Cheat Engine

skam8 · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Cpu

Hello again hardware section, my question for today is about cpu.

I know that intel cpu are better than amd one, but i was wondering if amd could be a great choice since amd phenom x4 are way less expensive than intel cheapest quad core(Q6600).

Also, what is the best motherboard I can have for a low budget(the lower the better) (lets assume i need a 775 socket) (It must hold at least 4gb of ram)

And yes, I do know how I can be annoying with all those questions but I wont buy another computer for a few(and most likely lots) years so I want to make sure to buy the right pieces.

superweapons · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject:

The top of the line AMD Phenom (a 9600 OC'd to 2.4GHz) is on average, 20% slower than the Q6600 in benchmarks (at least that's what I remember). How much the price of the parts are is what matters. Where I live, the price difference is 10%, but that's going against the slower 9500.

A more specific budget would help, but in my opinion, >$100 is low-budget. So, I'd get a good P35 motherboard, such as the GA-P35-DS3L (choosing it because it's the first one that I remember).

If you're gaming, it would [currently] be better to buy a dual core and a more powerful graphics card.

skam8 · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject:

Thanks, any other opinion?

edit: should I get 4x1024 mb of ram or 2x2048 for the same price?
(both 800MHz and dual channel)

superweapons · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject:

As for RAM, I think the 4x1GB would be better, but some specifications (like lower latencies, or lower initial voltages) could help. There's also less chance of RMA (because you have 4 sticks), but that doesn't really matter in terms of performance. Also brand could matter too.

Zarr · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject:

It would be best, probably, to get a real cheap, decent motherboard, such as this one (what superweapons posted) and, probably, a Q6600 Kentsfield. Though it might be a bit more expensive than an AMD chip, the overclockability greatly makes up for it; you could quite easily overclock the CPU to 3-3.2GHz.

If you're going for RAM, I believe 2x2GB would run cooler, but 4x1GB ram more reliably. What is the speed on the RAM? (in MHz/PCx) If the 2GHz is faster, go for it, but if they're exactly the same, go for 4x1GB. Each RAM stick is under less load so they'll last longer, and if a stick dies it'll cost less to replace it.

Cheetah · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject:

The top end AMD chip right now is about even with the Q6600 as far as stock performance, winning in some things and losing in others. It costs a bit more though and doesn't overclock nearly as well, so I would go Intel.

Take a look at the Q9300, it's superior to the AMD on every front and around the same price.

superweapons · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject:

skam8 · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject:

Tofu · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:40 am Post subject: Re: Cpu

tmocky · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:08 am Post subject:

4chan test.

Oh yes, be more specific and help'll come right your way. =]

Psy · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject:

tofuli, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Front-side bus hasn't been 'dropped-off', lmao! And all motherboards are going to have a northbridge arrangement.

The old favourite saying of "AMD is better than Intel for gaming" no longer holds true. The Core2 range decimates all when overclocked.

skam8 · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject:

Mazeura · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject:

That's my feeling also skam8.
I don't overclock, so overclocking ability means squat to me.

Psy · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject:

Well I'd still say that Core2 CPU's carry some real weight in terms of how powerful they are, how energy efficient they are, how cool they run (in general) and the price/performance ratio Wink

superweapons · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject:

An E6600 easily beats the best Opteron and Athlon 64X2 (6400+). E6600 is overclockable up to 4.0GHz, or 67%. Redesigned architecture (Intel threw away NetBurst), increased L2 cache (4MB), and power savings all add up to a much better CPU. This is considering the E6600, which is two generations behind the current Intel CPU (E8000 series).

In terms of gaming, right now, games aren't ready for quad cores (but I see support in Crysis in the horizon), so there is a noticeable performance gain when using a dual core against a quad core. Once multi threading is more available, then quad cores will really shine. But I'd still get one over a dual core.