[dhitchner]

I'm looking for advise on what processor to buy. Once I figure out the CPU I'll worry about a mobo. I am into some gaming and would like a pretty fast machine.

First of all should I go with a dual core or a quad core. I've asked around a little and I've heard from a couple of recourses that quad cores are a waste of money because not very many programs take advantage of them. Is this true? Would I be better off going with a very fast dual core, or a decent quad core. I'd like to keep the price under $1000 for the CPU, if possible a lot less.

Secondly, I'm more partial to AMDs myself, but from what I've been reading the Intel quad cores are much better. But then again, I've had friends tell me not to believe what I've read. So basically I'm very confused there.

Please help me with any advise if you can.
Sincerely,
Dan

Edited by dhitchner, 16 March 2008 - 08:09 PM.

[Advertisements]

Intel is ahead atm performance wise. A popular choice right now is the E8400 Dual Core Intel processor. Its fast even at stock and can be overclocked rather high. There are not many applications that utilize Quad Cores so I would only get one if your rich

[Mike]

Intel is ahead atm performance wise. A popular choice right now is the E8400 Dual Core Intel processor. Its fast even at stock and can be overclocked rather high. There are not many applications that utilize Quad Cores so I would only get one if your rich

[dhitchner]

OK, thank you for your advise, I've looked into that processor. I have another question though Suerte... The Intel E8400 runs at 3000MHz but the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ runs at 3200MHz, wouldn't that mean the AMD is faster?

Any more advise from anyone is greatly appreciated.

[trnstar]

Faster clock speeds don't mean faster processors. The Core Two Duo's are much faster.

[Mike]

You can't rely on only clock speeds anymore. A 3.0 Pentium 4 processor will still be slower then a lower clocked dual - core. The E8400 is a new 45 nm chip from intel and definitely performs better then the AMD. And for the price that the e8400 boosts( around 40$ more) its definitely more future proof to get the E8400. And to confuse you a bit more I said above about no program utilizing 4 cores, but the Q6600 Quad Core is ridiculously cheap right now (Can be had for 200!) and even though it has a lower clock speed it'll run the same and faster when multi-tasking.

Hoping some real-tech comes about before I just make things harder for you

Mike

Edited by Suerte, 13 March 2008 - 08:47 AM.

[dhitchner]

Thank you again. I looked up the q6600 and I can't find it anywhere for under $260.00 . Where are you shopping at that I can find it cheaper? If I do decide to get a quad, is that the one you would definitely recommend? Or would it be worth while to go even faster/more expensive?

[kamille316]

You can find it at $255 at Newegg
Only buy a Quad core if you're doing a lot of video editing and video encoding. If you're doing a lot of gaming, it would be better to get a dual core.
Here's something I found online, someone did a test between a Dual and a Quad Core.

Edited by kamille316, 13 March 2008 - 03:00 PM.

[dhitchner]

Cool, that is the cheapest price I was finding also.

Is there anyone out here that prefers AMD's duals over Intel's? So far you all are leaning me towards Intel and I'd like to be sure before I spend the money.

I greatly appreciate all of your inputs and help.

[james_8970]

Is there anyone out here that prefers AMD's duals over Intel's? So far you all are leaning me towards Intel and I'd like to be sure before I spend the money.

On the high end Intel reign supreme. If you were buying a budget system with no intentions of overclocking, AMD is better.
Remember, you can always overclock but you can never add cores. If you have intentions of having this computer for a long time down the road I highly recommend you select a quad. While quads may be slightly inferior right now in games (considering they can't overclock quite as much), in the future, as more and more programs/game can utilize quad cores, they will being to beat their dual core counterparts by a fair margin.
James

Edited by james_8970, 13 March 2008 - 03:34 PM.

[p-zero]

Faster clock speeds don't mean faster processors. The Core Two Duo's are much faster.

Front side bus (FSB) does.
-P.

[computerjourney]

In general I encourage Intel. I have had only a limited amount of exposure to AMD and while they are cheaper and some people swear by them I have only had problems with them. More so than with Intel.

[james_8970]

Faster clock speeds don't mean faster processors. The Core Two Duo's are much faster.

Front side bus (FSB) does.
-P.

Actually the answer is much more complicated then that. The real answer lays within the microarchitecture of the chips itself and not the paper specs that are presented to you.
James

[trnstar]

Faster clock speeds don't mean faster processors. The Core Two Duo's are much faster.

Front side bus (FSB) does.
-P.

I didn't say fsb, and it only generally means faster processors. The Phenom quad cores have a 1800mhz fsb verses the intel quads at 1066, but yet the intel quads are faster.

[dhitchner]

OK so maybe I will go for the quad core. Will the Q6600 cut it or should I go even higher than that?

[kamille316]

Q6600 should be great, other Quad cores are really expensive and not worth the money in my opinion.

Edited by kamille316, 13 March 2008 - 03:44 PM.