with most AMD motherboards.
well they are with the k9a2 plat and k9a2 cf-f v2 soo if i go amd ill go with either of those... i've heard all the sides and points i think i just need to setup a poll, can i do that on this site
I don't think the afterdawn forum has a feature for that - ask it in the official PC building thread though and you'll get plenty of responses.
You most surely can. I run my e6750 at 3.4GHz 24/7/365. I've been doing so with it on a 680i mobo and a P35 mobo. an e4300 will usually run stable and cool at 3GHz with a decent cooler. As far as I am aware, more people have been going Intel for the last few years. The 5000+ BE is only really a good upgrade if you already have a socket AM2 mobo and a limited budget. It's still good, just not as good as Intel. Stay away from Phenom. If you must go AMD just get an X2 and OC it. Too many compatibility issues. Can't be OC'd. Compatibility issues. Performance issues for some. But not absolute rubbish. A 2.3GHz Phenom 9600 still keeps up well with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad. Don't believe me? Check this page out: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/phenom_9600/ As you can see, mixed results. But a marked improvement from AMD X2 and generally up to par with Intel. No Q6600 in this test but you can kind of guess by comparing with the QX6700. Bottom line, if you're an AMD fanboy, go with AMD. But if you want higher performance, go Intel. I suppose either will do you just fine for most games and apps. Intel has a noticeable advantage in some things, but a 3GHz 5000+ BE is no slouch either.
